Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Could you please give an example of a US law that has its basis in religious doctrine?
Created:
-->
@Alec
I'm not sure that they are in fact very similar. I think part of the problem of separating the two comes from the fact that religions tend to have an accompanying philosophy. I would say that the difference is that a religion is a collection of dogmatic beliefs and mandates while a phylosophy is just a way of approaching reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
If you have a "consideration-generator whose output is to some degree undetermined" then it is either subject to cause and effect or it operates randomly.
Created:
Posted in:
To punish someone for a crime they did not commit.
Special thanks to Falneze for the idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
While I am uncertain about other countries the United States does not base its laws on any religious doctrine. In fact to do so wpuld be unconstitutional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
How could we ever confirm that we could have chosen differently than we actually did? Once you have made a choice it cannot be undone due to the linear nature of time (or at least our perception of it) that thought A might lead to thought C rather than thought B is all well and good but 9nce it has led to C how exactly do we determine if B was ever even possible? In any case your 'choices' are ALL either subject to cause and effect OR random and no clever mixture of the two leads us to freewill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I am more than passing curious which questions you found impossible to answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I see no problem with identifying as a Christian and a humanist. Indeed I have had at least one person self describe as an atheist Christian. They claimed to follow the teachings of the man Jesus without believing in his divinity or indeed in any divinity (other than the dessert of course)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
WOS does not speak for me any more than I speak for him or you speak for torquemada.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Let us assume for a moment you can do whatever you like. Now thus still does not comport with freewill unless
A) you have complete control over your likes/dislikes
And
B) the process by which you evaluate how to exert this control is not dependent on cause and effect or random.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
YAIDAFW (yet another inevitable debate about free will)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Either your 'choices' are subject to cause and effect (which is incompatible with the idea of freewill) or they are random (which is incompatible with the idea of freewill).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Yes but what reason do we have to believe that the Quran has any true spiritual knowledge to impart and what makes any being 'necessary'?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Perhaps but the film never addresses this so any speculation on our part is basically as skynet apologists. I'm afraid that an unobserved attribute is no different than a nonexistent one.
Created:
Posted in:
Nothing dead would go the terminator could only pass through due to the living tissue surrounding its metal endoskelleton. This means that transporting the t-1000 should have been completely impossible.Unless it used a thin covering of living tissue purely for the trip.
There is no such covering in evidence at the scene of the t- 000's arrival. Also if that was a valid method of smuggling dangerous objects why send a terminator at all when a neutron bomb would have done a far more complete job. Or even just advanced weaponry for the term8natorv(in both movies) in a flesh sack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
My only core belief is that I am experiencing something even if that something turns out to be totally illusory.
Whether or not my experience does correlate in any way with reality I can make certain inferences about the observable physical universe based on those experiences but any degree of true certainty is beyond my epistemology. Any claim of forces that exist outside our observable universe is even further beyond my epistemological limits.
The more extraordinary the claim the more skeptical I become. For example a personal interventionist god that is all good all knowing and all powerful does not comport with my experiences. Of course good is subjective and I prefer the term moral in any case but if you believe in an all good god or not it is still up to you to demonstrate this being independently. If you cannot demonstrate this being then at least from my perspective it is functionally and detectably no different then if no such being exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I believe
Here are those words again. I don't m8nd you believing something and I do not doubt that you believe it I am asking why I should believe it. You explained that you believe prophecy proves the bible. If we accept that the prophecy is accurate and undeniable that still leaves us with a prophecy which a book claims a source for. How do we get from there to the book being verifiably true in all respects?
I believe the influence of Satan is still felt in our world today.
This seem completely congruent with the idea that Stan had injected some book full of his teachings into the world with a few true and undeniable prophecies included to sell the lie. Is your claim that books cannot contain both true and false things within its pages? Indeed why could men not have been the source of the true and undeniable prophecies but they then made the rest up for there own (not necessarily nefarious) purposes. After all we can say humans exist and they are therefore a potential source of things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
It depends on numerous issues and proofs but also on whether you believe there is some ultimate authority and what that is.
Why should I accept that there is any ultimate authority? Assuming I do accept that premis how would I determine what that authority was?
Why is your authority better than any other in determining our origins?
I do not claim to know. You are the one claiming that one of all possible causes is definitely the actual source. That is why it is up to you to prove your position and if your best answer is "You can't prove me wrong" or "You don't know" or "what makes you an authority?" I must remind you that it doesn't matter how many other claims are proved false it ONLY matters whether your claims have been proven true. To suggest otherwise is a classic argument from ignorance. "I can't think of a better explanation then this one must be true." That is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to worshipping thunder gods.
Or to put it another way exactly what about your method of confirming your claims differs from the ancient Romans method of demonstrating theirs? They too believed in prophecy and it's accurate fulfilment only in their philosophy the prophecy had a different source.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
How do such sources comply with reality, with what we see and with our logic and understanding?
Does the bible not make mention of demons? If the bible is the word of god then there are demons. If the bible is not the word of god then you will need some other evidence. Since you accept the bible as the word of god you must also accept the existence of demons. Demons therefore must comply with reality by the terms of your argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Why could the source not been dem8ns or aliens or indeed prophecy stolen from the actual creator of the universe by Yahweh for the purpose of tricking humans into worshiping him? I am afraid no amount of mental gymnastics will allow a claim to count as evidence for itself.What are the reasons to believe they are those sources?
What are the reasons not too? I am not claimimg any particular source is more likely than the other. You are the one claiming a specific source. You should be able to demonstrate this independently unless you are making an argument from ignorance or an appeal to special knowledge. Let's go through them one at a time shall we?
