I suppose we need one of these.
Edit (20-02-2014): maybe a more positive title will make some difference? :)
I suppose we need one of these.
A problem? Don't we all have plenty already? ???
Isn't the occasional Bantay-esque poster part of some kind of tradition? :P
It starts already in a bad way. Why would be religion to "have a problem"?
I see no problem with religion but I can see a lot of them without religion...
We needed a thread here that I, personally, won't have much to do with-- same as the ones on the D&D. I know without even looking how the thread is going to run, so why bother? Threads like this exist so atheists can kick believers around, and FOR NO OTHER REASON.
I suppose we need one of these.
A problem? ...
No.
THE problem. (IDK!)
Threads like this exist so atheists can kick believers around, and FOR NO OTHER REASON.
Your words made me imagine the thread to be like an atheist bowling. :)
Non atheists acts like the pins at the end of the lane and atheists throws the ball...
It seems that they always fail... :)
.....It seems that they always fail...
Why, because their stupid enough.....
stupid enough to play their game. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/cool.gif)
Alright, alright, I should've gone with skyscrapers.
Isn't the occasional Bantay-esque poster part of some kind of tradition? :P
You forgot the loooooong copypasta from the discovery institute or some similar wretched hive of dumb and crackpottery, along with an unhealthy dose of fanboyism ( <crackpot> demolishes evolution! Survivors reduced to hiding in the cracks where they belong! )
It starts already in a bad way. Why would be religion to "have a problem"?
And why only one? :o
I see no problem with religion but I can see a lot of them without religion...
Spoken like a True Addict.
I see no problem with heroin but I can see a lot of them without heroin...
We needed a thread here that I, personally, won't have much to do with-- same as the ones on the D&D. I know without even looking how the thread is going to run, so why bother? Threads like this exist so atheists can kick believers around, and FOR NO OTHER REASON.
You think Bantay was a deep cover atheist? That would explain a few things. Poe's law certainly applies.
We needed a thread here that I, personally, won't have much to do with-- same as the ones on the D&D. I know without even looking how the thread is going to run, so why bother? Threads like this exist so atheists can kick believers around, and FOR NO OTHER REASON.
Just because you are religious doesn't mean a non-believe is kicking you around by expressing their opinion. I think bible thumpers take things way to personally for no reason. Atheist don't seem to be affected by religious folks craming their point of view down their throats. Or maybe not as often?
The problem with religion is that it's misunderstood. But it's not religion's problem. For example science is also misunderstood. People misunderstand the purpose and scope of science and the same with religion. Big things are not easy to understand.
To me understanding is important. This has led me to religion, because religion helps to understand and cope with more things than science and philosophy combined ever could. Religion is not about faith for me, but about understanding, about knowing. Those who think religion is about faith and believing may well misunderstand me now. It's okay. Big things are not easy to understand. I don't understand religion completely either. For example I honestly don't understand the church-going part, the liturgy, congregational activity. But church-going seems to attract many, so it must be lack of understanding on my part.
I hope honest atheists also acknowledge when they don't understand things. With an honest seeker's attitude, some amazing answers open up.
Here's one insight into philosophy (religion is completely philosophical for me) for those who are interested. There's this word 'nothing'. But there's a serious difference between the physicist's nothing and the philosopher's nothing. The physicist's nothing means 'can't detect anything', but the philosopher's nothing is the true nothing, whose detection is a logical contradiction of terms by definition: 'Nothing' is that which doesn't ontologically exist. Then again, 'nothing' is conceptually there among the metaphysical categories - in the category of non-existence. Existence is another metaphysical category that includes everything that exists.
The difference is subtle, so it needs further clarification: The physicist's nothing exists, but the philosopher's nothing doesn't. The physicist's nothing exists, because he has his instruments somewhere attempting to detect something, but when nothing is detected, the physicist says: "There's nothing there." So, for him, in that place (which exists) there's nothing. For the philosopher, however, if there's nothing, then even the place doesn't exist where to perform the experiment. The philosopher's nothing means true radical non-existence. If the place exists where to perform the experiment, then it's definitely 'something' for the philosopher, even when nothing is detected there.
There are some important corollaries to this. The (non-philosophical) physicist doesn't speak or think about things that don't exist. He only speaks and thinks about things that exist. Among things that exist there is empty space where "there's nothing there". So, the physicist speaks in terms of objects that can be detected. When it cannot be detected, it's 'nothing' for him.
The philosopher, on the other hand, is well aware of the category of non-existence and can freely speak about it. Non-existence is a whole metaphysical category which, by definition, cannot be empirically detected - even more, to talk about such detection is a logical self-contradiction. The other major metaphysical category is the category of existence. In this category, the philosopher places the physicist's nothing as 'things that cannot be detected'. The logically opposite class to this are 'things that can be detected'. Both classes of things exist, but one of them can't be detected.
The physicist, if he is non-philosophical and careless in logic, may easily equate existence with detection and, conversely, non-detection with non-existence. For him existence means the detectable objects. The common sense is on the side of the philosopher here: Yes, there obviously are things we don't know about yet. Among the reasons why we don't know about things we don't know about, non-existence is one, but it's not the only reason. Another reason why we don't know about some things is because we haven't detected them yet, just like a cautious physicist may suspect.
Still, there are more reasons for non-detection. Another reason can be a wrong presupposition. Some things don't exist as objects, yet they definitely exist. For example, there are qualities of things, such as shape or size that can be expressed numerically, but shape, size or numbers themselves do not exist objectively. They cannot be placed in the category of non-existence. They are indispensable in our analysis of detectable objects. In fact, those qualities are so important to us that we have an objective mode of existence for them - language.
So, there are modes of existence. Objective existence is not the entire existence. There are ways to explore the non-objective mode of existence, but this is out of reach of physics. As I observed in the beginning, the philosopher discerns a clear distinction between non-existence and undetectable existence. This distinction is indiscernible for the physicist, if he is not a careful enough thinker, but I suppose I have shown clearly enough how this distinction itself is important.
These kinds of distinctions are arrived at by means of logical and conceptual philosophical analysis. The metaphysical categories is an example of such analysis. It's a way to "detect the undetectable". There are even more ways, but when you are materialistically and atheistically bent, you would not be interested in those ways. Reductionist materialism does not admit logical and conceptual analysis as a valid form of proof. This is the problem of atheism: Simply not interested in the entire realm of existence. "When it can't be detected, it doesn't exist."
I note an ongoing constant in these types of discussions, which is one reason why I, a Pentecostal believer, choose as a general rule not to spar with the atheist community.
The atheist will, very often angrily, demand PROOF that God exists, and when the believer can't provide the proof that the atheist requires-- mostly because the atheist has "refuted" any proof that might go against his theory-- the atheist then claims that lack of proof is proof of lack, or words to that effect.
The flip side of the coin doesn't get much play here, but any atheist who is the least bit honest will admit he has a problem--- proving that there is, indeed, no god. The problem is that in order to provide such proof you would have to be in possession of all knowledge, and since you aren't in possession of all knowledge there has to be an admission that there might, possibly, just maybe, be a god out there somewhere. In claiming dogmatically that there is no god and not being willing to entertain any thought to the contrary, the atheist becomes just as religiously fundamentalist as the very worst fire-breathing bible-thumper he rails against in his anti-god tirades.
As long as this situation continues, I personally see little purpose to these kind of discussions beyond throwing dust in the air and shouting at the top of your lungs to get your aggressions out. It may vent your spleen but beyond that it seems to me to be pointless.
The atheist will, very often angrily, demand PROOF that God exists, and when the believer can't provide the proof that the atheist requires-- mostly because the atheist has "refuted" any proof that might go against his theory-- the atheist then claims that lack of proof is proof of lack, or words to that effect.
If there was any such proof we'd be unable to refute it ::)
The flip side of the coin doesn't get much play here, but any atheist who is the least bit honest will admit he has a problem--- proving that there is, indeed, no god. The problem is that in order to provide such proof you would have to be in possession of all knowledge, and since you aren't in possession of all knowledge there has to be an admission that there might, possibly, just maybe, be a god out there somewhere.
The problem with this approach is that it applies just as well to every other deity imaginable, which renders your own position utterly untenable - in order to be consistent you'd have to believe in every one of them.
In claiming dogmatically that there is no god and not being willing to entertain any thought to the contrary, the atheist becomes just as religiously fundamentalist as the very worst fire-breathing bible-thumper he rails against in his anti-god tirades.
You're a dogmatic, fire-breathing, religiously fundamentalist unicorn denier. Or can you prove their non-existence?
I rest my case, Macallan having provided abundant proof that everything I said is on target.
I rest my case, Macallan having provided abundant proof that everything I said is on target.
Translation: lalalalala I can't hear you ::)
Mjm, then why do keep returning to these threads then? To justify your Christian ways? Proof is a big deal here it seems. I don't believe because I find it hard to believe in anything that's not visible to the naked eye. Seems more like an imaginary friend. ::) There comes a point where you have to accept that other's may not believe the same as you and just walk away if you can't handle the heat.
Oh wait, your creator says you must spread the gospel by taking the Bible and slamming it into any non-believers face until they conform.
Seems more like an imaginary friend. ::)
It's indistinguishable from one. Nobody ever managed to come up with a halfway sane explanation on how the voice in his head created the universe yet they trot out that particular piece of nonsense every goddamn time.
Nobody ever managed to come up with a halfway sane explanation on how the voice in his head created the universe yet they trot out that particular piece of nonsense every goddamn time.
Trying to explain the 'inexplicable' is part of human nature.
Besides, very handy if you can institutionalize a dogma turning it into an instrument of power.
To me understanding is important. This has led me to religion, because religion helps to understand and cope with more things than science and philosophy combined ever could. Religion is not about faith for me, but about understanding, about knowing. Those who think religion is about faith and believing may well misunderstand me now. It's okay. Big things are not easy to understand. I don't understand religion completely either. For example I honestly don't understand the church-going part, the liturgy, congregational activity. But church-going seems to attract many, so it must be lack of understanding on my part.
Faith or Reason.
Catholicism expressly states: "
Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."
But it not denies the fundamental role of Faith:
"In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:
Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. the human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful." And it concludes: "
This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God's revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also "about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error"At my knowledge, Catholicism is the only religion that, in respect for Man's Dignity and Freedom, for being made at the "image of God" , recognizes both Reason and Faith to be valid and complementary ways to Man understand God.
Therefore, there's no surprise the historical leading role of Catholics on the developing of both Scientific and Humanist studies.
Here's one insight into philosophy (religion is completely philosophical for me) for those who are interested. There's this word 'nothing'. But there's a serious difference between the physicist's nothing and the philosopher's nothing. The physicist's nothing means 'can't detect anything', but the philosopher's nothing is the true nothing, whose detection is a logical contradiction of terms by definition: 'Nothing' is that which doesn't ontologically exist. Then again, 'nothing' is conceptually there among the metaphysical categories - in the category of non-existence. Existence is another metaphysical category that includes everything that exists.
I haven't quoted the rest of your explanation that I consider very clear and rightful, for reasons of text shortness.
Just wanted to say that one can and should consider a third metaphysical category that encompasses both existence and non-existence as well as much more beyond human capacity of reasoning, which is God.
Reductionist materialism does not admit logical and conceptual analysis as a valid form of proof. This is the problem of atheism: Simply not interested in the entire realm of existence. "When it can't be detected, it doesn't exist."
However they seem to accept things as the demonstration of Pluto's existence, before it could be detected directly. Or, even more surprisingly, they seem to "believe" in mathematics...
The problem of modern atheism is being a sociological, cultural, psychological, usually urban and western, pop trend with no substance whatever. Nothing else.
Here's one insight into philosophy (religion is completely philosophical for me) for those who are interested. There's this word 'nothing'. But there's a serious difference between the physicist's nothing and the philosopher's nothing. The physicist's nothing means 'can't detect anything', but the philosopher's nothing is the true nothing, whose detection is a logical contradiction of terms by definition: 'Nothing' is that which doesn't ontologically exist. Then again, 'nothing' is conceptually there among the metaphysical categories - in the category of non-existence. Existence is another metaphysical category that includes everything that exists.
The difference is subtle, so it needs further clarification: The physicist's nothing exists, but the philosopher's nothing doesn't. The physicist's nothing exists, because he has his instruments somewhere attempting to detect something, but when nothing is detected, the physicist says: "There's nothing there." So, for him, in that place (which exists) there's nothing. For the philosopher, however, if there's nothing, then even the place doesn't exist where to perform the experiment. The philosopher's nothing means true radical non-existence. If the place exists where to perform the experiment, then it's definitely 'something' for the philosopher, even when nothing is detected there.
The only insight this gives us is that you have either not taken or forgotten high school physics, and that you didn't bother to quickly check up on the subject matter before you decided to berate physicists. The lowest energy state, "nothing", is called a vacuum or the ground state. This ground state is more analogous to the noise between channels on your radio or TV than to the blank screen you get when you turn off your TV. I don't believe the word "nothing" even means anything in physics.
tl;dr Scratch everything your straw-physicist says and you're right on target.
I don't believe the word "nothing" even means anything in physics.
Indeed, it would not qualify as a proper scientific term, if the physicist would be able to keep purely to his own empirical domain. I remember school physics just fine, even though it was among my least favourite subjects. Atomism (particle physics) never made sense to me, so I clearly remember the pain of being forced to study it.
tl;dr Scratch everything your straw-physicist says and you're right on target.
One specific specimen of a physicist who has vocally committed himself to the mistake I describe is Lawrence Krauss. He is doing it in this discussion with your idol Dawkins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY1pDkP9Qxk and in a more gross form in his debate with religious philosopher William Lane Craig. Krauss quotes others in support of himself, so he is evidently not alone.
Just wanted to say that one can and should consider a third metaphysical category that encompasses both existence and non-existence as well as much more beyond human capacity of reasoning, which is God.
The first hurdle is to get people to admit that conceptual metaphysical categories and distinctions like this are meaningful in the first place. Then we can begin defining the concept of God in mutual consensus. It will be most convincingly right when it makes sense from the beginning to the end.
Logical proof is indispensable when talking about invisible but extant entities. Atheists acknowledge logical inference readily when they theorise a new planet or particle, but when discussing the concept of God, they quickly descend to denial of logic altogether. Quite unfortunate that it often doesn't get past the first hurdle.
I hope this thread won't get bantayed. Thanks for support, Belfrager :)
I hope this thread won't get bantayed.
I think you just did. :devil:
religious philosopher William Lane Craig
Seems more like an imaginary friend. ::)
It's indistinguishable from one. Nobody ever managed to come up with a halfway sane explanation on how the voice in his head created the universe yet they trot out that particular piece of nonsense every goddamn time.
+1 The voices in my head tell me to do random dumb things. I listen because they are real. :P
I hope this thread won't get bantayed.
I think you just did. :devil:
religious philosopher William Lane Craig
It will get bantayed, if you support Krauss. I won't support Craig. He only serves as a readily available example for you to you get into the philosophical discourse. He is a perfectly legitimate philosopher. There are legitimate religious scientists too. It's just that argument from authority is among my least favourite tactics, so I endorse none of them.
From what I have seen, you are unfamiliar with the philosophical discourse, so, for a start, I am offering you an opportunity to catch up with logic and terminology. Anyway, no surprise if you are not interested. It's not easy or particularly interesting to make the effort to make sense as much as possible.
Nobody ever managed to come up with a halfway sane explanation on how the voice in his head created the universe yet they trot out that particular piece of nonsense every goddamn time.
Trying to explain the 'inexplicable' is part of human nature.
Especially if it's only 'inexplicable' thanks to self-imposed, willful ignorance.
Besides, very handy if you can institutionalize a dogma turning it into an instrument of power.
Isn't that the whole point of any halfway organized religion ever?
From what I have seen, you are unfamiliar with the philosophical discourse, so, for a start, I am offering you an opportunity to catch up with logic and terminology. Anyway, no surprise if you are not interested. It's not easy or particularly interesting to make the effort to make sense as much as possible.
If the philosophical discourse you refer to displays the same disdain for accuracy and truth as yours or William Lain Craig's, it will only make sense as long as it's unconstrained by both. Unlike some atheists I certainly don't think that makes it useless, but it means you can often be just as egregiously wrong as a physicist speaking outside of their area of expertise when you confuse your thought experiment for reality. Especially if you consequently make claims about reality based on the results of your thought experiments.
From what I have seen, you are unfamiliar with the philosophical discourse, so, for a start, I am offering you an opportunity to catch up with logic and terminology. Anyway, no surprise if you are not interested. It's not easy or particularly interesting to make the effort to make sense as much as possible.
If the philosophical discourse you refer to displays the same disdain for accuracy and truth as yours or William Lain Craig's, it will only make sense as long as it's unconstrained by both. Unlike some atheists I certainly don't think that makes it useless, but it means you can often be just as egregiously wrong as a physicist speaking outside of their area of expertise when you confuse your thought experiment for reality. Especially if you consequently make claims about reality based on the results of your thought experiments.
Okay, let's begin :)
I'm perfectly okay with your insistence to not confuse a thought experiment with reality, but what is missing in this is your definition of reality. Now, here's a thing that may seem subtle, so please pay attention. If you refuse to define reality, then the discussion ends here, because you are unwilling to cooperate. The cooperation is necessary in order to avoid misunderstandings. And it's important to avoid misunderstandings in the ensuing discussion, right?
However, be aware that if you proceed with defining reality, you will be engaging in a pure thought experiment. And I will examine your thought experiment critically so as to determine its relevance, logical consistency, accuracy, applicability. I will do this precisely because by attempting to define reality you undertook a thought experiment that must not be confused with reality itself. In other words, I will be doing with your concepts and definitions exactly the same thing that you said you would do to me.
Then again, no proper science project escapes peer review. And surely you want to think of yourself as rigorously scientific and impeccably logical.
Ready? Define reality.
Ready? Define reality.
Three days later Frenzie keeps on thinking about. This is promising... :)
If every Christian disappeared so would your god like the ones before. Therefore nonexistent. Like your philosophy, a pointless road to travel. Reality isn't related to how anyone imagines it. Meaning if your god was there we wouldn't need to have this conversation.
Funny now they want others to answer questions they couldn't. Are y'all expecting someone to make up answers like you did? Or more likely like the writers of whatever texts y'all wanna believe represents your reality did?
I suppose we need one of these.
A problem? Don't we all have plenty already? ???
Ha Ha Mac there is life after Death !!!! :o Hey wheres the Beer cheers guy?
If every Christian disappeared so would your god like the ones before. Therefore nonexistent. Like your philosophy, a pointless road to travel. Reality isn't related to how anyone imagines it. Meaning if your god was there we wouldn't need to have this conversation.
Funny now they want others to answer questions they couldn't. Are y'all expecting someone to make up answers like you did? Or more likely like the writers of whatever texts y'all wanna believe represents your reality did?
You forgot Jewish, Muslims, Vanuatu cargo god ect. ect. ect.
Playing to an audience. But that's examining the human condition and we're yet to establish its consistency with reality.
Ready? Define reality.
Three days later Frenzie keeps on thinking about. This is promising... :)
Looks like predicting the outcome was easy. Reductionist materialism does not admit logical and conceptual analysis as a valid form of proof. This is the problem of atheism: Simply not interested in the entire realm of existence. If reality remains undefined and unclear, then so there cannot be any proof for or against the reality of God. Neither for or against. All claims that God is unreal are as vain as the opposite claims, as long as reality or existence remain undefined.
Let's try this one then: Any consistent agnostics here?
If every Christian disappeared so would your god like the ones before. Therefore nonexistent.
This would of course apply to every shape and manner of human thought, including atheism.
Like your philosophy, a pointless road to travel.
Surrounded by philosophical statements we find here a denial of philosophy.
Philosophy has clarified many definitions for me. I recommend methodical thinking to everyone plagued by doubts and caught at inconsistencies too often. Philosophy and logic are a matter of practising thought, they are practical.
All claims that God is unreal are as vain as the opposite claims, as long as reality or existence remain undefined.
We don't need a perfectly delineated definition of reality in order to work with it—especially not when talking about facts directly verifiable or directly deducible through empiricism. However, I do like Philip K. Dick's quip: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." That is, reality is that which imposes the same kind of experiences on all of us; it exists independent of human thought or observation. Doubtless you'd come up with something clever to say about solipsism or some such, but you'd be quite correct to surmise I'm not interested.
I recommend methodical thinking to everyone plagued by doubts and caught at inconsistencies too often.
This is the problem with religion: putting metaphysics before epistomology. If you find reality is inconsistent, just admit you don't know instead of shoehorning the facts to align with your philosophy. When the facts contradict your beliefs, it's not the facts that should be adjusted.
All claims that God is unreal are as vain as the opposite claims, as long as reality or existence remain undefined.
We don't need a perfectly delineated definition of reality in order to work with it—especially not when talking about facts directly verifiable or directly deducible through empiricism.
The main point of my posts in this thread was exactly to emphasise that to presuppose empiricism in everything is presupposing too much. Surely you didn't miss this point.
However, I do like Philip K. Dick's quip: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." That is, reality is that which imposes the same kind of experiences on all of us; it exists independent of human thought or observation. Doubtless you'd come up with something clever to say about solipsism or some such, but you'd be quite correct to surmise I'm not interested.
Good quote, but I derive something totally different from it. There are many things that don't go away (and are thus real according to Philip Dick's definition) but about which people differ greatly. For example meaning of life. Is there one? What is it? Some people are greatly bothered by the question, others feel nothing. Then there are some who have the answer, whether you acknowledge it or not. Looking at the whole situation from afar unconcerned, observing those who wrestle with the question and those who don't, and the different answers and non-answers that people arrive at, you may be greatly amused at the different realities that people live in.
So, unless you are comfy with the meta-position (which I take you aren't: "Doubtless you'd come up with something clever..., but you'd be quite correct to surmise I'm not interested"), the definition of reality is rather relevant in our communication due to the evident fact that people have different realities.
I recommend methodical thinking to everyone plagued by doubts and caught at inconsistencies too often.
This is the problem with religion: putting metaphysics before epistomology. If you find reality is inconsistent, just admit you don't know instead of shoehorning the facts to align with your philosophy. When the facts contradict your beliefs, it's not the facts that should be adjusted.
In this post I presented a rather clear epistemological fact. I can explain the apparent inconsistencies in a consistent way, but it takes metaphysics to explain it. I presented my metaphysics to show what it's good for and in what way I use it, but I am kind enough to not force my metaphysics on you. Instead I'm giving you the chance to conjure up your own metaphysics that you think would work for you.
Looks like you are declining the offer. Thanks anyway.
To presuppose inventions of your psyche exist is an interesting way to gauge reality.
The main point of my posts in this thread was exactly to emphasise that to presuppose empricism in everything is presupposing too much. Surely you didn't miss this point.
Neither science nor physics nor atheism presupposes any such thing. They presuppose that empiricism is a
useful way to learn more about the world, which has been more than sufficiently confirmed. The better question is, why do you presuppose the opposite?
Good quote, but I derive something totally different from it. There are many things that don't go away (and are thus real according to Philip Dick's definition) but about which people differ greatly. For example meaning of life. Is there one? What is it? Some people are greatly bothered by the question, others feel nothing.
That is a pretty bizarre interpretation to say the least, although if you stick solely to the sentence in question it could be twisted that way. Just because it may be rather hard to stop believing something, doesn't mean it's real. Regardless what they just can't seem to stop believing, everyone is still born, grows old, and dies. Even if they think they are immortal.
Then there are some who have the answer, whether you acknowledge it or not.
I have the answer, thank you very much.
Instead I'm giving you the chance to conjure up your own metaphysics that you think would work for you.
Maybe—just maybe—it's patchy on purpose. Some check marks of good epistemology are the willingness to revise your beliefs and to say you don't know when you don't know. It should also consist of reason, rationality,
and science. You attack these rather purposeful features as if they were a weakness. I think my view should be obvious by now: if your epistemology is missing one or more of those features, you're probably not saying anything meaningful at all.
Ha Ha Mac there is life after Death !!!! :o
Sure, other people's ;)
Ready? Define reality.
Three days later Frenzie keeps on thinking about. This is promising... :)
Looks like predicting the outcome was easy. Reductionist materialism does not admit logical and conceptual analysis as a valid form of proof. This is the problem of atheism: Simply not interested in the entire realm of existence.
That's true, not many people care about the voices in your head, or the fairies in your backyard. No amount of intellectual wankery is going to move them from your imagination to reality.
If reality remains undefined and unclear, then so there cannot be any proof for or against the reality of God. Neither for or against.
Quite obviously by design. Some people simply think that if you can't prove it wrong it must be right. Hence Russell's teapot.
All claims that God is unreal are as vain as the opposite claims, as long as reality or existence remain undefined.
Why exactly should we assume something to be real without the tiniest shred of evidence? If your god existed but would be undetectable by not interacting with anything, it would be indistinguishable from empty space.
To presuppose inventions of your psyche exist is an interesting way to gauge reality.
Follows from Rule 34 - if it can be imagined, there will be porn about it, no exceptions. If there's porn about it, it obviously exists :right:
The main point of my posts in this thread was exactly to emphasise that to presuppose empricism in everything is presupposing too much. Surely you didn't miss this point.
Neither science nor physics nor atheism presupposes any such thing. They presuppose that empiricism is a useful way to learn more about the world, which has been more than sufficiently confirmed. The better question is, why do you presuppose the opposite?
I presuppose the opposite such as that empiricism is not a useful way to learn more about the world? I don't. I observe that empiricism is a way to learn about the world that imposes itself forcefully and this alone should raise suspicion about its usefulness, if you have capacity for critical thinking. Specific concerns are that the empirical way is either superficial or destructive. E.g. to examine an animal empirically, you either watch it from the outside or cut it up, kill it. Therefore proceed with caution when employing the empirical method. This caution is more important than empiricism (which doesn't mean that empiricism is absolutely useless - it only means it's limited). And note that it was not the empirical method by which I arrived at this conclusion of caution about empiricism.
Just because it may be rather hard to stop believing something, doesn't mean it's real.
Which reminds me - and should have reminded you: Define "real".
Some check marks of good epistemology are the willingness to revise your beliefs and to say you don't know when you don't know. It should also consist of reason, rationality, and science. You attack these rather purposeful features as if they were a weakness. I think my view should be obvious by now: if your epistemology is missing one or more of those features, you're probably not saying anything meaningful at all.
As if I had been saying something different. Where did I attack reason, rationality and science? Where was I against revision of beliefs? I am against blowing the role of empiricism out of proportions so that it's raised over rationality.
Your self-contradiction on the other hand is marked. It could be easily remedied with proper rational prioritisation. The self-contradiction I refer to is emphasising empiricism as a great positive value in the first part of your post and rationality in the latter part, while ignoring that they are contradictory.
And note that it was not the empirical method by which I arrived at this conclusion of caution about empiricism.
Holy smokes, Batman!
Which reminds me - and should have reminded you: Define "real".
Been there, done that. Your favorite physicist, Lawrence Krauss, had something interesting (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-consolation-of-philos) to say about it:
To those who wish to impose their definition of reality abstractly, independent of emerging empirical knowledge and the changing questions that go with it, and call that either philosophy or theology, I would say this: Please go on talking to each other, and let the rest of us get on with the goal of learning more about nature.
Your self-contradiction on the other hand is marked. It could be easily remedied with proper rational prioritisation. The self-contradiction I refer to is emphasising empiricism as a great positive value in the first part of your post and rationality in the latter part, while ignoring that they are contradictory.
Empiricism provides the anchor to reality and truth that unbounded reason does not. While contradictory is the wrong word, the fact that they restrain each other is precisely the point.
Frenzie,
Your non-answers and lack of rigour are becoming very disappointing. But the fact is that I have to get along with you, so I will try to avoid picking on you directly. Luckily you gave some other guy to pick on.
Your favorite physicist, Lawrence Krauss, had something interesting (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-consolation-of-philos) to say about it:
To those who wish to impose their definition of reality abstractly, independent of emerging empirical knowledge and the changing questions that go with it, and call that either philosophy or theology, I would say this: Please go on talking to each other, and let the rest of us get on with the goal of learning more about nature.
Okay. First, this quote from him does not address me, because I offered you a chance to define reality and existence on your own terms. I am not imposing my own definitions. The offer still holds, by the way. I exposed my definitions first, so you could see the way I reason. You don't have to go by my definitions. Spell out your alternatives and we can go by those. This is called generous.
Second, Krauss's non-answer yields the exact opposite result to his aims. He is supposed to be exposing religious dogmatism and irrationality, but with his lack of definitions (this quote is an excellent example of such, thanks Frenzie) and open rejection of the law of non-contradiction (in this particular quote, discouraging the "abstract" while promoting "changing questions" is self-contradictory) the result is that concepts that have come up thus far - empiricism, reality and existence - become unquestionable dogmas. Well, worse than dogmas. They are dogmatic, but without definitions they are also irrational mystified absolutes - religiously so.
Religious theology has not been this grievous. God has been absolutised, yes, but never undefined. The commandments may seem dogmatic, but their purpose is clear, graspable to anyone with common sense and they are also practical for everyday life.
In contrast, empiricism's purpose is utterly unclear. There's talk of progress, but no talk about where the progress should take us to. There's no ethical check on it. And my attempts to call for a definition of reality and existence from you - generously as per your convenience, not as per mine - are only met with irrational scorn.
So, for balance let's reformulate your marginally interesting outsider's test that you brought up in the other thread. Let's reformulate it so as to suit everyone, not just traditional religion. How many of us were born into the religion/ideology we currently confess to? I suppose only SF. And probably half of the atheists. Makes a funny bunch to look at from the outside :)
So, we need to reformulate the outsider's test so as to be applicable to everyone. Let's say that the main idea in it is that there's a standard for presented arguments. Impartial standard. The standard is this: When you criticise and reject a form of argument that the opponent presents in support of his own concepts, thou shalt not use the same form of argument to support your own concepts. Conversely, when you accept a form of argument to support your own concepts, thou shalt also accept the same form of argument in support of the opponent's concepts.
Example: I like definitions. I laid out my definitions as a metaphysical concept system to have a place both for everything existent and everything non-existent. The topic is religion, where the current charge is that God does not exist, has no proof-evidence-verification, and/or is unreal. As per my standard, for these objections to apply, existence, proof-evidence-verification and reality must be defined. Why? Because those are the things that the charge is about. Otherwise the objections don't apply. Am I really asking too much?
Moreover, when there's the charge that God does not exist, has no proof-evidence-verification and is unreal, then it would be nice of the chargers to not leave their own key concepts open to the same charge. The quote from Krauss is a good example here. He doesn't define or prove any of his concepts. He complains about reality being defined abstractly, without giving his own concrete definition. He also complains about reality being defined independently from emerging empirical knowledge, without spelling out the relationship or dependence that the two are supposed to have. He suggests that reality be tied to changing questions that go along with emerging empirical knowledge, but if so, then this make the definition of reality necessarily fluid and malleable - changing, the exact opposite of concrete. So, the brief quote from Krauss is a failure by its own standards. And the charger's standards are the first ones to try in the outsider's test, to be properly impartial.
The standard to be used in the test is exposed by the charge itself. Krauss is criticising abstractions, lack of emphasis on empirical knowledge and lack of flexibility ("changing questions"), while his own statement is vague (no concrete definitions) and does not stem from empirical knowledge of any sort (as in citation of specific sources or reference to some empirical objects). He is criticising undefined unreferenced general concepts in a statement completely consisting of undefined unreferenced general concepts. Some of these concepts he condemns ("abstract", "philosophy", "theology") while he promotes others ("[concrete] reality", "empirical knowledge", "changing questions", "nature"), but since all the concepts lack definitions, the charge is perfectly convertible, meaning that the concepts he promotes obtain the qualities that he condemns - abstractness, philosophy, theology. Thus the statement fails the test.
Clear enough?
I appreciate that quote from Lawrence Krauss.
Rephrasing it with my own words: Too much philosophying leads to bullshit.
Rephrasing it with my own words: Too much philosophying leads to bullshit.
Too less leads to atheism.
Nice! I like it! ;D
Course you do. Atheism it's easy.
Soo simple, no effort at all.
I presuppose the opposite such as that empiricism is not a useful way to learn more about the world? I don't. I observe that empiricism is a way to learn about the world that imposes itself forcefully ...
Finally, I've found
the problem. But not with religion, but rather with ersicism..???:)
Look, if you even hallucinate, and fancy odd&weird, and if even that stuff "does not exist" -- it DOES still exist - as your perception, as your hallucination, no doubt.
For a record, I hardly remember myself hallucinating about some God, ok?;)
Why exactly should we assume something to be real without the tiniest shred of evidence? If your god existed but would be undetectable by not interacting with anything, it would be indistinguishable from empty space.
He's DARK MATTER!:lol:
:D
We needed a thread here that I, personally, won't have much to do with-- same as the ones on the D&D. I know without even looking how the thread is going to run, so why bother? Threads like this exist so atheists can kick believers around, and FOR NO OTHER REASON.
Oy vey! Do you really feel kicked around?
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Freligions.png&hash=ea0630e39b1a8171a196f6fe279b008c" rel="cached" data-hash="ea0630e39b1a8171a196f6fe279b008c" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/religions.png)
...... still waiting for proof that there is "A GOD".
All I've seen so far is a fog of words designed to avoid answering that basic question.
...... still waiting for proof that there is "A GOD".
All I've seen so far is a fog of words designed to avoid answering that basic question.
You know, as well as I, that it's just as impossible to prove the existence of God as it is to disprove the existence of God.
That said, I am absolutely positive there is a God, for my faith in Him requires no proof.
I suggest you ask your simple question again at a more appropriate moment.......one split second after you leave the world of the living, & if you can ask it, your answer will become abundantly obvious.
If you can't, well you figure it out. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/pope.gif)
Faith in God requires no proof, & those that have it are endowed by the Creator with a personal & everlasting awareness of Him. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/yes02ix3.gif)
Believers in Him share this awareness.
If
you have no faith you refuse to accept the faith we (all mankind) are all born with, then unfortunately you will be in a perpetual state of self-imposed perplexity.
One way or the other though .................................................. God will always love you (us). (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/friends.gif)
Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2013-11-30, 22:34:16We needed a thread here that I, personally, won't have much to do with-- same as the ones on the D&D. I know without even looking how the thread is going to run, so why bother? Threads like this exist so atheists can kick believers around, and FOR NO OTHER REASON.Just because you are religious doesn't mean a non-believe is kicking you around by expressing their opinion. I think bible thumpers take things way to personally for no reason. Atheist don't seem to be affected by religious folks craming their point of view down their throats. Or maybe not as often?
My long view of mjm is that he doesn't qualify as a Bible thumper. Show me where he's gotten on a soapbox to berate folks like you and me.
Most of the D&D posting on religion is blather, no matter the source. I've done my share, but I really don't care what people hold as sacred or profane. People who know me in the flesh know about my views on religion, and they leave me along about them, as I leave them alone with theirs.
I don't know you, but guess that you don't berate people in your life who hold different views.
...... still waiting for proof that there is "A GOD".
All I've seen so far is a fog of words designed to avoid answering that basic question.
You know, as well as I, that it's just as impossible to prove the existence of God as it is to disprove the existence of God.
Well I can use a better word/phrase than proof in the following:
"I'm still waiting to hear what evidence exists that there is A GOD "
Everyone that believes must have had evidence of some kind to have come to that belief.
So what was it - somebody ---- anybody?
Well I can use a better word/phrase than proof in the following:
"I'm still waiting to hear what evidence exists that there is A GOD "
Everyone that believes must have had evidence of some kind to have come to that belief.
So what was it - somebody ---- anybody?
What kind of evidence do you mean? As I have argued before, if you insist on empirical evidence, your demand actually presupposes unempirical things, e.g. existence of beliefs and belief in the value of evidence. In which case your demand is begging the question. But if you really mean unempirical evidence, then define the unempirical scope of your metaphysics, so it would be clear what kind of evidence you allow.
Maybe "anything" works better, this time.
What type of evidence?
The evidence that led people to their belief of course. It's not up to me to double guess what that might have been.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psychologytoday.com%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Fog%2Fblogs%2F51512%2F2011%2F04%2F58989-51991.jpg&hash=9064137d89695da1e1e1a68f92e99118" rel="cached" data-hash="9064137d89695da1e1e1a68f92e99118" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/imagecache/og/blogs/51512/2011/04/58989-51991.jpg)
What type of evidence?
The evidence that led people to their belief of course. It's not up to me to double guess what that might have been.
This is a much better way to phrase your question. Still, the word "belief" makes it less than perfect. When e.g. scientists are led by evidence, is the result a "belief"? The way "I believe" is colloquially used in English makes it often synonymous with "I suppose". Evidence surely leads to stronger conclusions than this.
Okay, to answer the question, the evidence is experiential. Which means it's perception for all practical purposes. Experiential evidence is most convincing for one who has it, but most difficult to convey for outsiders. To someone with unsympathetic attitude it's also futile to try to communicate it, but to give an idea about it, there are recurrent experiences, inexplicable by any materialist or atheist theory, that over time become impossible to deny and require a straightforward acknowledgement in the name of honesty to oneself, if not for any other reason.
Another evidence is logic. In nature, in the mind, and in metaphysics there are no empty spots, no gaps. This is why atomism as an ontological stance never made sense to me. By atomism I mean the belief or theory that everything is made of particles and compounds of particles. It's implicit in primary school physics course. Naturally the question arises, what is between the particles? Atomism doesn't answer this. Moreover, the usual well-known problems with ontological dualism are multiplied with atomism, because there are not just two kinds of particles, but more, and there are numerous particles wandering about randomly.
This ontological problem can be solved with continuum theories, best by means of the concept of spirit. Different from particled matter, spirit leaves no gaps in reality, and this corresponds perfectly to what is experienced in external nature and in the mind. This can be called philosophical or logical evidence for spirit. Physicists are looking for a unified theory, and when they find it, the result will be the concept of spirit.
Besides the concept of spirit, there are the logical distinctions of appearance and reality, accident and essence, particular and universal, object and subject, which all lead to God as a logical conclusion, if the enquiry is intense enough.
So, the strongest evidence is experiential, which combines several aspects of experience. The second kind of evidence is intellectual, logical. There's more evidence, such as testimony and scriptural authority, but these stir up more controversy than solve anything, and they have had no role to play in my own convictions, so I won't say anything about these, unless specifically asked.
On the nature of conversion, I have earlier recommended a good English bildungsroman "Of Human Bondage" by W.S. Maugham. Conversion is a coincidence or accumulation of multiple events (psychological and/or physical) that impel one to a substantial revision of convictions. It works in both directions. Who hasn't gone through it has next to nothing relevant to say on this. A single piece of evidence may not look like much, but several kinds of evidence coinciding or accumulating over time will lead to clarification of convictions, sometimes also to conversion.
Some people don't accept a "nothing" as an answer. ???
Some people don't accept a "nothing" as an answer. ???
Which kind of nothing do you mean? (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=33.msg911#msg911) I don't accept the nothing of the gaps.
That's what I said.
Right. And that's what I don't accept. To you there's no difference between "have not detected yet" and "does not exist". Both are nothing to you.
To me there's a big difference if something doesn't exist or I have somehow missed it. The first is really nothing. The other is something I don't know about, but what can be figured out. This kind of difference.
To you there's no difference between "have not detected yet" and "does not exist". Both are nothing to you.
No. The second is nothing. And, for me, it's an acceptable answer.
The difference is that, for you, it's an unacceptable answer;
something must be there.
To you there's no difference between "have not detected yet" and "does not exist". Both are nothing to you.
No. The second is nothing. And, for me, it's an acceptable answer.
The difference is that, for you, it's an unacceptable answer; something must be there.
Here's my last try to explain this simple thing to you: A gap is not nothing. A gap is a gap.
You have heard of god of the gaps, right? You are making use of nothing of the gaps. I don't accept either of these.
I know "god of the gaps", which is what you use. "Nothing of the gaps" is news to me. ???
But I think it's all clear now, and string's question seems to have been answered (do you agree, string?). I thank your for this.
Gentlemen, this is "The Problem with Religion" thread. Discussing God is relegated to "The Problem with Atheism" thread.
Slightly blasphemous from my part, but He will understand. :)
The Catholics are waiting for the Protestants... do they appear or may I go to the next Whisky bar?
Buddhists discussing with Shintoists, Islam discussing with... well.. I don't know... with me? :)
Speaking seriously, theists are not, in any way, alike. And I'm sure that theists have much more to discuss between themselves than against atheists.
Keep on discussing atheist matters is to give them an importance they don't have.
Speaking seriously, theists are not, in any way, alike. And I'm sure that theists have much more to discuss between themselves than against atheists.
This is quite true. Re-reading myself here, I see that I have been wasting many words to make the simple point that atheists are not contributing anything to the discussion, because they are talking past the topic and failing to make some basic relevant distinctions. Nothing has changed since the first of my posts in this thread, except that it's become clearer that they are doing this deliberately.
Tempest in a teapot. For a new location things are normal on the religion/atheist front.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.workileaks.com%2Fuploads%2F2%2F3%2F4%2F5%2F23452714%2F5038150.jpg%3F205&hash=2af8d386ccf4112581087555464ce61b" rel="cached" data-hash="2af8d386ccf4112581087555464ce61b" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.workileaks.com/uploads/2/3/4/5/23452714/5038150.jpg?205)
Re-reading
OK. Let's sum it up:
string asks: why?
You explain nicely with a fair amount of philosophy.
I sum it up as: "Some people don't accept a 'nothing' as an answer'."
You and me wander in circles just to confirm what I said, which confirms what you said.
Nice agreement. Quite productive. Why complain? ???
Religion = Faith, & Faith = Religion.
The problem with religion is those that have it feel, because of the incessant prodding of those that posses a total absence of it, feel the obligation to explain it when actually it isn't necessary at all.
I'm too occupied with my own salvation, to give a rats ass about theirs, or what they think they know, but don't.
Obligation? Wow. I thought we were just asking questions. :-X
Two videos for those who think religion isn't "falsifiable" (or whatever supposedly scientific word you have for "provable").
Can you prove a negative? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuY85oTRyy0) The answer is of course "yes", if you use logic, i.e. rational argumentation rather than assumption and presumption.
What counts as evidence? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_tPWfo_0rw) It should be a no-brainer that empirical evidence is only a fraction of evidence, and can not serve as the basis of all knowledge. Particularly useful in this video is the explication of what the other bases or methods of knowledge are and how they work.
It should be a no-brainer that empirical evidence is only a fraction of evidence, and can not serve as the basis of all knowledge. Particularly useful in this video is the explication of what the other bases or methods of knowledge are and how they work.
According to the following video...well, give is a quick look.
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSdGr4K4qLg[/video]
Meh, Sam Harris (general comment; haven't watched the vid yet).
Sam Harris is justifiably scorned upon in the scientific and philosophical academic communities for giving them a bad name. To the religious community he has become irrelevant by now. In the speech linked by Jim, Harris says that Christian God tortures souls in hell, kills helpless children, doesn't answer prayers, condemns imaginary witchcraft, is a cruel psychopathic invisible monster like the Taliban, has no regard to human well-being - and does not exist. Meaning: No arguments with premises and conclusions, just colourful demonstration of his own gross misunderstanding of how religion works, both in the general sense and any religion in particular, individually, socially, historically. And all this without inherent consistency or logic, without connection to the topic of the event and without connection to what his opponent speaker had said hitherto at the event (if you care to watch the full context).
Why this preoccupation with Christianity, Jim? Do you have any interest in truth as such, or is it so much fun to laugh at your own forefathers? Does this ridicule serve to make a point?
Truth is universal, devoid of cultural idiosyncracies and phenomenal variance. Like the law of gravity that applies uniformly everywhere, even though the word "gravity" is different in every language, philosophical and metaphysical truths are omnipresent, can be found anywhere anytime with the same universal methods accessible to everyone willing to give some honest thought to the reality beyond apparent formal differences. In principle it's simple: The only thing to do is to discern between relevant and irrelevant, essential and accidental, topical and digressive.
How it works? Take people with issues - and pour the mythical broth unto their brains. Dry for 24 hours.
Seriously, those influenced could learn something about the past. There are religions - and there's their past -- HISTORY OF RELIGION: how they emerged, evolved, merged, sprouted, such crap.
They could take something about psychology: the types of dealing with reality, for example, the homo sapiens's evolution in the context. Most people don't give shit about their thinking - far less they care about the evolution of people's thinking patterns and social psychology. I mean our "forefathers" - rather "foreGRANDfathers" - tended to construct mythical concepts in order to "apprehend" reality: less know - less understand - therefore try to fill the gaps with whatever you imagine.
I don't say that religion can't be useful - it can, in the way as a lie can be useful in some situations.
I don't say that religion can't be useful - it can, in the way as a lie can be useful in some situations.
You have it nearly the same as Harris, but with a slight difference. According to him:
1. Lies are bad or, at best, useless
2. Religion is entirely a lie
3. If you disagree with him (particularly on his tenet #2), you are defending the Taliban, suicide bombers, and Christian crusaders
Tell me how his views are useful in some situations.
I didn't care to read/listen to him - I express my own thoughts.
Good. At least you are not giving anyone else a bad name.
Sam Harris is justifiably scorned upon in the scientific and philosophical academic communities for giving them a bad name. To the religious community he has become irrelevant by now. In the speech linked by Jim, Harris says that Christian God tortures souls in hell, kills helpless children, doesn't answer prayers, condemns imaginary witchcraft, is a cruel psychopathic invisible monster like the Taliban, has no regard to human well-being - and does not exist. Meaning: No arguments with premises and conclusions, just colourful demonstration of his own gross misunderstanding of how religion works, both in the general sense and any religion in particular, individually, socially, historically. And all this without inherent consistency or logic, without connection to the topic of the event and without connection to what his opponent speaker had said hitherto at the event (if you care to watch the full context).
Would you care to be specific and address what Harris said in that clip?
Sincerely, how was I not specific? I summarised pretty much everything that Harris said in the clip. Did you watch the clip?
Without further ado, I dismiss everything the dude says, because there's no philosophical argument in him. Everybody else dismisses him for the same reason. As to what a philosophical argument is, see any video I have linked in the topical threads.
Edit: For example he says in the video that God is evil and does not exist. These two things don't go together. Either God is evil or he doesn't exist. Which way is it? Harris has insisted on that God is both evil and doesn't exist throughout his public career. To qualify as a public speaker, your statements should at least be internally consistent. And on that particular event, his tirade was off topic. I don't know why he is allowed to perform.
Also, I don't want to dwell on Harris, because I personally am completely uninterested in Christianity, as I hope I have made clear. Universal truth is what matters, that which applies everywhere at all times like a law of nature. If not, it's not really truth, so whining about the history of Christianity is a non-starter for me.
Sincerely, how was I not specific? I summarised pretty much everything that Harris said in the clip. Did you watch the clip?
Without further ado, I dismiss everything the dude says, because there's no philosophical argument in him. Everybody else dismisses him for the same reason. As to what a philosophical argument is, see any video I have linked in the topical threads.
Edit: For example he says in the video that God is evil and does not exist. These two things don't go together. Either God is evil or he doesn't exist. Which way is it? Harris has insisted on that God is both evil and doesn't exist throughout his public career. To qualify as a public speaker, your statements should at least be internally consistent. And on that particular event, his tirade was off topic. I don't know why he is allowed to perform.
Also, I don't want to dwell on Harris, because I personally am completely uninterested in Christianity, as I hope I have made clear. Universal truth is what matters, that which applies everywhere at all times like a law of nature. If not, it's not really truth, so whining about the history of Christianity is a non-starter for me.
Yes of course I watched the clip - thank you for asking.
But no - you did not answer the points he made. The nearest you come is in the paragraph you mark as "Edit", so thank you for that. But even there you merely quibble over one facet of his thesis and miss a point he was making that omnipotence in a God and goodness in a God (any God, not just the Christian God) are incompatible with the real world. Is that something you would agree with?
But even there you merely quibble over one facet of his thesis and miss a point he was making that omnipotence in a God and goodness in a God (any God, not just the Christian God) are incompatible with the real world. Is that something you would agree with?
First, I didn't merely quibble. Either God is evil or he doesn't exist. You have to make these two separate arguments, if you want to use these arguments, but they cannot be the same argument. In Harris' case, neither of these is an argument. An argument has premises and conclusions. Harris merely asserts. His presentation can be called cumulative emotional argument, if you insist that it is an argument.
Second, no, I didn't miss that he brought up Euthyphro dilemma and actually managed to get it formally right at some point when it was already too late. This is how close he got to an actual philosophical argument, borrowing an ancient historical one.
The thing is, the Euthyphro dilemma may engage you, but it doesn't engage me. The dilemma rests on the assumption that creator has obligations towards creation rather than the other way round, and that we as people have no obligations to each other and to the rest of environment we live in. Wrong assumption. God has no duty to miraculously save people from their self-caused calamities. If he still chooses to, then in his own manner and at his own time, not when we feel like it. Case closed.
You are still quibbling:
Do you agree that "that omnipotence in a God and goodness in a God (any God, not just the Christian God) are incompatible with the real world."?
You are still quibbling:
Do you agree that "that omnipotence in a God and goodness in a God (any God, not just the Christian God) are incompatible with the real world."?
The short answer is no, I don't agree that they are incompatible. The longer answer would quibble with the form of the question and some of the terms therein. I can expand on my answer to the Euthyphro dilemma, if needed.
The problem of evil never posed any problem for me, whether in my atheist (or more like agnostic) times or now. It has taken lots of effort for me to even begin to understand how this is a problem at all. Absolutely good God and apparently evil or non-caring world have always been perfectly compatible for me.
You are still quibbling:
Do you agree that "that omnipotence in a God and goodness in a God (any God, not just the Christian God) are incompatible with the real world."?
The short answer is no, I don't agree that they are incompatible. The longer answer would quibble with the form of the question and some of the terms therein. I can expand on my answer to the Euthyphro dilemma, if needed.
The problem of evil never posed any problem for me, whether in my atheist (or more like agnostic) times or now. It has taken lots of effort for me to even begin to understand how this is a problem at all. Absolutely good God and apparently evil or non-caring world have always been perfectly compatible for me.
That sounds a bit like a "God moves in mysterious ways" type of answer but yes, please, give the longer answer.
That sounds a bit like a "God moves in mysterious ways" type of answer...
He does, indeed, particularly for dyed-in-the-wool believers...not the sort we find in DnD.
Pastor Jamie Coots, who was part of a fundamentalist church (in Kentucky) which believes Christians can handle serpents without being harmed, has died after being bitten by a rattlesnake during a service.
Nothing to laugh about and hardly normal for religious folk. Every group has its extreme advocates.
First, I didn't merely quibble. Either God is evil or he doesn't exist.
Fictional characters can't be evil? :faint:
Meh, Sam Harris
I was wrong. This was a good Sam Harris.
The problem of evil never posed any problem for me, whether in my atheist (or more like agnostic) times or now. It has taken lots of effort for me to even begin to understand how this is a problem at all. Absolutely good God and apparently evil or non-caring world have always been perfectly compatible for me.
It's a problem for Christians like Craig, not for anybody else.
omnipotence in a God and goodness in a God (any God, not just the Christian God) are incompatible with the real world. Is that something you would agree with?
So, this is the way you phrase the Euthyphro dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma). Take a look at Wikipedia if any of the responses sound good for you. Even if they don't, it's good for you to know that there are responses, always have been. The following response is mine, totally independent from the Wikipedia article.
Everything in philosophy is about relevant distinctions. At least that's how it works for me. You make the distinction between "goodness in a God" and "real world".
QUIBBLING
First, supposing that God exists, it's unfair to assume that God is any less real than the world, so "real world" distinguished from God won't wash. Second, "goodness in a God" assumes there could be room for other things in God too. Perhaps evilness? That would be anthropomorphic. Third, "a God" assumes there could be other gods. Then you could always quibble about which god takes precedence in this or that case. So that phrase won't wash either. There's only one God who is relevant to everything in accordance with singular nature.
THE PREMISES
Let's rephrase it now: God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence are incompatible with the way the world appears to us. This is your contention. The premises must be that the world is not good to everyone as it should and, if God is omnipotent, he should intervene to make the world a better place than it is. So, I have to make the case that God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence are not mutually contradictory and that evil in the world is not as bad or unjust as it appears to be.
GOOD, PLEASANT, JUST
A relevant distinction here. What is good? Is it the same as pleasant? "I want it" = "good for me"? I disagree here. You could want chocolate, but is it good to have only chocolate? After a few hours of chocolate-eating you would be puking or, if you eat it in more moderate amounts, malnutrition would soon show.
Therefore, when "good" converges with "appropriate" and "just", things hopefully begin to make more sense. Justice is good. Everything in its proper measure, place, and time.
MORAL ONTOLOGY
Considered in light of the concept of justice, omnibenevolence is not contradictory with omnipotence. They both converge with justice. Justice is good because it distributes the fruits of good and evil ultimately in an appropriate way, and only an omnipotent being can wield such justice.
God has singular nature, i.e. God's attributes are inseparable. Consider his qualities ontologically as one single thing. The attributes are distinct only verbally when translated into human language. It's like a geometrical plane which is a single thing, but has two sides. The two sides form a single plane. So, there appears to be three things - two opposite sides plus the plain itself -, but the distinctions are merely verbal. Ontologically it's all one.
Ontologically, absolute justice accounts both for omnibenevolence and omnipotence. If the qualities were separable and mutually competing, you could endlessly quibble about which quality should take precedence in this or that case. Multiple attributes raise the same logical problem as multiple gods.
MORAL EPISTEMOLOGY
It's just to punish evil and to reward good. For justice to operate, relative good and evil must exist. Therefore, good and evil deeds and their doers (agents) must exist. And they do.
People in this world commit evil deeds, thus defining themselves as evil. If not stopped before the act, the thief or murderer exercises his will and choice to follow through with the act, thus defining himself as a thief, or murderer, evil-doer. Otherwise it would not be possible to tell a criminal apart from a respectable citizen, but in our world it is.
FREE WILL AND RESPONSIBILITY
The complaint is that God doesn't intervene to prevent people's evil acts. However, non-intervention makes sense for many reasons.
First, it's compatible with free will. We are supposed to choose good or evil freely. This makes us directly responsible for our good and evil deeds. Everybody can do as per one's own will, thus becoming responsible for one's own acts. This is what agent means. Only this way it makes sense to even begin to consider what this or that person perhaps ultimately deserves and devise complaints based on perceived sense of justice.
Second, if evil acts were stopped by God, shouldn't he also intervene with good acts? Why be partial? Maybe God should improve half-good acts to make them all-good? Such intervention would of course neuter in us all sense of good and evil.
Third, when only some acts are intervened, wouldn't this make the world a random place rather than something that would make perfect causal sense as it is now? When all acts are intervened, this would make all causal links and free will totally moot. People's intentions could be good or evil, but when God intervenes everywhere, the world wouldn't reflect the way people are. God would perhaps still know people's hearts, but people wouldn't know each other and themselves.
Fourth, if God intervened to stop evil acts, he would intervene according to his own definition of evil, not by people's definition. So, divine intervention actually would not eliminate the complaints of people who perceive justice differently than God does. And, of course, the complaint originates in the first place from the fact that concepts of justice and definitions of evil differ.
Fifth, God has no obligation to intervene. Assuming that God's relationship with the world is that of creator and creation, then it's like a potter and a pot. The potter serves his purpose by creating the pot, whereas it's the pot's responsibility so to speak to serve as the pot. If the pot fails, it will be cast away, re-done or replaced. Simple. There's no obligation for the potter to make a half-broken pot feel nice and cosy or such. If you want to construe the obligation the other way around or on a par, go ahead and try to make a case for it.
AGENTS AND VICTIMS
Hopefully you see that it clearly follows from the above that the way the world appears to us right now actually makes best sense. People can define themselves good or evil by means of their own acts according to their own free will and the effects of this will be in plain sight. The problem of evil therefore is not in the mere fact that good and evil agents operate in this world, but rather in suffering of the hapless victims. The collateral damage of evil acts, so to say.
THE PROBLEM OF SUFFERING
So, now I have narrowed the problem of evil down to the problem of suffering. The contention is that suffering is horrible and painful, innocent suffering is futile, unjust and such. It's horrible that helpless people die. It's futile and senseless to bury a host of people in natural catastrophes (legally, "acts of God"). It's unjust when totalitarians kill innocent masses while they themselves live to old age peacefully. Etc. (Note that the injustice now is only human sense of injustice. Above I have already sufficiently argued that there's no injustice in that God appears to not intervene. Divine non-intervention is perfectly rational.)
My answer to the problem of suffering is threefold. First, evil and suffering is not the only force in the world. The same way as evil deeds bring forth evil fruit, good deeds bring forth good fruit. Let's remember that in this world it's not only evil people being allowed free reign to spread evil, but also good people to spread good. Both are free to define themselves and operate. It's only just that God is impartial here: Free will for everyone. Impartiality is just and justice is good.
PLAIN ACTS, HIDDEN SEEDS AND FRUITS
Second, behind the effects in plain sight there are hidden causes. Causes are hidden by their very nature. What we see in the world currently is effects of prior causes. The causes of this are in the past, i.e. hidden. You could say that the current state of affairs is the cause to the state of affairs in the future. This is true, based on our past experience, but the future state of affairs is not manifest yet, so it's also not manifest yet that the current state of affairs is a cause of anything. Still, agreed, based on our past experience it's implied that the current state of affairs is the cause of future state of affairs - it's implied, i.e. hidden in that sense.
Therefore, assuming that everything in the universe is causally linked, past causes have ripened to current events, and similarly current plain acts plant the seeds for future fruits.
MORAL PSYCHOLOGY AND METAPHYSICS
The third answer to suffering is to put it into psychological and metaphysical context. The manifest sense of injustice implies justice. Good and evil are manifestly allowed free reign, but if justice be served, evil fruits are distributed - implicitly, behind the scenes - to evil agents and good fruits to good agents. When we see injustice happening, based on the events apparent to us we may not properly know who is in the really good or really bad role, because we don't see the hidden causes. Nor do we see the way the fruits of good and evil are distributed in the ultimate sense, because this distribution of fruits is a hidden cosmic law operating eternally rather than temporally.
Either way, this point is to clarify that at least half of the relevant explanations for any particular events are hidden from us. An immediately apparent situation may upset us, but the extent or amount of unknowns should invite to further reflection. Science can explain the phenomenal causal relations, the rest is explained by philosophy (direct logical implications based on what is manifest) and religion (prophetic revelations and otherworldly promises), or, if you have none of those things, you will accrue blind faith, hope, doubt, desperation, etc. to compensate for your lack of science, lack of philosophy, lack of intellectual and spiritual culture.
The arrangement of the world the way it is now motivates people to figure out its true constitution and their own place in it, to make the relevant distinctions, to perceive the hidden causes behind the visible effects, to find out the way logic operates and learn to rely on it and build on it. The current arrangement of the world helps to understand the relevance of this all in the first place, i.e. the relevance of the concepts of good and evil, the relevance of responsibility and free will, hidden causes and manifest effects, the concept of relevant distinctions, the roles of science, philosophy, religion, of intellectual and spiritual culture. It stimulates the mind and motivates to work, so that you can die an accomplished human being who has even figured out death so that there's no fear of it, and no psychological suffering at the event.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of suffering is to provide a sense of accomplishment. We get a sense of accomplishment by overcoming difficulties, by producing some fruit by means of work. In this world of ours, if difficulties and work did not exist, the sense of accomplishment would not exist. If evil would not exist, good would not exist. But we surely want good to exist, so much that it feels, right?
This world displays causal links and logical correspondences. Both are necessary to make full sense of all states of affairs. Instead of a problem of evil, I see how evil makes sense as a causal result of the acts of evil agents. And there's also good in the world to counterbalance the evil in the world. Evil as such makes logical sense in metaphysical conjunction with good as such. Phenomena make sense in conjunction with noumenon, the temporal in conjunction with the eternal, the world in conjunction with the otherworldly, life in conjunction with death (and/or pre- and afterlife), creation in conjunction with the creator, etc. It's all logically self-evident and, in their own contexts, all these concepts are relevant as necessary implications of each other.
In conclusion, God is good in balance with justice, and so is the world when we consider the eternal rather than the temporal. Temporally the world seems good and evil in turns, just and unjust in turns, but from the eternal point of view it's all in balance. If God intervened, it would be partial, i.e. unjust, but inasmuch as he appears not to intervene, he is impartial, i.e. good.
And how is it atheists' business to complain about God they don't believe in anyway? It isn't. It only makes sense to issue complaints and demands regarding someone or something if that someone or something exists. This last thing was crystal clear to me when I was atheist (or agnostic), so I didn't issue such complaints. The so-called problem of evil is irrational at its core. Only irrational people make a problem of it.
Regarding @ersi's comment on "making fun of your forefathers", that is a dangerous path to take, as you are assuming his ancestors were Christians.
I had assumed the same (same train of thought as you posted) for most of my life, but come to find out of late, such was not the case.
My ancestors were Cherokee Native Americans, and worshiped no such deity.
Obviously I cannot speak for Jim, but the same could perhaps be true in his case?
After all, assuming runs the risk of "making an ass out of you and me", as my Grandfather used to say. :)
Regarding @ersi's comment on "making fun of your forefathers", that is a dangerous path to take, as you are assuming his ancestors were Christians.
He's from Estonia, you don't have to go all that far back to find pagans in the area. The eastern baltic was pretty much the last part of europe that converted to christianity, and even then, especially outside the cities, it was mostly for show.
So, christianity started no more than 2000 years ago. In western europe a couple hundred years later. Northern europe got it much later, parts of central and eastern europe held out even longer - what's now eastern .de didn't convert until the 12th century, parts of Lithuania resisted into the 1400s.
In other words, everyone has non-christian ancestry.
@Frenzie, my long post is a response to the Euthyphro dilemma. Atheists tend to believe that the dilemma is a knock-down argument against theism. You implied that the dilemma should involve an intellectual struggle for theists like Craig. Sam Harris emphatically presents the dilemma as such. String also seemed to believe so and asked for my response.
For me personally the dilemma was always a non-issue. I can see how it may upset one's sensibilities, but intellectually it's completely uninteresting. I have only elaborated the response over time in discussion with others who had an issue with it. It continues to baffle me how the Euthyphro dilemma manages to pose an obstacle at all. It must be that Plato knew human psychology better than me. He knew what kind of tensions between concepts pull the strings in most souls.
Regarding @ersi's comment on "making fun of your forefathers", that is a dangerous path to take, as you are assuming his ancestors were Christians.
I had assumed the same (same train of thought as you posted) for most of my life, but come to find out of late, such was not the case.
My ancestors were Cherokee Native Americans, and worshiped no such deity.
If your forefathers suddenly turned out to be something different than you thought, then they are not forefathers in the relevant sense. You know your forefathers, end of story. If you don't, you can't call them forefathers. Jim looks Irish, not Cherokee. Catholicism of his kins further solidifies the assumption that he is Irish. Up to him to make himself appear something different. Edit: And, to stay relevant, this is not about his Irish looks, but about Catholic past and present. He is amply proving this point by his preoccupation with Christianity.
@Macallan, I am not making a case for Christianity. Not because I think it's indefensible (it actually is defensible), but out of sheer intellectual honesty - I'm not a Christian myself, never was, never had a reason myself nor was I ever given any reason. And I shouldn't need to repeat this point too much, because it makes it appear that you are not paying attention.
History is fucked up, thank you very much.
@ersi - thanks for the reply; a substantial reply.
I'm off on a trip today and also tomorrow; that plus an interesting football match to watch prevents a proper response, so sorry for that. I'll get back to it when I can.
@Frenzie, my long post is a response to the Euthyphro dilemma.
Right, I suck at names of aggregate things again. Internet life is way too virtual for me.
The dilemma is not Euthyphro dilemma, but of course this one, attributed to Epicurus:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.
This is what Harris essentially cited in his from neoatheist point of view laudable ramble. This is what String asked about from me, but I have tended to glide over it because I never saw what the whole fuss was about. I won't fix my references above, because I addressed the substance of the issue correctly and adequately. Let it stand. My sincere apologies though to Euthyphro and Epicurus for getting their names wrong.
Atheists tend to believe that the dilemma is a knock-down argument against theism.
No they don't.
You implied that the dilemma should involve an intellectual struggle for theists like Craig. Sam Harris emphatically presents the dilemma as such. String also seemed to believe so and asked for my response.
For me personally the dilemma was always a non-issue. I can see how it may upset one's sensibilities, but intellectually it's completely uninteresting. I have only elaborated the response over time in discussion with others who had an issue with it.
Craig says that God is good and just. Yet as Harris said, according to Craig's own beliefs God is sending billions to Hell just for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time. You discount that as irrelevant because Christianity means nothing to you. With fatalistic, apocalyptic thinkers at or near the metaphorical launch buttons of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, I'd say maybe it should.
And how is it atheists' business to complain about God they don't believe in anyway? It isn't. It only makes sense to issue complaints and demands regarding someone or something if that someone or something exists. This last thing was crystal clear to me when I was atheist (or agnostic), so I didn't issue such complaints. The so-called problem of evil is irrational at its core. Only irrational people make a problem of it.
People who hold false beliefs make bad decisions about the world they live in. Sam Harris isn't issuing complaints about God; he's trying to show a certain type of believer that they're wrong. Things are slightly different in Belgium than in The Netherlands and the United States. Doubtless it's far more different in Estonia still. The Dutch Bible Belt had a
polio epidemic recently because they believe God's will shouldn't be interfered with by using vaccines. What's irrational is your stance that we should just politely shut up about it as if these ideas had no consequences. Because contrary to what you indirectly implied, these Dutch Reformed Protestants are not choosing to be evil. They are doing what they falsely believe to be good.
Atheists tend to believe that the dilemma is a knock-down argument against theism.
No they don't.
Watch Harris again.
You discount that as irrelevant because Christianity means nothing to you. With fatalistic, apocalyptic thinkers at or near the metaphorical launch buttons of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, I'd say maybe it should.
Intellectually and philosophically speaking it doesn't move me at all and shouldn't move you either. If it does, then for reasons other than intellectual and philosophical.
Philosophically, only truth matters. What fatalistic and apocalyptic thinkers such as Harris and, less so, Craig falsely think, doesn't matter. It may socially matter, if you are easily pissed by events in your neighbourhood, but neither Harris or Craig are in my neighbourhood, nor any of their likes, so I don't care. The issue may politically matter, if you are a politician, which I am not.
Do you have socio-political ambitions? The rest of your post points that way.
Edit:
contrary to what you indirectly implied, these Dutch Reformed Protestants are not choosing to be evil. They are doing what they falsely believe to be good.
No. What I pretty directly implied in my section on moral psychology, it's a form of evil to not inform oneself as to the true nature of what is good. Both self-deception and seemingly innocent ignorance are evil.
The right way is: Think, then act. It's unreasonable to try to busy oneself with things that one can't change. That's what I mean when I say in a more blunt way: I don't care. It's because the issue is out of my hands. Let powers that be deal with it. How is it my responsibility to convert apocalyptic thinkers like Harris or groups like Dutch Reformed protestants?
Edit 2: an anecdote
One Finn in WWII to another: "Okay, buddy, cover me. I'll go surround the Russians."
Should we try this against the Dutch Reformed protestants who annoy you so much, Frenzie?
You're all wrong. Starting with the title.
Me too.
Atheists tend to believe that the dilemma is a knock-down argument against theism.
No they don't.
Watch Harris again.
He routes a particular type of Christianity, not theism. Harris rather explicitly said so himself later on if you have any doubts:
Craig: But that's exactly your retort, Sam, that God has not issued such a command, and therefore, you're not morally obligated to do it.
Harris: No, if God did, he would be evil. So I can get behind that God (emphasis mine). If God is issuing that command, he's an evil bastard.
Do you have socio-political ambitions? The rest of your post points that way.
Telling people to shut up and preserve the status quo is just as much a socio-political ambition. And accepting the status quo doesn't square with choosing to do good. It's a bit like lying by omission.
No. What I pretty directly implied in my section on moral psychology, it's a form of evil to not inform oneself as to the true nature of what is good. Both self-deception and seemingly innocent ignorance are evil.
And yet it is somehow wrong to make it easier for them to inform themselves or to spur them into at least thinking about their beliefs?
The right way is: Think, then act. What is irrational is to try to busy oneself with things that one can't change. That's what I mean when I say in a more blunt way about myself: I don't care. It's because the issue is out of my hands. Let powers that be deal with it. How is it my responsibility to convert apocalyptic thinkers like Harris or groups like Dutch Reformed protestants?
Yes, it would be largely irrational for
you to engage with Americans or Dutch people instead of Estonians. Sam Harris is, however, an American. It's rather easy for you to wonder what all the fuss is about if everyone in Estonia is properly vaccinated and informed about contraception.
Should we try this against the Dutch Reformed protestants who annoy you so much, Frenzie?
They don't annoy me.
I've seen Harris in action and have come to the conclusion that He is God
Craig: But that's exactly your retort, Sam, that God has not issued such a command, and therefore, you're not morally obligated to do it.
Harris: No, if God did, he would be evil. So I can get behind that God (emphasis mine). If God is issuing that command, he's an evil bastard.
You can get behind the evil God, if he exists. As long as he doesn't, behind whom can you get?
To Craig, Craig's version of God matters. To Harris, no version of God should matter. If he makes other people's gods his own business, he has to inform himself about other people's versions, not make up his own and think he is refuting other people's gods.
What is the form of his reasoning supposed to be? Maybe:
1. My God is evil, therefore yours is too.
2. Evil God does not exist because no rational person can like an evil God.
3. Ergo: Your God does not exist. Neither does mine. Theism is irrational.
Can you help him out here?
Do you have socio-political ambitions? The rest of your post points that way.
Telling people to shut up and preserve the status quo is just as much a socio-political ambition. And accepting the status quo doesn't square with choosing to do good. It's a bit like lying by omission.
We are fundamentally divided on this issue. For you a philosopher must be a social reformer and activist. You are effectively asking me to be like Martin Luther King or the good old original Martin Luther, a preacher, mover of masses and of heads of state. You seriously have not had your fill of those? Want another one?
For me, a philosopher is one who has found the truth, and lets truth merge with his own nature. It takes time and it's a strictly individual thing. Nobody outside can tell the philosopher at what stage his merger of truth is and if he is ready to come shine the light to the world or not. Nobody can tell if this is his mission on earth in the first place. Maybe it is, but who are you to tell? If he lets someone outside shout orders at him, he is not a philosopher. My view is in keeping with Plato's insights on philosophers (maybe you disagree that Plato was a philosopher, but hopefully you still agree that he knew some close enough). Some quotes from the allegory of the cave:
Moreover, I said, you must not wonder that those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our allegory may be trusted.
[...]
And the only life which looks down upon the life of political ambition is that of true philosophy. Do you know of any other?
Indeed, I do not, he said.
And those who govern ought not to be lovers of the task? For, if they are, there will be rival lovers, and they will fight.
[...]
[There are] States, in which men fight with one another about shadows only and are distracted in the struggle for power, which in their eyes is a great good. Whereas the truth is that the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are most eager, the worst.
So, even if a philosopher accepted the political or social task, he would go about it reluctantly and without advertising himself. He may be having his social impact or not, you would not know about it either way nor should you, because it's not up to you to dictate tasks and roles to philosophers. For any lesser philosopher, self-improvement and self-perfection is the most important task above all other tasks, regardless of any objections citing pressing social issues. A wise man in the right role is good of course, but only the wise man knows his right role.
Instead of lying by omission, it's avoiding mistakes. It may seem overly cautious to you, but a wise man knows better how much caution he needs. I, for example, mixed up Euthyphro's dilemma and Epicurus' paradox yesterday. This means I crossed the intellectual speed limit suitable for me.
And yet it is somehow wrong to make it easier for them to inform themselves or to spur them into at least thinking about their beliefs?
If you believe that rational arguments spur irrational people towards reason, be ready for surprises. Lots of surprises. The last thing that irrational people care about is informing themselves. Vide Harris' view of Christianity (for him the Pope is Taliban), Dawkins' concept of God (he takes it for granted that only the skydaddy version matters, because it's handy to refute it quoting Russell), etc. No improvement throughout their public career.
The tricky thing is that irrational people are full of themselves. To get along with them, the wise philosopher has to pretend he is one of them, or preferably a bit lesser than them. Not everybody can pull off this acting, and when the deception is uncovered, the immediate consequences are devastating. Caution is strongly advisable...
What is the form of his reasoning supposed to be? Maybe:
1. My God is evil, therefore yours is too.
2. Evil God does not exist because no rational person can like an evil God.
3. Ergo: Your God does not exist. Neither does mine. Theism is irrational.
Can you help him out here?
You're just being silly. One could summarize the argument by saying that if God does exist, he/she/it does not have the properties Craig ascribes to it, but I think the underlying point is more accurately paraphrased by saying that any good will have to come from
you—regardless whether God is actually being good, bad, indifferent or nonexistent.
We are fundamentally divided on this issue. For you a philosopher must be a social reformer and activist. You are effectively asking me to be like Martin Luther King or the good old original Martin Luther, a preacher, mover of masses and of heads of state. You seriously have not had your fill of those? Want another one?
More like the Buddha, who advocated
sapere aude. But yes, I think it's about time for another Martin Luther King. :P
Caution is strongly advisable...
CAVTE, the inscription on Spinoza's gravestone. Beware, indeed. :)
One could summarize the argument by saying that if God does exist, he/she/it does not have the properties Craig ascribes to it, but I think the underlying point is more accurately paraphrased by saying that any good will have to come from you—regardless whether God is actually being good, bad, indifferent or nonexistent.
Sorry, but none of this rises to the level of any kind of argument. At best, I can detect some kind of reactionary pressing point, but no complete idea or self-sustaining reasoning.
Let's try to proceed slowly. "If God does exist, he/she/it does not have the properties Craig ascribes to it" -- If not these properties, then what other properties and why?
"any good will have to come from
you—regardless whether God is actually being good, bad, indifferent or nonexistent." -- How did the good get into you so that it can come from you, even
will have to come from you? Good by whose definition?
We are fundamentally divided on this issue. For you a philosopher must be a social reformer and activist. You are effectively asking me to be like Martin Luther King or the good old original Martin Luther, a preacher, mover of masses and of heads of state. You seriously have not had your fill of those? Want another one?
More like the Buddha, who advocated sapere aude. But yes, I think it's about time for another Martin Luther King. :P
A global one this time, right? Anything wrong with the Pope? And I am not being silly here. Do you have a shortage of authorities, past and present, spiritual, clerical, political, military, etc? Harris is not good enough, I gather. Why?
Looks like the thing is that you are actually yearning for someone you could unreservedly idolise. Like God, you know. Looking for such among fallible people is a bumpy road to take, but take it, if you must...
Gods are galore!!!
The favic looks nice!
Looks like the thing is that you are actually yearning for someone you could unreservedly idolise.
I'm available.(https://dndsanctuary.eu/avs/avatar_29_1391706811.png)
==============================================
On a slightly more serious note, is anybody here aware of a discussion between a person who follows some sort of religion and a person who thinks that religion is bollocks that has led one of them to say, "Damnation, you're right! I'm changing sides now!"
I haven't.
Let's try to proceed slowly. "If God does exist, he/she/it does not have the properties Craig ascribes to it" -- If not these properties, then what other properties and why?
[…]
"any good will have to come from you—regardless whether God is actually being good, bad, indifferent or nonexistent." -- How did the good get into you so that it can come from you, even will have to come from you? Good by whose definition?
If God sends billions of people to Hell for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time, "good" is not an epithet I would apply. Would you?
Obviously God isn't going to do anything about, say, helping the victims of *insert the latest natural disaster*, whatever the reasons may be.
A global one this time, right? Anything wrong with the Pope? And I am not being silly here. Do you have a shortage of authorities, past and present, spiritual, clerical, political, military, etc? Harris is not good enough, I gather. Why?
Harris is a bit of a xenophobe. The Pope? Let me know when it's a gay woman and I'll think about it.
Looks like the thing is that you are actually yearning for someone you could unreservedly idolise.
Nah, I'd always have Spinoza if I wanted to do that. I actually wanted to write that I think it's about time for another movement in some sense like Dolle Mina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolle_Mina), but you'd already brought up Martin Luther King so I figured I'd go with it. And no, it doesn't need to be global. Perhaps it'd be more appropriate somewhere else this time around, like in the Arab world or China. Perhaps the Internet is actually it and we're already witnessing a new Respublica Litteraria. Well, as long as it doesn't all become a Facebook-style walled garden, anyway.
I haven't.
I have. :) It's about planting the seed of doubt; it might take ages to come to fruition. It's also not just about the participants, but also about the onlookers. Admittedly, over here that's slightly less the case.
I have. It's about planting the seed of doubt; it might take ages to come to fruition.
I grew up in a Catholic family but upon leaving home doubts began to slowly take hold. It took a couple of years before I made the split to something like atheism, then something like agnosticism, until I've finally slipped into cringe mode when I read the Facebook postings of my wife's children, grandchildren and related spouses.
Have you been a godless swine from birth?
Were you a godless swine from birth?
According to Christians, I suppose. Being Dutch, I gravitated mostly between ietsism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ietsist), a kind of wishy washy New Ageist agnosticism, and apatheism. However, being Dutch I was also friends with a Jehova's Witness, a few black sockers (a Dutch type of Orthodox Calvinists), more generic Protestants, a Bahá'í, a Muslim or two, and even a couple of Catholics.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/bump2.gif)Most of us here doubt that.(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/bump2.gif)
On a slightly more serious note, is anybody here aware of a discussion between a person who follows some sort of religion and a person who thinks that religion is bollocks that has led one of them to say, "Damnation, you're right! I'm changing sides now!"
I haven't.
I have - when Colonel Rebel over at the old site clashed with Bantay. It was with a slight modification: "Damnation, you can't be right! I'm changing sides now!"
If God sends billions of people to Hell for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time, "good" is not an epithet I would apply. Would you?
No, I wouldn't call it good. But when did he do that? I have seen this claim only from hardcore militant atheists - and the likes of Gainsboro Baptist Church. Talk to them. You have a lot in common.
Obviously God isn't going to do anything about, say, helping the victims of *insert the latest natural disaster*, whatever the reasons may be.
But when natural disasters occur, lives must be in danger. Otherwise, how can you call it a natural disaster?
Didn't I explain adequately enough in my long post why and how non-intervention makes sense? It would not make sense to intervene miraculously and destroy causal links in the world. Causal links are how this world makes sense. This is what "makes sense" means. Or is it that when we say "explain" and "to make sense", we mean something totally incompatible with each other?
Seriously, your remarks explain nothing to me. They come out of the blue and change shape all the time. The statements you had earlier were: "If God does exist, he/she/it does not have the properties Craig ascribes to it" and "any good will have to come from you—regardless whether God is actually being good, bad, indifferent or nonexistent." You did nothing to explain them. You only added other claims without any apparent link.
The first statement looks to me stemming from this idea: "Hey, let's attach some random contradictory properties on God. After all, this is what theologians do, hehe. And then we can declare God is evil or self-contradictory and thus refuted. QED!" If not, please explain.
The second looks like "Let's say that the source of good is anywhere else than God, so God has no reason to exist, hence he doesn't. QED!" If not, please explain.
If I suspect rightly and this is indeed the rationale behind the statements, then imagine Sam Harris applying the same reasoning at his own job: "Okay, here's a nerve cell. Looks like a totally random purposeless thing to me, but here I am getting paid to do something with it, so let's feed it to Mr. Schrödinger's cat. If the cat eats it, we'll say this project has been completed successfully and celebrate. If he doesn't, we'll say we need more funding for research." However, if Harris doesn't work this way in his own area of expertise, but instead approaches matters with a sense of purpose, trying to reveal the links and relations between the object and its surroundings, then on what basis does he adopt a different approach whenever God is the topic? Isn't this like double standards?
It doesn't trouble me if you have different ideas. Differences by themselves don't matter at all. What matters is the consistency, scope, and explanatory power of your ideas. They have to serve a purpose. They have to be workable theories, as complete as possible. For example, for any theory to be relevant in my view, I expect it to ANSWER its own WHY and HOW. If this condition is not met, the theory or statement under scrutiny lacks explanatory power and most likely it also lacks purpose. In such case, either further elaboration is called for or it must be discarded. Which way will it be?
It doesn't trouble me if you have different ideas. It troubles me when you say things that are not ideas in the first place, You say things that have no context, no source, no aim, things that do not explain anything, things that don't make sense in any way. If you think this is okay, if you think that rationality
should take a free fall in you when this topic is brought up, answers
must not exist in this area, then, well, point taken. Just that it would be nice of you to say so too. Something like: "Hey, I am just fooling around. Hope you have fun too!"
Well, evidently I must accept that these kinds of explanations work for you. Sorry but they don't for me. This is not a cultural gap. It is a methodical gap, systemic gap.
I have - when Colonel Rebel over at the old site clashed with Bantay. It was with a slight modification: "Damnation, you can't be right! I'm changing sides now!"
That explains a lot. You both talk the same language. (I
knew I've seen that before!)
No, I wouldn't call it good. But when did he do that? I have seen this claim only from hardcore militant atheists - and the likes of Gainsboro Baptist Church. Talk to them. You have a lot in common.
I think you mean Westboro. This is the mainstream Protestant God in both its Calvinist and Lutheran incarnations.
But when natural disasters occur, lives must be in danger. Otherwise, how can you call it a natural disaster?
Didn't I explain adequately enough in my long post why and how non-intervention makes sense? It would not make sense to intervene miraculously and destroy causal links in the world. Causal links are how this world makes sense. This is what "makes sense" means. Or is it that when we say "explain" and "to make sense", we mean something totally incompatible with each other?
None of which has anything to do with anything. Talk about remarks coming out of the blue.
Seriously, your remarks explain nothing to me. They come out of the blue and change shape all the time. The statements you had earlier were: "If God does exist, he/she/it does not have the properties Craig ascribes to it" and "any good will have to come from you—regardless whether God is actually being good, bad, indifferent or nonexistent." You did nothing to explain them. You only added other claims without any apparent link.
Craig says God is good, yet his God also sends billions of people to hell for no good reason.
God doesn't help victims of a disaster, ergo we must. I could go into more detail, but your longer text above gave me the impression you understood the principle.
The first statement looks to me stemming from this idea: "Hey, let's attach some random contradictory properties on God. After all, this is what theologians do, hehe. And then we can declare God is evil or self-contradictory and thus refuted. QED!" If not, please explain.
The second looks like "Let's say that the source of good is anywhere else than God, so God has no reason to exist, hence he doesn't. QED!" If not, please explain.
Both are obvious straw men. What's there to explain? No atheist has said anything even remotely like that, ever.
It doesn't trouble me if you have different ideas. Differences by themselves don't matter at all. What matters is the consistency, scope, purpose, and explanatory power of your ideas. They have to serve a purpose. They have to be workable theories, as complete as possible. For example, for any theory to be relevant in my view, I expect it to ANSWER its own WHY and HOW. If this condition is not met, the theory or statement under scrutiny lacks explanatory power and most likely it also lacks purpose. In such case, either further elaboration is called for or it must be discarded. Which way will it be?
Well, evidently I must accept that these kinds of explanations work for you. Sorry but they don't for me. This is not a cultural gap. It is a methodical gap, systemic gap.
You're not making much sense. If you want to be informed, a debate is a very bad place to go. Read a book or two. I believe Harris' is called
The Moral Landscape.
"that omnipotence in a God and goodness in a God (any God, not just the Christian God) are incompatible with the real world."?
Course not, such phrase is the demonstration of ignorance. Tomas of Aquino has demonstrated why it is wrong centuries ago.
A little bit of reflexion is enough to understand that there's no "incompatibility".
Looks like the thing is that you are actually yearning for someone you could unreservedly idolise.
I'm available.(https://dndsanctuary.eu/avs/avatar_29_1391706811.png)
==============================================
On a slightly more serious note, is anybody here aware of a discussion between a person who follows some sort of religion and a person who thinks that religion is bollocks that has led one of them to say, "Damnation, you're right! I'm changing sides now!"
I haven't.
*raises hand* Me.
Macallan and some others made some very excellent points, back when I still believed, as @Ersi has pointed out to you.
That led to some serious thinking for a while on my part, which led to the lack of beliefs I currently hold.
No, I wouldn't call it good. But when did he do that? I have seen this claim only from hardcore militant atheists - and the likes of Gainsboro Baptist Church. Talk to them. You have a lot in common.
I think you mean Westboro. This is the mainstream Protestant God in both its Calvinist and Lutheran incarnations.
Thanks for correcting the name for me. Sorry for the inconvenience.
So, you say "God sends billions of people to Hell for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time" is mainstream Christianity. Then I suppose it won't be too hard for you to dig up an actual reference for this claim by a theologian you consider mainstream, right?
Also, I note that you make this a case against Christianity rather than against religiousness as such. Christianity is our culturally traditional downtrending religion, already submissive and doesn't resist much. If you think that by refuting one easy victim among religions you refute them all, I disagree. It would be thinking like by refuting Newtonian physics one refutes all physics, or perhaps even all science.
Craig says God is good, yet his God also sends billions of people to hell for no good reason.
Or maybe you didn't listen to the reason. Such as, if good and evil people exist, and God is just, then appropriate reward and punishment for the people also exist. Where would you put Hitler? In heaven? With Hitler there, how can you call it heaven?
The more serious question to you is this: What is a good reason for you? Good according to whom? Good according to hippies? Religions are well-rehearsed in defining good and evil. Let's see you perform better right now.
Of course I am perfectly aware that you won't define anything. As long as this is so, it's dishonest of me to accept any of your judgements that some things are good or evil. You have to make the concepts of good and evil intelligible first, then it will be intelligible to judge. Your judgements thus far are unintelligible.
God doesn't help victims of a disaster, ergo we must. I could go into more detail, but your longer text above gave me the impression you understood the principle.
The principle is that human beings are agents who according to their free will perform good and evil acts, thus defining themselves as good or evil. However, this obviously does not mean that the good, evil, free will, etc. are rooted in the agents severally. The properties and attributes such as free will, capacity to act, etc. are common to the entire humanity and are derived from a common source wherefrom we all acquire.
For example, we have life. We are alive. Does this mean that I have one life and you have a second life, and some other person has a third life? No, life is common to all and it predates us. We can be born because life was already here. We are born into it. The same with free will, etc.
Everybody have parents who enable their birth. We don't enable our own birth. The same way, the entire humanity has a parent or guardian. Without it, the common properties and concepts shared by all humans, such free will, responsibility, good and evil, etc. don't make sense and should provide no topic.
Both are obvious straw men. What's there to explain? No atheist has said anything even remotely like that, ever.
This is what you said and you already saw the questions that I had:
- "If God does exist, he/she/it does not have the properties Craig ascribes to it" -- If not these properties, then what other properties and why?
- "any good will have to come from you—regardless whether God is actually being good, bad, indifferent or nonexistent." -- How did the good get into you so that it can come from you, even will have to come from you? Good by whose definition?
But I don't need these answers any more. You already basically answered by strawmanning Christianity above. If you produce the relevant quote I asked from you, we'd see what you consider mainstream Christianity.
Even though Christianity never was at issue for me. I was seriously interested in how you manage to find these sentences meaningful and purposeful - in the most basic sense, quite apart from any religion.
How does the semantics of these statements work for you? What is the theoretical concept system that provides the background against which you read them? The answer appears to be that since these staments make a mockery of theological definitions, then this is for you a sufficient reason for accepting them, nevermind that at the same go they violate any and all logical definitions, including the rules of scientific terminology and taxonomy. I am simply baffled how this is all okay for you. But okay, I just take note and move on.
You're not making much sense. If you want to be informed, a debate is a very bad place to go. Read a book or two. I believe Harris' is called The Moral Landscape.
First, when I say you don't make sense, I also explain what specifically does not make sense and what further clarifications I require. In your case, you see it often possible to dismiss me without any explanation. When you do not make sense to me, I go about it in a qualitatively different manner.
Second, I define terms all the time. I ask questions. When I pass judgement, I explain the relevant terms. To me it's intellectually dishonest to pass judgement without verifying if the basis of the judgement is intelligible or not. I give answers. I clearly know what I want from this debate. You, on the other hand, never define, you dismiss casually, and your explanations are not even rephrasings, but outright topic-changers.
Third, you refer me to that book, but I am too familiar with it already. The atheist consensus verdict on it is that it alleges to be a moral theory, but isn't. The verdict is supported even by other neoatheists, such as Dennett. The only one who disagrees with the criticism is the author.
Fourth, my aim with this debate was to get to learn about your world view, fairly personally. Harris has nothing to say on this. At least hopefully not too much. Based on the previous points, you see how I have drawn some conclusions that hopefully at least clarify your character, if not much else. As to your world view, it appears to be splintered. Above you casually mentioned something called apathism to Jim. This sounds like it could explain much. I don't feel like being informed about it further, but if I would, another debate with you is precisely the way. Thank you very much.
Ersi MUST be wrong - just because he "needs" so way too many words to "explain" "the truth".
Once upon a time, there lived Occam. End of the story.
I would not say that ersi is wrong, just that he cannot claim he is RIGHT.
@ersi – I managed to get some time to read your post and the posts of others that followed it. Many points have been made in reply, but I would like to make some observations.
It’s clear that there is a certain amount of mismatch in our discussions of “God” in that you look at the concept from a much wider perspective than do the religions that we use as our basis for agreement/disagreement and belief/disbelief.
Because of our collective background we tend to refer to the God/s of those Religions with which we are passingly familiar, mostly the Abrahamic religions, which supposedly follow the same God at the same time as convincing themselves that only they have THE TRUTH. In that context it is perfectly valid to question such issues as variations, even incompatibilities, in moral attitudes and disenfranchisement of those not born within the boundaries of a particular religion and therefore condemned for all time.
You, on the other hand, describe your “God” concept as being above all that, allowing humans to find their own way and intervening or not (mostly not) in human affairs according to a separate decision process which has nothing to do with human thought or reasoning.
So to some extent we are at cross purposes here. But it is an interesting consequence of your concept of an aloof God that it rather rubbishes the idea of any religion based on its own conception of God. No religion is correct (because correctness is not a human prerogative), nor is it important which one is followed, nor does it matter anyway because “God” will continue to ignore what is done. To assign consequences to acts one needs to enter into religions again, which is a futile act because none can ever be correct.
If one compounds that with the essential infinity of worlds out there with, presumably, many sentient beings then one is not surprised that “God” doesn't bother to intervene in anything, that is assuming that “God” made it all.
However throughout your note, there is the assumption that God exists. The “Epicurus Dilemma” does not exist if there is no God except as an academic plaything. And so it goes with the rest of your arguments.
The God you describe is a “Virtual God”, a construct of imagination and “logical extrapolation” from one supposition to another. That is why I refer to the “Real World” to distinguish it from your construct. We’ve clashed over the matter of evidence for God, or rather the lack of it, and the answer always amounts to “don’t expect physical proof, the proof lies in properly applied reasoning and my reasoning is better than yours, therefore there is a God”. I’m sorry but that remains not very convincing.
But, as an agnostic myself (with, I admit, atheist leanings) I am comfortable with the idea of positing alternative God Concepts and exploring what it would mean, as long the result is not put forward as “THE TRUTH”, the same as in all those defunct Religions.
Philosophy is a wonderful thing, it allows free rein to thoughts and suppositions and stimulates the imaginations and it can lead to practical, observable, results not least in applied science. However Philosophy is not confined to mental Gymnastics alone.
Finally, you ask: “How is it atheists' business to complain about God they don't believe in anyway?”
Well, you should be the first to acknowledge that all things can legitimately be thought about and argued, but more than that, Religion has been responsible (and still is) for all kind of atrocities and wasted lives. Reason enough I would think.
The huge amount of Philosophy required to make an argument for the existence of God is, by itself, an evidence against it. God should be self-evident.
Fourth, my aim with this debate was to get to learn about your world view, fairly personally.
Well, that explains a lot: I thought the topic was the Harris video. You already know my world view. Everything is physical, and morality is based on feelings.
I'll include a few of the points I wrote before I reached the end of your message.
Also, I note that you make this a case against Christianity rather than against religiousness as such. Christianity is our culturally traditional downtrending religion, already submissive and doesn't resist much. If you think that by refuting one easy victim among religions you refute them all, I disagree. It would be thinking like by refuting Newtonian physics one refutes all physics, or perhaps even all science.
The context is Christianity, specifically the type Craig and the audience practices. You keep throwing in this completely unrelated stuff while proclaiming none of what Harris said applies. Well no, of course not. Big surprise.
So, you say "God sends billions of people to Hell for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time" is mainstream Christianity. Then I suppose it won't be too hard for you to dig up an actual reference for this claim by a theologian you consider mainstream, right?
Missionaries exist to
save souls. But let's feign ignorance of the real world and go
ad fontes.
As language cannot describe the severity of the divine vengeance on the reprobate, their pains and torments are figured to us by corporeal things, such as darkness, wailing and gnashing of teeth, inextinguishable fire, the ever-gnawing worm (Matthew 8:12; 22:13; Mark 9:43; Isaiah 66:24). It is certain that by such modes of expression the Holy Spirit designed to impress all our senses with dread […] Wherefore, the Apostle made no trivial declaration, when he said that unbelievers shall be "punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power" (2 Thessalonians 1:9).
Or maybe you didn't listen to the reason. Such as, if good and evil people exist, and God is just, then appropriate reward and punishment for the people also exist. Where would you put Hitler? In heaven? With Hitler there, how can you call it heaven?
Hitler wouldn't go to Heaven because he committed suicide—unless possibly if he managed to repent in his last fleeting seconds. You're making the exact same argument Harris made, yet somehow if he says it he's an idiot.
The more serious question to you is this: What is a good reason for you? Good according to whom? Good according to hippies? Religions are well-rehearsed in defining good and evil. Let's see you perform better right now.
Of course I am perfectly aware that you won't define anything. As long as this is so, it's dishonest of me to accept any of your judgements that some things are good or evil. You have to make the concepts of good and evil intelligible first, then it will be intelligible to judge. Your judgements thus far are unintelligible.
I have already laid out my system of morality and its bases, and you already rejected it as immoral claptrap. Been there, done that. But you would quibble that among billions of Hindus and Taoists and Buddhists there are not at least few good people to be found, whose only "flaw" is not being Christian? Seriously?
Everybody have parents who enable their birth. We don't enable our own birth. The same way, the entire humanity has a parent or guardian. Without it, the common properties and concepts shared by all humans, such free will, responsibility, good and evil, etc. don't make sense and should provide no topic.
Above all, those three paragraphs are a giant red herring. I reply only to say that ignorance of evolutionary theory can be cured by reading
The Selfish Gene or one of its more up-to-date successors (e.g. Jerry Coyne's
Why Evolution Is True or one of Dawkins' own later works), and ignorance of cognitive neuroscience and its philosophical implications might be cured by reading something by e.g. Damasio or Dennett.
How does the semantics of these statements work for you? What is the theoretical concept system that provides the background against which you read them? The answer appears to be that since these staments make a mockery of theological definitions, then this is for you a sufficient reason for accepting them, nevermind that at the same go they violate any and all logical definitions, including the rules of scientific terminology and taxonomy. I am simply baffled how this is all okay for you. But okay, I just take note and move on.
No, Harris wasn't laying out a world view. So what? It's like you watched a movie and afterwards complain it had too many images and not enough text in it. However many issues there may or may not be with Harris' world view, this particular one is a silly fabrication.
Above you casually mentioned something called apathism to Jim. This sounds like it could explain much.
Back in the '90s, I used these devices called diskettes to transfer files between computers. What does that explain?
I'm not sure how accurate of a description apatheist is in any case. I knew vastly more about a wide variety of religions past and present than most of my friends and acquaintances, especially those from religious backgrounds. Then as well as now I still do more to increase my knowledge. Just last year I read The Cambridge Guide to Jewish History, Religion, and Culture (http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/religion/judaism/cambridge-guide-jewish-history-religion-and-culture). You'll find that's a common trait among atheists.
In the sense I meant it, you too are an apatheist. Whether or not God exists, God helps those who help themselves (and others).
but if I would, another debate with you is precisely the way. Thank you very much.
Textual debates especially, but to some extent also radio debates, are a very different animal compared to debates you attend in person or watch on TV.
Tomas of Aquino has demonstrated why it is wrong centuries ago.
My 6 years old daughter knows more about the facts of life than he knew.
Incidentally, the Dutch philosopher Floris van den Berg wrote the book Philosophy for a Better World (http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Better-World-Floris-Berg/dp/161614503X) about why philosophy is not noncommittal. I haven't read it, but I might go listen to him on Monday if I find the time.
Tomas of Aquino has demonstrated why it is wrong centuries ago.
My 6 years old daughter knows more about the facts of life than he knew.
I hope not. He was known for having a life of vice before entering monastery... (therefore the importance of the questions he got an answer, such has why not doing something if it gives us pleasure... )
I hope not. He was known for having a life of vice before entering monastery.
There are priests today who like boys little boys, so you don't have to burrow into the past for examples of divines gone bad.
Hopefully, Francis will be more successful at dealing with that problem, but it doesn't look hopeful at the moment.
There are priests today who like boys little boys, so you don't have to burrow into the past for examples of divines gone bad.
And plumbers, English teachers, military, house wifes, etc...
Hopefully, Francis will be more successful at dealing with that problem, but it doesn't look hopeful at the moment.
Francis is my favorite saint, and the Franciscans are my favorite Catholic order. I don't mind indirectly being named after him, indeed. :)
house wifes
Ah yes,
The Graduate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Graduate_(novel)).
And plumbers, English teachers, military, house wifes, etc...
Indeed, but none of take vows of celibacy. They are all scum, however.
Indeed, but none of take vows of celibacy. They are all scum, however.
And how is that related with your advices to me that I should not mention Tomas of Aquino?
Ersi MUST be wrong - just because he "needs" so way too many words to "explain" "the truth".
Another Bloody Mary, please... make it double...
You already know my world view. Everything is physical, and morality is based on feelings.
Actually, I don't remember you putting it so succinctly before. Thanks. It's pretty outlandish for me to consider these things as the basis for everything else, even hard to imagine, so I appreciate that you spelled it out this way now, stunningly clarifying. Particularly the latter, "morality is based on feelings." It makes me speechless. Luckily I am typing here, so speechlessness doesn't show.
I can see now how the rest of what you've said largely makes sense - from your point of view. I can see how Harris has become to enjoy your admiration, even though I haven't encountered a single favourable review of his books. "Morality is based on feelings" easily translates to "I'm right because I have a burning extrovert passion that drives me to condemn what disgusts and repulses me. It feels right to me to do it, therefore it is right that I do it." This is the gist of Harris for me. The more I hear of him, the more this impression solidifies.
Your point of view will never become my point of view. Physical existence never worked as the basis of everything else for me. I tried, but could not build on such basis. I have always been very skeptical of sense-data and only dealt with things in life that keep recurring and refuse to go away (like in that Philip K. Dick quote). I had an intense intellectual struggle trying to reconcile psychic facts (first-person, not what other people say or think on the matter) with materialism. Sadly, materialism proved to be lacking. Various forms of dualism handily explain what I needed explained, but I suppose this is where you agree - Occam's razor calls for monism -, so I sided with monism as soon as I found a good exposition of it. In my case spiritual monism of course.
So, you say "God sends billions of people to Hell for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time" is mainstream Christianity. Then I suppose it won't be too hard for you to dig up an actual reference for this claim by a theologian you consider mainstream, right?
Missionaries exist to save souls.
We will forever disagree on what it means to save souls.
[...]unbelievers shall be "punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power" (2 Thessalonians 1:9).
We will also forever disagree on what unbeliever means. Calvin's understanding of it was political. He was the fundie of his era, even considering that witchburnings were pretty mainstream at the time. He was fundier than that. The current mainstream interpretation of "unbeliever" is definitely not "whoever stands in the way of expansion of my church". You can interpret Calvin this way, but not modern Calvinism.
Anyway, your original wording "God sends billions of people to Hell for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time" implies that unbeliever should mean something like "anyone not living in a Christian country and/or not baptised and/or not a Church member". This is a discordant interpretation of the word for any era. There's even a Bible verse against such interpretation: "Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts." (Romans 2:14-15)
I admit that questions like "Will the BC generations and people born in non-Christian countries go to heaven or not?" are recurring among rank-and-file Christians. This question particularly puzzles the members of any stricter sects, such as Jehovah's Witnesses. The Bible verse I cited implies a brighter eternity for any Good Gentile, but I can see how from neoatheist (and militant fundie - these two are of the same mind) point of view, the mere emergence of the question already gives sufficient reason to jump to "Anyone born in the wrong place at the wrong time will go to hell." However, this is an uncharitable assumption, not a source quote from a mainstream theologian. For example the official doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses (whom I do not consider mainstream, but rather a bunch of apocalyptic literalist fundies, who luckily don't riot) does not allow for such interpretation.
I appreciate your quote-digging. Nice try. Anyway, enough Christianity. This never was the topic for me. I hope you're not like Macallan and bone-headedly assume that I am Christian. I am not. I am simply someone with a first-person view on religiousness, so I know what devout Christians think and feel. And I also know what they write, of course. *Devout* believers of all religions are alike. Mere nominal church/temple/mosque-goers are not. Hypocrites of any ideology will always bicker and fight against their own likes, religious hypocrites against religious, commie hypocrites against commies, crony capitalists against other cronies.
Also, Harris' video never was the topic for me. It merely gave an occasion to talk about how things really are from non-atheist perspective, if you care to drop the double standards some day. Henceforth, I disregard points on Christianity.
Everybody have parents who enable their birth. We don't enable our own birth. The same way, the entire humanity has a parent or guardian. Without it, the common properties and concepts shared by all humans, such free will, responsibility, good and evil, etc. don't make sense and should provide no topic.
Above all, those three paragraphs are a giant red herring. I reply only to say that ignorance of evolutionary theory can be cured by reading The Selfish Gene or one of its more up-to-date successors (e.g. Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True or one of Dawkins' own later works), and ignorance of cognitive neuroscience and its philosophical implications might be cured by reading something by e.g. Damasio or Dennett.
Evolutionary theory is okay by me. Except the materialist version of it.
My aim with the concept of guardian of humanity was fairly modest. I was merely putting a name on the metaphysical placeholder of common properties and values of humanity. The reasoning goes this way: Life exists. Free will exists. So do all the other human capacities and values. Where do they exist? How? This is where the metaphysical placeholder comes into play. This is how universals work in the realist perspective - there are metaphysical placeholders, species and categories ('realism' as technically understood in philosophy). This is standard philosophy, but of course I understand that this is something you refuse to acknowledge.
The point where I radically disagree with you is the assumption that cognitive neuroscience has any philosophical implications. For example, Krauss believes that quantum theories give him reason to say that something came from nothing - existence cropped up just so, for no reason, but definitely did! - and 2+2=5 "for very large values of 2". My reply is that philosophy must always stay rational and logical. In fact, philosophy *is* rationality itself. Mad Scientist (I wish it were just a literary character, but it isn't) cannot declare rationality null and void due to some of his alleged findings. There will always be more findings and *you have to make sense of absolutely all findings,* and this is what philosophy is for - to make sense of things. With rationality and logic declared null and void, how are you supposed to continue to make sense of things?
So, sorry, but no science has any philosophical implications. Science and philosophy are distinct disciplines for a good reason. They will forever remain distinct.
No, Harris wasn't laying out a world view. So what?
He was arguing against a world view. Nonsensical quibble can't refute a coherent world view. Maybe it can in Harris' science, but it can't in philosophy. In philosophy, when you are up against a world view, you have these choices:
1. Destructive criticism. Demonstrate the internal incoherence of the world view by means of the tools that built the self-same world view. You have to use the same tools, concepts and reasoning which built the world view, because if you can make it implode by its own methods, then this is what it means to demonstrate its internal incoherence. (But if instead you go with irrationality against rationality, you are not demonstrating the internal incoherence of rationality. You are only demonstrating your own irrationality.)
2. Constructive criticism. Offer a better alternative. To replace a world view, build another world view and demonstrate how it's better, has a bigger explanatory scope, is more economic or elegant, etc. In the constructive approach, it definitely takes a properly laid out world view to challenge a world view.
Whether destructive or constructive, Harris miserably failed at criticism.
In the sense I meant it, you too are an apatheist. Whether or not God exists, God helps those who help themselves (and others).
This is flattering, so I say I agree with the "God helps..." bit. In fact, I completely agree with it. Even more, my assent with this bit is more than nominal. I know also *why* and *how* God helps those who help themselves and others. And this knowledge motivates me a lot in life.
So, now to the disagreements again. Since the described knowledge is briskly and brilliantly motivating, I find the apatheist label inappropriately gloomy. Better descriptive terms can be found. And "Whether or not God exists" sticks out as unnecessarily undermining its own context. It's semantically discrepant and rhetorically superfluous.
but if I would, another debate with you is precisely the way. Thank you very much.
Textual debates especially, but to some extent also radio debates, are a very different animal compared to debates you attend in person or watch on TV.
Just a loosely related quote from myself not so long ago: Debate is an exercise of argumentation. Debate doesn't lead to truth, but shows who can build more solid and coherent argumentation, which in a good case should lead both participants to some considerations as to their overall world view, if they have it. Rather than a way to convince others of something, a philosophical debate is a good opportunity to learn about one's own beliefs oneself.
@String
Promise: I will answer in a separate post in this thread.
So, sorry, but no science has any philosophical implications. Science and philosophy are distinct disciplines for a good reason. They will forever remain distinct.
I suspect you may be thinking of theology; Philosophy is derived from the Greek Philosophia, love of Wisdom.
Not that theology is the private playground of anyone either.
I can see now how the rest of what you've said largely makes sense - from your point of view. I can see how Harris has become to enjoy your admiration, even though I haven't encountered a single favourable review of his books. "Morality is based on feelings" easily translates to "I'm right because I have a burning extrovert passion that drives me to condemn what disgusts and repulses me. It feels right to me to do it, therefore it is right that I do it." This is the gist of Harris for me. The more I hear of him, the more this impression solidifies.
Currently morality is obviously more than "just" feelings, but feelings are of the utmost importance: rather than
is based on perhaps I should've written
depends on. In any case, feelings and desires play an extremely important role. Without feelings, morality fails. Someone who doesn't feel pain doesn't develop empathy, and thus no concept of right and wrong beyond the self. The outcome tends to be even worse when someone's mirror neurons are lacking. But when I say morality, I actually do mean rational reflection of the matter too, not only blindly trusting our feelings or gut "instinct".* To that I might add that without the feeling of the heart and a couple of other vital organs, there's no consciousness, no self, at all. Philosophically speaking, these scientific facts lead me in a direction similar to especially Spinoza but also Hume, and far removed from, if not downright opposed to, Kant.
* We have a very clever "gut". It uses our memory of past events to statistically determine what response to a particular situation will most likely make us feel good or bad, all subconsciously.
The Bible verse I cited implies a brighter eternity for any Good Gentile, but I can see how from neoatheist (and militant fundie - these two are of the same mind) point of view, the mere emergence of the question already gives sufficient reason to jump to "Anyone born in the wrong place at the wrong time will go to hell."
No, that's not the "neoatheist" perspective. The "neoatheist" perspective is that God
does not exist and Hell
does not exist, no matter what "God" and "Hell" might mean unless they are used purely metaphorically. That includes all versions of God and Hell, including a semi-just Hell according to your interpretation of the Bible.
Also, Harris' video never was the topic for me. It merely gave an occasion to talk about how things really are from non-atheist perspective, if you care to drop the double standards some day. Henceforth, I disregard points on Christianity.
Double standards such as what?
My aim with the concept of guardian of humanity was fairly modest. I was merely putting a name on the metaphysical placeholder of common properties and values of humanity. The reasoning goes this way: Life exists. Free will exists. So do all the other human capacities and values. Where do they exist? How? This is where the metaphysical placeholder comes into play. This is how universals work in the realist perspective - there are metaphysical placeholders, species and categories ('realism' as technically understood in philosophy). This is standard philosophy, but of course I understand that this is something you refuse to acknowledge.
If you're purely using these word as a convenient handles then all atheists are believers, or alternatively you're not a believer. Your "argument" is dishonest and you know it. Calling the common properties of humanity "guardian" obviously implies much more than merely the common properties of humanity. You can't go around saying "this ball is red" and when I say "no it's not", reply that I'm denying the existence of green because that's how you were using the word red.
So, sorry, but no science has any philosophical implications. Science and philosophy are distinct disciplines for a good reason. They will forever remain distinct.
Well, that leaves me speechless. Without science, your inductive reasoning can basically be described as garbage in, garbage out.
1. Destructive criticism. Demonstrate the internal incoherence of the world view by means of the tools that built the self-same world view. You have to use the same tools, concepts and reasoning which built the world view, because if you can make it implode by its own methods, then this is what it means to demonstrate its internal incoherence. (But if instead you go with irrationality against rationality, you are not demonstrating the internal incoherence of rationality. You are only demonstrating your own irrationality.)
Translation: "How dare you not accept my utterly ludicrous premises! You should take my premises and try to find something inconsistent in my reasoning based on those premises instead." It does not matter one iota how internally coherent your views are if they do not align with reality.
2. Constructive criticism. Offer a better alternative. To replace a world view, build another world view and demonstrate how it's better, has a bigger explanatory scope, is more economic or elegant, etc. In the constructive approach, it definitely takes a properly laid out world view to challenge a world view.
Whether destructive or constructive, Harris miserably failed at criticism.
Just because he didn't spell out the (seemingly) obvious conclusions? A proper argument should give you the facts in such a way that you can make up your own mind about them, not get you to regurgitate the conclusions.
And "Whether or not God exists" sticks out as unnecessarily undermining its own context. It's semantically discrepant and rhetorically superfluous.
It would work fine for me with Spinoza's or Einstein's "God", but I feel that using the word in such a way is unhelpful. Hence the admittedly inelegant addition.
So to some extent we are at cross purposes here. But it is an interesting consequence of your concept of an aloof God that it rather rubbishes the idea of any religion based on its own conception of God. No religion is correct (because correctness is not a human prerogative), nor is it important which one is followed, nor does it matter anyway because “God” will continue to ignore what is done. To assign consequences to acts one needs to enter into religions again, which is a futile act because none can ever be correct.
Isn't it a little bit too fatalistic to conclude that none can ever be correct? As long as you have energy to continue the quest for truth, your conclusion that all is futile is not completely sincere.
We’ve clashed over the matter of evidence for God, or rather the lack of it, and the answer always amounts to “don’t expect physical proof, the proof lies in properly applied reasoning and my reasoning is better than yours, therefore there is a God”. I’m sorry but that remains not very convincing.
The point is not to convince anyone to accept any particular persuasion. The point is mere demonstration of reasoning, rationality, intellect, that's it. It's for show. The fact that, to demonstrate reasoning, one needs a thesis to defend, or an opposing motion to go against, is secondary. The show itself is the main thing.
It's a form of bravery to participate in such public displays, because you are making your intellect vulnerable to attacks. Yet it's all perfectly worth while because your intellect gets training in the process. I suppose materialists would say that brain muscle also needs training like any other muscle, and I'd have to agree, even though I'd clash with them on the notion that intellect is as if a physical muscle. Either way, fitness is not a too terrible idea. Intellect is a live thing and needs exercise.
The point is this: Assuming that rationality and irrationality are distinct and not of the same value,there's a need to distinguish between them and choose your preference. Either you side with rationality or irrationality. Having picked your side, live with your choice the rest of your life and be happy.
Please don't think that I am trying to push you either way, but I personally happen to care for rationality a lot. I don't care much which side you choose, but whenever I encounter people in my life, I evaluate them on the scale of rationality and irrationality and I enquire if they made an informed choice in this area. This is my version of the so-called Socratic method.
You can choose either side, but it matters to make an informed choice, right? And then you can follow your own path. You don't have to listen to others any more, because you know perfectly well for yourself where you are going. Rather, when other people ask about it, you will be able to explain yourself. Which is generally good for getting along with people.
But, as an agnostic myself (with, I admit, atheist leanings) I am comfortable with the idea of positing alternative God Concepts and exploring what it would mean, as long the result is not put forward as “THE TRUTH”, the same as in all those defunct Religions.
The same way as in science, in the end you select the most workable theory. Even if not the absolute truth itself, it shall serve you as the best guideline you honestly managed to muster.
Religion has been responsible (and still is) for all kind of atrocities and wasted lives. Reason enough I would think.
Yes, I know. It's tough. Still, my immediate ancestors experienced the regimes of Stalin and Lenin. Reason enough to think about atheism too. Think well.
So, sorry, but no science has any philosophical implications. Science and philosophy are distinct disciplines for a good reason. They will forever remain distinct.
I suspect you may be thinking of theology; Philosophy is derived from the Greek Philosophia, love of Wisdom.
Not that theology is the private playground of anyone either.
I meant precisely philosophy, Love of Wisdom. Theology is one of the carousels or such in the playground of philosophy, not for beginners.
Science (Latin: knowledge) is the mass of data to make sense of. Maybe think of it as sand in the sandbox. Kids try it out with their little buckets to give it nice shapes. Otherwise it's formless, senseless, purposeless.
Without science, your inductive reasoning can basically be described as garbage in, garbage out.
In time.
1. Destructive criticism. Demonstrate the internal incoherence of the world view by means of the tools that built the self-same world view. You have to use the same tools, concepts and reasoning which built the world view, because if you can make it implode by its own methods, then this is what it means to demonstrate its internal incoherence. (But if instead you go with irrationality against rationality, you are not demonstrating the internal incoherence of rationality. You are only demonstrating your own irrationality.)
Translation: "How dare you not accept my utterly ludicrous premises! You should take my premises and try to find something inconsistent in my reasoning based on those premises instead." It does not matter one iota how internally coherent your views are if they do not align with reality.
Better translation: Know well what you criticise. This is to make the implosion of the construct doubly certain, if this is what you definitely want - and safe for both of the parties involved, if you care about lives. Harris' performance was subpar.
2. Constructive criticism. Offer a better alternative. To replace a world view, build another world view and demonstrate how it's better, has a bigger explanatory scope, is more economic or elegant, etc. In the constructive approach, it definitely takes a properly laid out world view to challenge a world view.
Whether destructive or constructive, Harris miserably failed at criticism.
Just because he didn't spell out the (seemingly) obvious conclusions? A proper argument should give you the facts in such a way that you can make up your own mind about them, not get you to regurgitate the conclusions.
I agree with your "should" bit. Harris failed by this very measure. And don't make the mistake of thinking that I am defending Craig here. The fact that I don't side with Harris doesn't mean I side with Craig. They are both annoying obstacles for me to get myself across to YOU.
I need to rest for a few days now. No, I am not asking for permission. I just take it.
Quote from: string on 19 February '14, 11:18:34
Religion has been responsible (and still is) for all kind of atrocities and wasted lives. Reason enough I would think.
Yes, I know. It's tough. Still, my immediate ancestors experienced the regimes of Stalin and Lenin. Reason enough to think about atheism too. Think well.
Would you mind thinking, genius?
All sorts of ideology are quasireligions - or even religions formally.
the Problem with religion is everyone have their own religion .
how many Human in this earth , that's the Number of religion .
Would you mind thinking, genius?
All sorts of ideology are quasireligions - or even religions formally.
Ouch! You pricked the Russian in Josh, String. Be kinder next time.
At any rate, name one religion that's doing harm in the world today. ;)
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/eyes10.gif)
I thought Stalinism and atheism weren't exactly the same thing.
Exactly! Meaning you're right.
But in terms of social psychology (oh, my!), both, to take, stalinism and poo-tinism are diseases. And are alike sorts of faschism. Such regimes (speaking of the ruling) base on the mass's attitude to the reality - which is very close to religious one, often: initially "the people" enthrones some "heroes"/leaders who allegedly were believed to overthrow "the bad guys" and bring in "the better future for the nation".
Better translation: Know well what you criticise. This is to make the implosion of the construct doubly certain, if this is what you definitely want - and safe for both of the parties involved, if you care about lives. Harris' performance was subpar.
Well, if you put it like that. I'm not sure if I agree that the implosion should be so disastrous in the specific context, but I might be wrong. In any case, both approaches are not mutually exclusive but complementary. Some people might respond better to Harris' approach, others to yours.
I agree with your "should" bit. Harris failed by this very measure.
That's true, but that's one of the reasons I think such debates tend to be borderline useless. Their very nature pushes toward such unsatisfactory argumentations.
And don't make the mistake of thinking that I am defending Craig here. The fact that I don't side with Harris doesn't mean I side with Craig. They are both annoying obstacles for me to get myself across to YOU.
I'm happy to hear it.
I need to rest for a few days now. No, I am not asking for permission. I just take it.
Please, take weeks. I should be doing other things.
Please, take weeks. I should be doing other things.
I know all about that, but I don't bother doing them, either.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/friendsdrunk.gif)
Would you mind thinking, genius?
All sorts of ideology are quasireligions - or even religions formally.
Ouch! You pricked the Russian in Josh, String. Be kinder next time.
At any rate, name one religion that's doing harm in the world today. ;)
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/eyes10.gif)
I think Josh was reacting to ersi's emark, not mine. That happens sometimes in the way quotes are displayed, it can be misleading.
I think Josh was reacting to ersi's emark, not mine. That happens sometimes in the way quotes are displayed, it can be misleading.
[whispers=everybody but Forum Staff]Forum Staff can really be annoying.[/whispers]
I think Josh was reacting to ersi's emark, not mine. That happens sometimes in the way quotes are displayed, it can be misleading.
It's a bit of a bug really, but a fix is not quite self-evident.
My additional comments in RED.
So to some extent we are at cross purposes here. But it is an interesting consequence of your concept of an aloof God that it rather rubbishes the idea of any religion based on its own conception of God. No religion is correct (because correctness is not a human prerogative), nor is it important which one is followed, nor does it matter anyway because “God” will continue to ignore what is done. To assign consequences to acts one needs to enter into religions again, which is a futile act because none can ever be correct.
Isn't it a little bit too fatalistic to conclude that none can ever be correct? As long as you have energy to continue the quest for truth, your conclusion that all is futile is not completely sincere.
Perhaps I should have written that more clearly: I was pointing out that, from your argumentation and concept of "God", Mankinds' thoughts cannot be correct in the sense that they do not coincide with "God's" and even if, by chance they had some things "right" they would never be perfect, because perfection is reserved for HIM UP THERE. That would be true of all religions ergo they are all a waste of time (except as a Hobby) and not to be taken seriously.
We’ve clashed over the matter of evidence for God, or rather the lack of it, and the answer always amounts to “don’t expect physical proof, the proof lies in properly applied reasoning and my reasoning is better than yours, therefore there is a God”. I’m sorry but that remains not very convincing.
The point is not to convince anyone to accept any particular persuasion. The point is mere demonstration of reasoning, rationality, intellect, that's it. It's for show. The fact that, to demonstrate reasoning, one needs a thesis to defend, or an opposing motion to go against, is secondary. The show itself is the main thing.
It's a form of bravery to participate in such public displays, because you are making your intellect vulnerable to attacks. Yet it's all perfectly worth while because your intellect gets training in the process. I suppose materialists would say that brain muscle also needs training like any other muscle, and I'd have to agree, even though I'd clash with them on the notion that intellect is as if a physical muscle. Either way, fitness is not a too terrible idea. Intellect is a live thing and needs exercise.
The point is this: Assuming that rationality and irrationality are distinct and not of the same value,there's a need to distinguish between them and choose your preference. Either you side with rationality or irrationality. Having picked your side, live with your choice the rest of your life and be happy.
Please don't think that I am trying to push you either way, but I personally happen to care for rationality a lot. I don't care much which side you choose, but whenever I encounter people in my life, I evaluate them on the scale of rationality and irrationality and I enquire if they made an informed choice in this area. This is my version of the so-called Socratic method.
You can choose either side, but it matters to make an informed choice, right? And then you can follow your own path. You don't have to listen to others any more, because you know perfectly well for yourself where you are going. Rather, when other people ask about it, you will be able to explain yourself. Which is generally good for getting along with people.[/i]
Putting out a theory for discussion and refutation - great, but you seem to be claiming that you are the only person with a rational opinion? Tell me you did not mean that please!
But, as an agnostic myself (with, I admit, atheist leanings) I am comfortable with the idea of positing alternative God Concepts and exploring what it would mean, as long the result is not put forward as “THE TRUTH”, the same as in all those defunct Religions.
The same way as in science, in the end you select the most workable theory. Even if not the absolute truth itself, it shall serve you as the best guideline you honestly managed to muster.
Ah! Here we have, perhaps some common ground in that you refer to your opinion as a theory. Workable? --- maybe, but at least that is discussable. This argument is mostly about your insistence that all others are wrong and have opinions resulting from a lack of ... (there's a rather long list).
Religion has been responsible (and still is) for all kind of atrocities and wasted lives. Reason enough I would think.
Yes, I know. It's tough. Still, my immediate ancestors experienced the regimes of Stalin and Lenin. Reason enough to think about atheism too. Think well.
That's not exactly refuting what I wrote. Josh has picked that up too. Mankind has unpleasant traits according to what we judge him by, and it's not just religion which focusses that.
So, sorry, but no science has any philosophical implications. Science and philosophy are distinct disciplines for a good reason. They will forever remain distinct.
I suspect you may be thinking of theology; Philosophy is derived from the Greek Philosophia, love of Wisdom.
Not that theology is the private playground of anyone either.
I meant precisely philosophy, Love of Wisdom. Theology is one of the carousels or such in the playground of philosophy, not for beginners.
Science (Latin: knowledge) is the mass of data to make sense of. Maybe think of it as sand in the sandbox. Kids try it out with their little buckets to give it nice shapes. Otherwise it's formless, senseless, purposeless.
On the Philosophy thing. Again, and still, you try to reserve some assumed holy sanctum of special interest as the only place where legitimate human thought can take place. Philosophy can occur in all places, from the peasant farmer to the most reclusive guru hidden away in some ivory tower. Everyone has their thoughts of value and are not to be sneered at because they don't fit some sort of self-seeking definition. In such a restricted, or closed definition of Philosophy you think rigour, and if you think rigour you think rules and if you think rules you think into existence a mental straight-jacket which prevents the free thinking needed for innovation. Not that I am against structure in thinking, merely pointing out that a closed shop (as in ... I am a philosopher and you are not and don't bother me) is a closed mind.
By the way, I am a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and I'm an Engineer. While that may still mean I'm as thick as a plank of wood I don't equate my poor mental efforts with playing in a sandbox, nor ascribe that put-down to other people, or at least not routinely!
I'd like to try and change the subject, surely we've had enough of this. Reply if you like ersi but let's move on.
I'm interested to know how you approach the question that comes up frequently, that of creation. Leaving aside the creation theories that it all started a few thousand years ago, discussion on this normally goes back to the Big Bang when the Universe is theorised to have started, and the question of what happened before the Big Bang.
The religious answer to that is normally that God is the answer.
On that one can argue that the concept of a before and after is essentially anthropomorphic and that there is no clear certainty that before or after, or beginning and end, have absolute meaning and that this can apply to both the concept of a God ( because God is "outside time and space") somewhat akin, I think, to your concept) and to the Universe itself.
What are your thoughts on that ersi?
I'm not Ersi and am no expert on gods, and have only questions.
What did god do before the Big Bang? I suppose that's not in the Bible.
Was he busy elsewhere? Was there an elsewhere? Was Katsung47 there? And if so, did god try to kill him?
Well, if you put it like that. I'm not sure if I agree that the implosion should be so disastrous in the specific context, but I might be wrong. In any case, both approaches are not mutually exclusive but complementary. Some people might respond better to Harris' approach, others to yours.
To expand slightly on that, I think that in the video Harris was chiseling a little crack in the structure of the world view, so that a tiny drop of questioning water might seep into it. In time this would hopefully cause further erosion, and eventually the structure should come tumbling down or require renovations.
You essentially argue it's a horrible approach because it didn't use explosives to demolish the structure instantaneously, nor did it replace it with a prefab building. In my view, that would actually be far worse. You'd probably be unsuccessful, but if you were then you'd run the risk of quite literally indeed replacing the building, and while I think replacing most forms of Christianity with whatever Harris likes might well be for the better, it would not solve the fundamental problem. In short, I think Harris is trying this approach in order to make people think more critically, regardless whether they'll end up agreeing with him or not.
By the way, I am a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and I'm an Engineer.
I didn't know that! Nice.
I hope not. He was known for having a life of vice before entering monastery... (therefore the importance of the questions he got an answer, such has why not doing something if it gives us pleasure... )
I wonder, to what extent could people without such life experiences understand their acquired wisdom without having gone through something similar themselves?
Perhaps I should have written that more clearly: I was pointing out that, from your argumentation and concept of "God", Mankinds' thoughts cannot be correct in the sense that they do not coincide with "God's" and even if, by chance they had some things "right" they would never be perfect, because perfection is reserved for HIM UP THERE. That would be true of all religions ergo they are all a waste of time (except as a Hobby) and not to be taken seriously.
Please write even more clearly how you see these things follow from what I have written. I'm confident that, as a PhD, you can pull it off handily.
Ah! Here we have, perhaps some common ground in that you refer to your opinion as a theory. Workable? --- maybe, but at least that is discussable. This argument is mostly about your insistence that all others are wrong and have opinions resulting from a lack of ... (there's a rather long list).
The seemingly long list is actually variations on one single theme: lack of methodical thought, lack of logical proof, lack of coherence. And if you paid attention, I always demonstrate the case, whenever asked to do it. I do not issue judgements lightly. If right and wrong exist, it's merely natural that we talk about them.
That's not exactly refuting what I wrote. Josh has picked that up too.
Why would I refute facts? Facts are facts. We all must live with facts. If you are smart, you make sense of facts. Only ignoramuses try to refute them.
On the Philosophy thing. Again, and still, you try to reserve some assumed holy sanctum of special interest as the only place where legitimate human thought can take place. Philosophy can occur in all places, from the peasant farmer to the most reclusive guru hidden away in some ivory tower. Everyone has their thoughts of value and are not to be sneered at because they don't fit some sort of self-seeking definition.
So you have your own view what philosophy is and should be. It's okay. So do I.
According to my view, philosophy is pure logic, to be exercised with the faculty of human intellect, distinct from emotions and instincts, the same way as a full argument complete with premises and conclusions is distinct from a bare assertion, a coherent concept system is distinct from a self-contradictory one, etc.
Now, this doesn't mean at all that philosophy is an esoteric closed system reserved to some select few. Everybody has intellect, so everybody can do philosophy. Even a child can make adequate use of the philosophical tools all of a sudden. However, it's better to use philosophy consistently rather than randomly, right? So, a conscious philosopher qualifies better than an accidental one. A conscious philosopher can train himself to master the tools creatively. The levels of training of the intellect vary from person to person. Philosophy is available for everyone, but there are levels of mastery. Just like every person can punch and kick, but not everyone can do it well. And there's just one Bruce Lee. Or maybe you prefer Chuck Norris. All I'm saying is that there are important distinctions between some guy on the street and those two.
This is just an example, my example. There are other philosophies too. For example, instead of intellect, Frenzie's philosophy seems to revolve around "clever gut" even though I know for sure he is mostly speaking from sharp intellect. It's just that he is a materialist so he is bound by the authorities to beautify the lower faculties more, even contrary to his own self-knowledge.
The same way, as a demonstration, please give an exposition of your own philosophy. Or tell more what you think philosophy should be. It's all about sharing and comparing.
I noticed that you asked me about creation. I will answer in a few days. But right now, for a change, I seriously think it's your turn to build a thesis.
By the way, I am a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and I'm an Engineer. While that may still mean I'm as thick as a plank of wood I don't equate my poor mental efforts with playing in a sandbox, nor ascribe that put-down to other people, or at least not routinely!
I am a philologist. I used the metaphor of kids in sandbox very consciously and I stand by it. It can easily be elaborated into a full workable allegory. The kids are all over the playground, not just in the sandbox. They represent humankind. You get the picture, it's simple enough.
This is just an example, my example. There are other philosophies too. For example, instead of intellect, Frenzie's philosophy seems to revolve around "clever gut" even though I know for sure he is mostly speaking from sharp intellect. It's just that he is a materialist so he is bound by the authorities to beautify the lower faculties more, even contrary to his own self-knowledge.
That is not what I was trying to convey. These higher faculties would not exist without the lower ones. They build on them, reuse them, remix them, and are more than the sum of their parts. From my perspective, your interpretation of my words is similar to saying a plane can't fly. A wing can't fly; a body can't fly. How then could a plane fly? I'm not saying a plane can't fly. I'm saying a plane can't fly without wings. There is no consciousness, no self, without feelings.
I wouldn't care one way or another about religion, except that there are millions of wild-eyed, bearded savages who believe their religion entitles them to murder me because of my attitude to their religion.
Why has the thread's tittle changed?
Somebody's pooped on it.
Somebody's pooped on it.
Probably you. No reason for change a thread's tittle, you poop in all threads.
We needed a thread here that I, personally, won't have much to do with-- same as the ones on the D&D. I know without even looking how the thread is going to run, so why bother? Threads like this exist so atheists can kick believers around, and FOR NO OTHER REASON.
And yet the "believers" do things like pass laws make it legal to discriminate based on religion, like they just did in Arizona. You have it a little backwards. The heat certain types of Christians feel is blowback from the shit they do.
Somebody's pooped on it.
Probably you. No reason for change a thread's tittle, you poop in all threads.
He's like an undercover Putin eh? :lol:
And there's just one Bruce Lee. Or maybe you prefer Chuck Norris. All I'm saying is that there are important distinctions between some guy on the street and those two.
Your analogies, like your philosophy, only go in the direction you want. Belief isn't methodical that's only the guise portrayed. True of most great philosophers and scientists is that their beliefs have often led them down roads not openly covered with their other materials in history books. That you say there is just only one <great fighter> yet name two outlines the basis of your flawed logic. How far into deduction will go to determine who is the best? Western philosophy and Eastern philosophy have produced much different results culturally but vary across subjects they can agree are human. Tho keep in mind any one human can't fulfill all the attributes for humanity. There are your truths. Hidden in the flotsam of other "methodical" findings that amount to little more than deduction with a heavy dose of bias. The task then, when venturing out on your own journey, is to prove your venture has worth without the luxury of previous handlers and been tried methods. Pretending philosophy is a purely logical stint on reality isn't a good start.
Why has the thread's tittle changed?
Blame it on a whim. I explained it in the OP. ;)
The same way, as a demonstration, please give an exposition of your own philosophy. Or tell more what you think philosophy should be. It's all about sharing and comparing.I noticed that you asked me about creation. I will answer in a few days. But right now, for a change, I seriously think it's your turn to build a thesis.
I don't have quite the same egocentric approach as some. As I said I've had enough of this and besides your post simply reinforced my remarks so more is not needed.
Arguing about religion is akin to arguing about politics. No minds are ever changed.
We needed a thread here that I, personally, won't have much to do with-- same as the ones on the D&D. I know without even looking how the thread is going to run, so why bother? Threads like this exist so atheists can kick believers around, and FOR NO OTHER REASON.
And yet the "believers" do things like pass laws make it legal to discriminate based on religion, like they just did in Arizona. You have it a little backwards. The heat certain types of Christians feel is blowback from the shit they do.
Or, to be fair, in some case from shit that others do in their name.
Poor believers, being forced to acknowledge the fact that unbelievers exist and (these days) have (almost) the same rights as they do. Loss of privilege is such horrible, horrible oppression.
Or, to be fair, in some case from shit that others do in their name.
Poor believers, being forced to acknowledge the fact that unbelievers exist and (these days) have (almost) the same rights as they do. Loss of privilege is such horrible, horrible oppression.
A business that actually uses this chance to discriminate is likely one that wouldn't last. Who really thinks it's good business practice to discriminate against race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc in 2014? The wording the Arizona law is just that broad. It might be a form of social evolution at work; let them try and shake our heads and remind them of our warnings as they close the doors for last time.
Ersi , i thought you understand Buddhism well .
" in Buddhism , there is no ~ i ~ "
Om nom nom nom ....
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi57.tinypic.com%2Fayt4s4.jpg&hash=5ce2196ba2e667b53f8263dfcf347604" rel="cached" data-hash="5ce2196ba2e667b53f8263dfcf347604" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i57.tinypic.com/ayt4s4.jpg)
Loss of privilege is such horrible, horrible oppression.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwByeqi5hhm84F9gBdTdbNaJOqqhq-I5Q07J1HQtVeD3wpBumdrA)
I hope not. He was known for having a life of vice before entering monastery... (therefore the importance of the questions he got an answer, such has why not doing something if it gives us pleasure... )
I wonder, to what extent could people without such life experiences understand their acquired wisdom without having gone through something similar themselves?
How can an atheist speak about God? Ohh but they speak a lot...
Now, this doesn't mean at all that philosophy is an esoteric closed system reserved to some select few. Everybody has intellect, so everybody can do philosophy.
In proportion to their intellects.
Belief isn't methodical that's only the guise portrayed. True of most great philosophers and scientists is that their beliefs have often led them down roads not openly covered with their other materials in history books.
True, there are good reasons to avoid being ensnared by unmethodical philosophers, even those who are considered great but who cunningly veil their true motives. You are making a good case for being cautious. Now, how about making a case for that you are not one of those whom I should avoid?
These higher faculties would not exist without the lower ones. They build on them, reuse them, remix them, and are more than the sum of their parts. From my perspective, your interpretation of my words is similar to saying a plane can't fly. A wing can't fly; a body can't fly. How then could a plane fly? I'm not saying a plane can't fly. I'm saying a plane can't fly without wings. There is no consciousness, no self, without feelings.
Unsurprisingly, I disagree in important ways. Your description looks plausible on the surface, but when it gets to the very foundations of the issue, I disagree. And I happen to be a principled man when it comes to the basics.
COMPOSITES VERSUS COMPONENTS
It's plausible to assume that objects consist of parts. It's readily observable in nature that bits of stuff get together and the new configuration of matter is or becomes a new thing. Materialist version of the theory of evolution is much inspired by this observation. I can easily see why people think it's a valuable observation and devise corollaries from this that they tend to take for granted, so I don't argue with this portion. At least not now.
THE PROBLEM OF PRIMACY
My disagreement concerns some subtleties implicit in the view. I do not take it for granted that, given that parts are the primary elements, then their configurations are somehow qualitatively new things. To me it appears that, whether separated in different places or piled up together, parts are just that - parts. And any configuration of them adds no new quality.
Wings don't fly. Birds do. Two wings (and skin and legs and guts and whatever) in whatever configuration will not magically form a bird. Materially it may appear like this, but, in actual observable fact, adding one wing to another is insufficient to either create a bird or to explain it exhaustively. Two wings may be important parts in making up a bird, but they are *not sufficient*. You may put two wings together any way you like, they won't become alive and fly. But actual birds, as distinguished from mere two wings or a stuffed bird, are alive and fly. Even airplanes don't fly by merely adding two iron wings together. They need a pilot - a distinct quality in addition to material parts of the airplane.
It follows that there's no reason to believe that material parts are somehow more fundamental or more primary than the object or entity or structure that it appears to form. My hypothesis at this point is that components and the apparent entities formed by them are equivalent, identical. A composite thing can be defined either as the thing itself - distinguished from other things -, or as an enumeration of its components. These are very different levels of description, different points of view, but, as I showed, there is no logical reason to prefer one to another. For the purposes of description or definition, neither of these views has primacy over the other. Both are of equal priority.
EMERGENTISM
The view that supposes that the material alone is sufficient and, in a "certain" configuration gives rise to a qualitatively new kind of existence or being, is called emergentism. It's a nascent hip theory in philosophy that has quickly gained considerable ground. The supposition that, e.g. two wings can come together and form a bird (don't take the example too literally, but this is indeed the basic idea) rests on the doctrine of "emergent properties". The tenets of the doctrine are that (a) everything is latent in matter and (b) some types of configuration of matter kindle the latent aspects into manifestation, as in evolution.
The theory has some immediate consequences and hidden presuppositions that I cannot stomach. First, it's not really ontologically monistic. There appear to be at least two things, not one. On one side there's matter wherein everything is latent, on the other there's configurations of matter where emergent properties manifest - which is the universe we know. Why and how does the matter change configuration? Did this movement begin at some point or is it eternal? If it began at some point, then there was another thing that caused it. If it's forever in movement, then there are again really two things - matter plus its movement or change. And maybe matter is not really the proper term for such substance. Why not "primordial ocean", "cosmic womb" or some such?
THE PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS
There's also the tougher problem - consciousness. Consciousness itself has several degrees. First, disregarding the problems of movement and configuration, there's contact of matter with matter. Whether there's any kind of sensation in mere contact of an insentient object with another, emergentism cannot say. Probably there isn't. The second degree is contact resulting in sensation. At this stage, the object should already have a certain kind of configuration so as to have acquired a primitive level of sentience. The third degree is contact with sensation which produces a reaction. The fourth degree is the critter's awareness of the reaction. The fifth is the critter's ability to change its own reaction (choice or will whether to react at contact or not). The sixth is the critter's ability to anticipate the contact and pre-empt reaction, either to accept the contact or avoid it. The seventh is the critter's ability to contemplate the purpose of all such experience, what the contact means, what more kind of experiences there could be beyond the ones already acquired, if all these experiences ultimately lead anywhere, etc.
Each degree looks a fairly sharp jump from one to another. It cannot be described as smooth transition through all levels. Emergentism would say that consciousness *acquires* self-sufficiency in stages as one single continuous process, but any meaningful description of the actual process clearly implies that such self-sufficient quality is there all along, sharply distinct from matter (i.e. Cartesian dualism explains the degrees of consciousness better than emergentism does). And, the way sentient beings appear in nature, their species are quite distinct. They are not an untaxonomisable continuum.
The problem of consciousness presents two further questions to emergentism: 1. Why all this? Why doesn't it remain at the contact level? Why doesn't matter just collide with itself and be happy with that? Why does consciousness have to arise, accumulate, and epicycle around itself several turns? The best answer to this I have heard is "There is no why." Which is a non-answer of course.
2. What is the ontological status and spatiotemporal characteristic of consciousness? Everything is material and located in spacetime, right? If so, then, given the fact that we humans are capable of contemplating the universe in its totality - even more, many of us are perfectly comfy with the concept of infinity, limitless existence - it's a serious question how such minds of infinite potential ontologically fit into limited bodies. Also, given that we have the capacity to think of ourselves as separate from our own bodies, we are able to pose the question: What if we are more than merely our body? What if we are completely other than the body? Emergentism has no answer here beside something like "You simply are your body, mind is brain, and that's it. Don't ask silly questions!" or "Who knows." So, this problem is a dead end for emergentism. I personally don't accept a limit to my quest for truth when I feel I can do better. I don't accept the dogmatic assertion that there's a limit to my understanding, when I clearly know by introspection that I am nowhere near my personal limit and can go further.
SCIENTIFIC INADEQUACY OF EMERGENTISM
The rule that "certain" configurations account for emergent properties - which logically means that other configurations don't account for the same properties - is broken at both ends. First, matter itself does not decide which properties to manifest. Matter doesn't consciously move towards "certain" configurations. It can't move consciously because consciousness is not manifest yet. From this point of view, all emergence is random, chaotic, and its dynamics should be fluid without interruption. However, the manifest universe is stunningly intelligible and ordered - as a minimum, clearly differentiated so as to enable meaningful observation. The bulk of observable and detectable objects appear insentient, yet they all demonstrate ordered behaviour, such as persistence, regularity, and causality. Objects, beings, and phenomena have individual characteristics by which an outside observer can distinguish and identify each and every object, and shared characteristics by which to categorise all objects meaningfully. This is one problem - the overwhelming order and intelligibility for no inherent reason, if emergentism were true.
The other problem is that, if the properties emerged from matter due to "certain" configurations, then why are there shared properties across configurations, some conceivable properties even across the entire existence? For example, there are myriad of red things. If red is an emergent property, and properties emerge given "certain" configuration, then why is redness related to objects in such a loose way? It appears that all kinds of objects can be red - or not. There's nothing certain or predictable about configurations that appear red.
Moreover, how to account for some properties that appear to emerge and vanish abruptly in self-same configuration of matter? For example, immediately after "natural" death, the human body is materially indistinguishable from the body of a living human - except that it's dead. It's non-different from the live body, but it doesn't manifest consciousness anymore. Looks like "certain" configurations are not so certain after all. They are completely random. The allegedly emergent properties are undeniably there, sure enough, but there is no rule to their relation to any particular configurations of matter. In short, there is no rule of emergence. The doctrine of emergent properties has no value of predictability. Therefore it's an impractical doctrine, worthless to science and inapplicable for any rational purpose. At best it's an incomplete theory, but imho emergentism is so insufficient that it does not qualify as a scientific theory at all.
The same way, as a demonstration, please give an exposition of your own philosophy. Or tell more what you think philosophy should be. It's all about sharing and comparing.I noticed that you asked me about creation. I will answer in a few days. But right now, for a change, I seriously think it's your turn to build a thesis.
I don't have quite the same egocentric approach as some. As I said I've had enough of this and besides your post simply reinforced my remarks so more is not needed.
How is sharing egocentric? I can easily think of ways in which non-sharing is egocentric.
Anyway, when I promise something, I always do my best to follow through. Like it or not, but here are a few words on creation. In my response to Frenzie, I already made an intro, and here's the continuation.
ATOMISM
Above I disproved the assumption that smaller components of things are somehow more fundamental than things themselves. Is the wing of a bird more fundamental than the bird? Is your arm or leg or kidney more fundamental than yourself? If you insist on your own material constitution, you are the sum total of your cells, not this or that cell rather than some other cell.
The point: You are a composite entirety. You can be disassembled, but this disassemblage will be *less* than you rather than the exact same you.
Atomism (belief or theory that particles are foundational to everything else) is false. However, atomism is influential enough in people's thinking, even in the minds of average religious people, so there are peculiar concepts of God that atomist theists hold. Adherence to atomism and even to materialism (called physicalism these days) does not sharply distinguish an atheist from theist.
So, I hope it gets through that I have nothing to do with atomistic premises. Atoms may exist, if they be a useful consideration in some contexts, but, logically, the space between of equal importance in constituting reality. It's unscientific to ignore the space between atoms. Considering atoms and space, neither is more fundamental than the other. If you want to know the way I think about the universe, drop atomistic assumptions. This enables you to understand better what follows.
CONTINUUM THEORY
How to reconcile the fact that both atoms and space are equally important constituents of reality? The answer is in continuum theories. The ultimate reality does not reside in this or that particle or thing, but is spread out evenly everywhere.
One of the corollaries of the continuum theory is that objects, beings, and phenomena are not strictly limitable. The edges between any one thing and another are undefinable, strictly speaking. In fact, this tenet has been found true in modern science. Humans are composed of cells, but the cells are constantly being lost on the surface, while new ones spring forth from inside the organism, providing continuity to human body throughout its life cycle. Same with the so-called atoms themselves. Rather than thinking of them as tiny solids that you see in school physics classrooms, quantum physics describes them as specific mathematical values of energy - and only that, no solidity whatsoever.
In continuum theory, the universe does not consist of distinct objects or particles, but of general properties that the entities share, such as mass, volume or speed - everybody has these general properties. The distinctions are changing, sometimes fluidly with an apparent continuity (such as the sun moving across the sky), sometimes abruptly (such as death of an individual or quantum leap of the electron). The shared poperties - universals - matter more, because they are more stable. That which exists in a more stable way, *exists more* as it were, more than that which is more perishable, unstable and changing. Solidity doesn't matter when it goes away. Logically, stability matters, even if ephemeral in the physical or empirical sense.
FUNDAMENTALS OF THE UNIVERSE
Philosophically, continuum theory lays primacy to general properties and universals over particulars. In philosophical realism, universals are true, because they are indispensable to analysis. Logically, that which you can't deny exists.
In particularist observation there are cold and warm objects. Each object has its own temperature. In continuum theory, cold and warm are values on a universal scale called temperature. Rather than existing in particularised way apart in several bodies, temperature exists everywhere. It has different values in different places, but there's no place without temperature. Hence, temperature exists everywhere, and cold and warm are its relative manifestations.
By this analysis, it turns out that universals are true. Math is true. And when it's true, then it exists. That which can't be logically denied must exist. What other option is there? The other option is to deny one's own reasoning, to hide from the consequences of one's own thinking.
Cold and warm don't exist as distinct particulars, but as values in the unbroken continuum of temperature. The same way, objects and other entities, including conscious human beings, exist as Theseus' ships in the continuum of existence.
The fundamentals of the universe are the fundamentals of logic. Details may matter, but principles matter more. In terms of the physical universe, details correspond to particular events, objects or data, whereas principles correspond to laws of nature. Principles are not a denial of details, but explanation of them. Details are facts as they appear, but principles are facts as they really are, with explanation how and why the details appear as they do. Sometimes principles seemingly "explain away" things, but this only by means of pointing out irrelevancies according to logically necessary priorities. "Explaining away" is pointing out an irrelevancy in relation to a greater relevancy.
NATURE OF UNIVERSALS
How do universals exist? Where? In the above analysis, the problems with affirming particulars was pointed out: Principles and universals matter more than details and particulars. Another aspect of the same problem is the problem of multiplicity. When there are multiple things, multiple anything, the problems of precedence and of ultimate relevance arise. This problem also applies to multiple universals. Therefore, in the final analysis, there's just one universal - existence itself, Being Itself.
Let's consider again how temperature exists. It appears that there's cold in one place and warm in another, so there are as if multiple existences of warm and cold places, but in truth it's one universal - temperature - perceivable and measurable in different ways anywhere and everywhere. This kind of existent is called omnipresent. The same applies to other universals, such as mass, volume, speed, intensity, life, etc. It applies to all physical and conscious (abstract and moral) universals. They are all omnipresent. And there's no contradiction in that they are all omnipresent, because existence is ultimately just one continuum. Universals are conceptually distinct aspects of that single continuum.
NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE
The universe is a continuum of existence. Undeniably, we still normally perceive multiplicity. The multiplicity of physicality within the universe, such as objects, events, cause and effect, space and time, is due to the essential infinite richness of the single absolute existence. The apparent self-contradiction of universals, such as cold and warm, life and death, good and evil, is due to the perception of various degrees of intensity of the self-same continuum at different places and instances. We attribute too much value to our particularised experiences. This misattribution is due to lack of consideration of the absolute point of view - it's due to fluctuations and conceptuality in the mind. Conceptual distinctions in the mind are given different names - such as temperature, which is really one thing, is given contradictory names "cold" and "warm" - and this only reinforces the apparent multiplicity of the external universe. Such multiplicity persists as long as the final analysis towards the ultimate absolute universal has not been completed by oneself.
CREATION
The problem of creation is the problem of beginning. It's a logical problem, a matter of point of view. Considering logical absolute timescale, it's a matter of point of view what one considers the beginning. There is a concurrent logical problem: Beginning of what? If we want to be logical, we want to avoid the problem of infinite regress.
Indubitably, human beings have minds more comfortable with multiplicity than with unity, even though many have a rational and spiritual tendency towards unity. To remain intelligible to human minds, a multiplicity of some kind or another must necessarily be posited. Let's take the multiplicity of points of view. There's the point of view of (1) infinity and of (2) temporality, of time.
Infinity is the ultimate absolute existence where there's logically no flux, no time, no space. Or, if you insist there is time, it's omnidirectional rather than unidirectional. There's no logical limit to infinity, there's no way to compel or to force the absolute in any way whatsoever. This is God's point of view.
Whereas temporality is the point of view that time moves irreversibly and unstoppably in one direction. It's the human point of view. Given the network of sense-perceptions where we are entangled, the experience of differentiated multiplicity that appears to exist around us, the logical analysis that I performed above towards universality is the account of evolution of the universe in reverse order. It's roughly the same evolution as Darwinian evolution, only I don't overemphasise our biological or material history. Rather, I give reasonable proportionate status to mind and consciousness.
From the human point of view, because our collective experience indicates unidirectional temporality, creation must have occurred, and, because our analysis is gradual, it necessarily appears like evolution to us. For rank-and-file theists, God must have done it in some way, because it could not have begun on its own. But for atheists almost anything goes: It began in whatever way - except by God. Whereas, from God's point of view, there's no unidirectional temporality.
Naturally, I'm not the first one to think of it this way. For example St. Augustine writes roughly the same thing (just to give a familiar name). I won't get deep into the implications of this point of view now. I'm seriously out of space already. (There's limit of space here - 20,000 chars per post.)
Jesus, you resurrected by the third day, Ersi... :)
Respecting the Continuum theory, let me suggest you the theory of Fields, it seems to be what really explains a continuum between the macro scale and the quantic scale. Very interesting.
I don't know the quality of published material about it, what I know about comes from conversations with a physician friend that defends that all physics is philosophy.
There's hope in physics, so it seems...
A composite thing can be defined either as the thing itself - distinguished from other things -, or as an enumeration of its components.
Not the latter -- that goes to the service data list "specifications"! :P
I suppose I could find more to disagree with, but you know what? I'm not paid to read up your dissertations here.
Bel, I love you!;) Laconic, beautiful, and amazing.
Amazing literally -- your friend is right. It is the picture of the Universe, and he happened to spot a glimpse of it: all the existing is merged into a brilliant. THE Brilliant. And all "things", knowledges, etc., are Its planes, ribs, etc., etc., etc...
CREATIONThe problem of creation is the problem of beginning. It's a logical problem, a matter of point of view. Considering logical absolute timescale, it's a matter of point of view what one considers the beginning. There is a concurrent logical problem: Beginning of what? If we want to be logical, we want to avoid the problem of infinite regress.Indubitably, human beings have minds more comfortable with multiplicity than with unity, even though many have a rational and spiritual tendency towards unity. To remain intelligible to human minds, a multiplicity of some kind or another must necessarily be posited. Let's take the multiplicity of points of view. There's the point of view of (1) infinity and of (2) temporality, of time.
Beginning is the problem of uniqueness. It doesn't depends on what is going to happen, what is going to happen depends on the beginning. So, infinity and temporality of time are irrelevant. The beginning is all about uniqueness.
Consequences are irrelevant because predictable. That's the big question, a moment of impredictability - the beginning, versus an infinity of prediction.
Jesus, you resurrected by the third day, Ersi... :)
Admittedly, I am not Jesus. I'm nobody's guru. Josh is the Guru. (This is him, I suppose.) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2CIiES_xxk)
Admittedly, I am not Jesus.
Did your psychiatrist convince you of this? You weren't a party in the below study, were you?
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nybooks.com%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2Fproductimage-picture-the-three-christs-of-ypsilanti-138.jpg&hash=3d28be2dd2f12d23ce6074445cb6c2b7" rel="cached" data-hash="3d28be2dd2f12d23ce6074445cb6c2b7" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.nybooks.com/media/images/productimage-picture-the-three-christs-of-ypsilanti-138.jpg)
On July 1, 1959, at Ypsilanti State Hospital in Michigan, the social psychologist Milton Rokeach brought together three paranoid schizophrenics: Clyde Benson, an elderly farmer and alcoholic; Joseph Cassel, a failed writer who was institutionalized after increasingly violent behavior toward his family; and Leon Gabor, a college dropout and veteran of World War II.
The men had one thing in common: each believed himself to be Jesus Christ.
Atomism (belief or theory that particles are foundational to everything else) is false. However, atomism is influential enough in people's thinking, even in the minds of average religious people, so there are peculiar concepts of God that atomist theists hold. Adherence to atomism and even to materialism (called physicalism these days) does not sharply distinguish an atheist from theist.
So, I hope it gets through that I have nothing to do with atomistic premises. Atoms may exist, if they be a useful consideration in some contexts, but, logically, the space between of equal importance in constituting reality. It's unscientific to ignore the space between atoms. Considering atoms and space, neither is more fundamental than the other. If you want to know the way I think about the universe, drop atomistic assumptions. This enables you to understand better what follows.
You say materialism is called physicalism these days, but the empty space, as you put it, is why I don't typically use the phrase materialism—precisely because it might promote the false impression that it's only about matter and not about empty space. And it's not just the empty space between atoms. Most of the universe is empty space even without there being more empty space in us than not.
NB This doesn't affect any part of your argument. Thank you for sharing it.
Now, how about making a case for that you are not one of those whom I should avoid?
I'd never presume to, sir. If one does, you should.
There's a lot to take in form your thesis, and plenty of reasoned arguments. But it's filled with deductive conclusions drawn from assumptions. This stood out first thing:
The point: You are a composite entirety. You can be disassembled, but this disassemblage will be *less* than you rather than the exact same you.
This being The Point, offhand may seem profound, but really has no meaning. Sure you went on to deduce how natural occurrence, from the view you want to discredit, seems unlikely. But I can't put my finger on the part that supports this statement with something that isn't pulled from thin air.
For you to claim logic as a foundation I think you would at least have to consider that fair. Therefore any conclusions drawn from the perceived short comings of the opposition are variable you can't build off of. Speculating one idea wrong isn't necessarily validating any one other side. Don't get me wrong science falls short of explanations too and you have points of debate, worth due consideration. Logic is a philosophical concept. If it can be purely applied is arguable in and of itself.
You say materialism is called physicalism these days, but the empty space, as you put it, is why I don't typically use the phrase materialism—precisely because it might promote the false impression that it's only about matter and not about empty space. And it's not just the empty space between atoms. Most of the universe is empty space even without there being more empty space in us than not.
I'm not sure what kind of tension or problems you see with the word 'materialism'. I personally don't. What I have seen from philosophical discussions, atheists want some other word to replace materialism due to moral implications - *moral* materialist is a worshipper of Mammon, but this is not how the word is used in philosophy. If religious fanatics have insulted ontological materialists in Western Europe and America by making this connection (I don't know if they have, but it's likely), then I understand. I personally don't confuse ontological and moral materialism.
I'm okay with the term physicalism pro ontological materialism. Mind you, materialism - the root word 'matter' - does not necessarily mean particled matter, but may also include the space in between, if one so wishes. Sophisticated materialists (physicalists) often believed there was something more to matter than mere atoms, most readily called energy. Therefore my distinct discussion about atomism. Atomistic or not, emergentism is materialism, physicalism. And Jehovah's Witnesses' belief that the human being dies when the body dies (with the consciousness of the individual gone into oblivion, except that only "God remembers him") is sheer materialism, physicalism - they have no meaningful concept of the soul. The soul equates the body for them. Sheer materialism as I said.
I'm not okay with the word naturalism pro ontological materialism. This word implies as if other beliefs were unnatural and that materialism were natural, even though materialism disregards pretty much everything about the nature of consciousness. They always disregard the observer, the philosophical subject side, the factually necessary creator of experiments in science. They struggle with consciousness and, so it seems, think that consciousness is unnatural. Sorry, but consciousness is as natural as anything else - it's not going anywhere.
The point: You are a composite entirety. You can be disassembled, but this disassemblage will be *less* than you rather than the exact same you.
This being The Point, offhand may seem profound, but really has no meaning. Sure you went on to deduce how natural occurrence, from the view you want to discredit, seems unlikely. But I can't put my finger on the part that supports this statement with something that isn't pulled from thin air.
Not only did you miss the part where I distinctly argued for this thesis (to help you out, it was the example of airplane - if airplanes are meant to fly too, then the airplane is not just the assemblage of its parts - the pilot is another necessary element that goes into making up the airplane as it really is), but you also missed an earlier broader point: It was never the point to convince anyone of anything. I'm only showing the way I reason.
This also applies in the opposite direction. When you say you can't put your finger on something - and this is your whole issue with my thesis - then you are only showing the way you reason. And, sure enough, you're not being convincing.
I'm not okay with the word naturalism pro ontological materialism. This word implies as if other beliefs were unnatural and that materialism were natural, even though materialism disregards pretty much everything about the nature of consciousness. They always disregard the observer, the philosophical subject side, the factually necessary creator of experiments in science. They struggle with consciousness and, so it seems, think that consciousness is unnatural. Sorry, but consciousness is as natural as anything else - it's not going anywhere.
There's something it's like to be you or me, and you're saying this quality, this personal experience, can't be explained in purely physical terms. Is that correct?
Because the world has so many awesome sauces, I'd like to expand on the concept of Awesomesauce and move it out of the domain of religion.
3 gallons water
3 cups white sugar
1 (16 ounce) can tomato paste (such as Contadina®)
1 cup dried basil
1 cup dried minced onion
1/4 cup dried oregano
1/4 cup granulated garlic
1/4 cup salt
1 1/2 teaspoons cayenne pepper
1 pork neck
Stir water, sugar, tomato paste, basil, minced onion, oregano, granulated garlic, salt, cayenne pepper, and pork neck together in a large pot.
Bring the mixture to a simmer and cook until thickened to desired consistency, about 30 minutes.
Remove pork neck bones to serve.
Admittedly, that's far too much sauce for one person, so you might want to cut the recipe down to size.
Not only did you miss the part where I distinctly argued for this thesis (to help you out, it was the example of airplane - if airplanes are meant to fly too, then the airplane is not just the assemblage of its parts - the pilot is another necessary element that goes into making up the airplane as it really is)
Oh no, I caught it. And covered it.
that isn't pulled from thin air.
Innuendo. Fun stuff.
This also applies in the opposite direction.
You don't say? Actually came back around quicker than expected. You see, I was questioning your methods (you may of missed it)... I've no doubt you believe what you say but how logical is it to be so attached to assumptions? Not something you are willing to accept, tho. So clearly the more logical position.
When you say you can't put your finger on something - and this is your whole issue with my thesis - then you are only showing the way you reason. And, sure enough, you're not being convincing.
You know it's a common tactic for those bent on explaining the supernatural to try and make their point out of confusion. I reason that's it, you believe I'm confused? Maybe you wanna believe I can't grasp what you've said? Nevertheless, I never said that would be my only issue with your thesis. More like a reoccurring one. I wasn't willing nor would I waste time convincing anyone. But if you got that wrong... What else?
There's something it's like to be you or me, and you're saying this quality, this personal experience, can't be explained in purely physical terms. Is that correct?
This is how Nagel put it. The way I put it:
- For every object there's the subject. If not, there's no relevant object to discuss.
- The subject is consciousness in the role of observer. There's no logical necessity to predicate anything physical about the subject. All physicality is on the object side.
- The conscious apprehends the physical (material). Laws of thought trump sense-data. Never the other way round.
Principles sort out details. So-called facts without organisation and context are meaningless. If we don't agree on this, then in philosophical terms we don't agree on anything. The philosophical divide between us is indeed tremendous, if you still have questions about these things.
Note that I have not read Nagel. I am not a convert from materialism by any sort of philosophical argument. Ever since I remember myself (which is at very early age) I have found philosophical materialism dubious, and soon enough untenable and indefensible. For some time I guess I have had a subconscious struggle with various shapes and shades of dualism, until figuring out how spiritual monism works.
Here's something I have read fairly recently http://consc.net/papers/nature.html Note the arguments against materialism from section 3 to the end of the paper. I'd say that if you don't have a response to every problem with materialism pointed out there, then you don't really know what materialism entails and you have not made a conscious choice when siding with materialism. If you don't understand those arguments (admittedly technical talk there) or you don't think they matter, then you are not philosophical. And it's okay. People don't have to be philosophically informed. Most people are not, and they live their lives just fine.
Here's something I have read fairly recently http://consc.net/papers/nature.html (http://consc.net/papers/nature.html)
Coincidentally, the other day I read http://consc.net/notes/lloyd-comments.html
Here's something I have read fairly recently http://consc.net/papers/nature.html (http://consc.net/papers/nature.html)
Coincidentally, the other day I read http://consc.net/notes/lloyd-comments.html
And do you agree with the conclusion? "...what we will be left with is irreducibility and perhaps even a kind of dualism, rather than the kind of reductive explanation that Lloyd is searching for." Or do you have a refutation for it?
He doesn't give me any grounds for contemplating experience or consciousness as something in principle irreducible. Besides, his views seem to lack explanatory power. He says some parts of consciousness are an easy problem, and some other part a hard one. I posit that once you remove (solve) the "easy" problems, you probably won't have a "hard" one left. He doesn't seem overly concerned with neuroscience. We know to a fair extent that interference with this or that (neuro)biological process causes such or so reaction in the realm of consciousness, or its (temporary) termination. Above all, the vast majority of what happens in the brain is not conscious at all, no matter what "conscious" might mean. When he says that "we must either revise our conception of consciousness or […]" my thoughts are that he probably should. See e.g. here (http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/ns02.htm) for something that does take neuroscience into account.
I am not a convert from materialism by any sort of philosophical argument. Ever since I remember myself (which is at very early age) I have found philosophical materialism dubious, and soon enough untenable and indefensible.
Incidentally, Estonia is truly a foreign country.
Ever since I remember myself (which is at very early age) I have found philosophical materialism dubious, and soon enough untenable and indefensible. For some time I guess I have had a subconscious struggle with various shapes and shades of dualism, until figuring out how spiritual monism works.
Pretty much confirms what I thought.
He doesn't give me any grounds for contemplating experience or consciousness as something in principle irreducible. Besides, his views seem to lack explanatory power. He says some parts of consciousness are an easy problem, and some other part a hard one. I posit that once you remove (solve) the "easy" problems, you probably won't have a "hard" one left.
There are two distinct problems of consciousness: the easy one and the hard one. The easy one is to do with perceived/measurable reactions and/or ability to report them. It's like Pavlov's dog salivating or intensity of brainwaves when a person dreams versus sleeps non-dreaming. The easy one is easy because it looks straightforward enough to probably have neurophysiological linear causal explanation.
The hard problem is hard because there's no way it could have a linear causal explanation in terms of neurophysiology - and everybody recognises this. Everybody. Except that those entrenched in the materialist paradigm say "We don't know everything yet (so let's postpone our attempts to explain this away a little bit longer)" which is the wrong answer in philosophy. "Don't know" is not an answer.
Note, I find Nagel's peculiar phrasing of the problem as "there is something it is like to be that" almost circumventive, and it's unfortunate that Chalmers quotes Nagel when talking about it. So I understand if the full force of the problem is not reaching you and you complain that Chalmers seems to lack explanatory power. Still, this does not mean that the problem is not there. I just rephrased it for you so you get it better. You welcome.
I personally am more radical than Chalmers. I disagree that even the easy problem is easy. To me, there are no necessarily linear causal relations between perception/stimuli and reaction. Reactions may be habitual, thus seemingly linear in relation to stimuli, but all habits can be trained away, to the level of reflexes and even to the level of instincts. Basic drives, such as sex instinct and survival instinct, can be trained away - and it doesn't necessarily happen by means of changing one's neurophysiology - can happen that way too, but not necessarily. It can happen by means of one momentous thought. One moment you are afraid of death, at another you are not, no changes in internal or external situation needed. Definitely no change in neurophysiology.
In terms of what *you* want to believe, non-linear reactions stemming from thought-reflection, choice, and will should not be there in the first place. The hard problem will not go away by means of explaining the easy problem. The hard problem is a distinct problem.
I have had my fill of reductionist accounts. Reductionism is logically flawed. Attempts to reduce consciousness to neurophysiology are subject to the same objections I brought up when talking about emergentism and atomism. The analogies can easily be adjusted to suit neurophysiology. For example, let's say you see a vicious dog and you get scared. Adrenalin flows with fear. Do you get scared because adrenalin (or whatever the exact hormon is) flows or does adrenalin flow because you get scared? In reductionist account, it must be the adrenalin causing fear. However, a person with self-control won't have fear. Such person may not be able to control the flow of adrenalin directly, but adrenalin won't have the same effect any more. As per reductionist account, this should not be possible! The relationship between fear and adrenalin should be straightforward and linear as per reductionist account. On the other hand, in dualist account it makes perfect sense: Of course consciousness has primacy and controls physiology in all ways, and does so imperfectly only where will, attention, and wisdom are lacking. Give it some more conscious effort and the lacking areas will be fixed too. And sometimes, as anyone of us knows, a momentous thought can cause wondrous instant changes in consciousness - in consciousness first, and physiology may or may not follow, depending on the continuity of the effort, or on remembrance of the momentous experience. Conclusion: The causality works the other way round than materialism assumes, and is non-linear to boot.
These are not new things. I'm saying nothing new. Nothing should be surprising. What is surprising is that reductionists have no response, but still manage to remain reductionists. The paradigmatic bubble is hard to break. This too is self-explanatory from the dualist point of view. And I'm not even a dualist.
In terms of what *you* want to believe, non-linear reactions stemming from thought-reflection, choice, and will should not be there in the first place. The hard problem will not go away by means of explaining the easy problem. The hard problem is a distinct problem.
What I conclude based on the facts available to me is not what I want to believe, except in the sense that I don't want to believe things that disregard the evidence.
The hard problem is hard because there's no way it could have a linear causal explanation in terms of neurophysiology - and everybody recognises this. Everybody. Except that those entrenched in the materialist paradigm say "We don't know everything yet (so let's postpone our attempts to explain this away a little bit longer)" which is the wrong answer in philosophy. "Don't know" is not an answer.
Yet "ma, look what I can squeeze into the gap seemingly without any hugely glaring logical contradictions" is an answer in philosophy? Please.
Adrenalin flows with fear. Do you get scared because adrenalin (or whatever the exact hormon is) flows or does adrenalin flow because you get scared? In reductionist account, it must be the adrenalin causing fear. However, a person with self-control won't have fear. Such person may not be able to control the flow of adrenalin directly, but adrenalin won't have the same effect any more. As per reductionist account, this should not be possible!
As luck would have it, I found that Damasio wrote a summary (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Neural_basis_of_emotions) of what the "reductionist account" currently entails.
And sometimes, as anyone of us knows, a momentous thought can cause wondrous instant changes in consciousness - in consciousness first, and physiology may or may not follow, depending on the continuity of the effort, or on remembrance of the momentous experience. Conclusion: The causality works the other way round than materialism assumes, and is non-linear to boot.
Conclusion: your assumptions about what materialism "assumes" are absurd. You presuppose that consciousness is something that can't happen in a strictly physical universe, which may or may not be true depending on what you mean by consciousness, and then say that if you remove consciousness from the equation you can't influence your feelings. You've got this highly complex organ in your head and yet you assume that in a materialist account, if you give it a bit of cortisol and adrenaline, the only thing it can do is run away like the furnace attached to the thermostat. Nature's equivalent to the thermostat is a sea anemone or something simpler still, with only the most rudimentary nerve system that only provides direct sense to muscle input. We're a tad more complex.
Quote from: Frenzie on 2013-11-30, 07:58:52
I suppose we need one of these.
A problem? Don't we all have plenty already?
You can't have too much of a bad thing if you're an evil person.
A problem? Don't we all have plenty already?
You can't have too much of a bad thing if you're an evil person.
You mean problems for
other people. Of course :right:
As they say, religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. Funny how the guy who wrote that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Younger) was a contemporary to the people who invented Christianity. Coincidence? :left: :right:
Conclusion: your assumptions about what materialism "assumes" are absurd. You presuppose that consciousness is something that can't happen in a strictly physical universe, which may or may not be true depending on what you mean by consciousness, and then say that if you remove consciousness from the equation you can't influence your feelings.
I don't presuppose. I explain observations. You only confirm my assumptions about materialism when you say:
You've got this highly complex organ in your head and yet you assume that in a materialist account, if you give it a bit of cortisol and adrenaline, the only thing it can do is run away like the furnace