The first was demons. Are you certain that a demon could not either make or gain access to an accurate prophecy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
This is THE MOST important thing that you said. Yes the bible claims. Claims require a burden of proof. Since the bible is the claim it cannot also be the proof. There must be some extrabiblical evidence or you have only the circular argument "the bible is true because the bible says so."The Bible claims
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Let us say we accept this. How exactly do you know the word of god? You claim that the bible is the word of god and that prophecy from the bible proves this. Now let us grant for the sake of argument that there is accurate straight forward undeniable prophecy in the bible. How then do we determine that god was the source of said prophecy? Why could the source not been dem8ns or aliens or indeed prophecy stolen from the actual creator of the universe by Yahweh for the purpose of tricking humans into worshiping him? I am afraid no amount of mental gymnastics will allow a claim to count as evidence for itself.No, what makes the belief true is if it corresponds to God's word. Where it deviates it is in error.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I don't disagree with any of that but aliens worked within the rules established in alien while t2 ignored the rules set up in terminator. T2 was such a great movie though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Bugs bunny pinatasyou say? Well at least they recycle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Well statedIt doesnt really matter what someone Thinks about it or how many changes and additions you need to add to the prophesy to make it say what you want it to say, once you change the prophesy you are no longer talking about the prophesy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WisdomofAges
Settle down that's too much for me to even address. At a certain point whatever point you are trying to make gets list in the vitriol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
T2 was a sensational movie. The story and special effects (both practical and computer generated) were superb. The characters compelling and the villain scary. It was not a good sequel however (even if it was as good or better than the original). It completely ignores the rules set out by the original about time travel. Nothing dead would go the terminator could only pass through due to the living tissue surrounding its metal endoskelleton. This means that transporting the t-1000 should have been completely impossible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Why would we presuppose that life was designed at all? Perhaps life, like the formation of the first hydrogen atoms, just happened. A natural consequence of cause and effect? The trutg is tgat we do not know where life came from but appealing to a bigger mystery does not solve the mystery it only pushes the question back a step.
Created:
Posted in:
@keithprosser
OK - so you think of something we can argue about...!
Ok I believe that terminator 2 was an amazing movie but a terrible sequal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
it seems to me that if sexual preference is influenced by home environment the role of conscious choice is reduced.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
Sure you do. Worldviews look at the world through these basic, core, foundational starting blocks or beliefs. You just don't realize your starting point and how it influences how you look at everything. You seem to think that a lack of belief in God does not funnel how you look at everything else. You are persuaded by a NATURALISTIC outlook when you deny God. You tend to understand everything through such an outlook when you deny God.
I do not deny any god(s) I just do not believe in any god(s). In any case my original starting point was theistic. I once believed but then examined my beliefs to see if they could be logically supported and this led me to atheism. If you can begin with the starting point that sone god(s) exist and then by following the evidence can come to the conclusion that there is no sufficient evidence for any god[s) perhaps your hypothesis should be adjusted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm afraid that doesn't matter unless the bible van be demonstrated to be an authority on human sexuality.I can demonstrate how it is biblical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Interesting. I do not begin with a starting point I merely allow the evidence to inform my beliefs and therefore lack belief of any prospect that lacks sufficient evidence.True, but I make a distinction as to my starting point from an atheist, agnostic or pagan. Core presuppositions are what worldviews are based upon - i.e., either God/gods or chance happenstance. Worldviews are based on a web of core presuppositions. My starting point is God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
That's an interesting belief can you demonstrate that it is true?I believe that we deviate from the norm when we ignore God's word and example. That is the Scriptural teaching. I believe the sinful choices of the father affects the son, up to the third and fourth generation, through example (or lack of) or through gender confusion. If the person does not receive proper reinforcement from the father, or one parent, from a young age I believe they may seek it out in another male role model, or in the case of a girl, a female role model that she lacked. The number of single-family homes would be an explanation of such behaviour occurs (lacking one or the other role model), plus the constant promotion of a gay lifestyle 24/7 in our cultures. Some people just want to experiment.Thus, I believe, a person chooses to find what they are missing. I believe they choose to make themselves more feminine (or in the case of the female more masculine) to attract members of the same sex and try to find what they lacked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Certainty about practically anything may be beyond human epistemology. That is why I will often qualify statements about what is verifiably real/true/correct/existent. Certainly the struggle against confirmation bias is real and ongoing but there is a sharp difference between a belief and a fact. Many of my beliefs are based on my previous understanding of reality but unless these beliefs are readily quantifiable i only believe I do not know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That his true your brain is not an eyeball and eyeballs don't interpret images.The reality you experience directly is an image of reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
You mean you construct an image of reality instead of experiencing reality directly and you don't really trust that process?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
There is ample evidence that humans can and do hold contradictory beliefs.Your beliefs can contradict each other and that's not a problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
It doesn't matter. We know that the phenomenon we refer to as choice is directed at least in part by purely physical cause and effect. That means that any claim that more is at work requires the shouldering of the burden of proof.I thinky you'dfind it very hard to demonstrate that a choice is the effect of physical causes only
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
If freewill is an illusion some people could still sometimes be compelled not to discuss freewill. The experiment is inconclusive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Cause and effect are not in question. It is this extra unnecessary piece called choice that remainbs unproven. Can you demonstrate a choice that is not observably the product of cause and effect? To be clear i do not mean asserting that some choice is not the product of cause and effect but to demonstrate it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
So it is an illustration of just how "free" our will is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You asserted that she was incorrect you did not give evidence. I know that circumstances can effect beliefs but it has yet to be demonstrated to me that choice is involved. You fid not choose for theistic claims to be insufficient they simply are. That being the case can you really claim that you chose not to believe or were you forced by the evidence into your current position?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
However they are worded the scenarios are identical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You conversation with casten is interesting. You don't feel that the question of whether or not beliefs are a choice is connected with geographical religiosity?
Created: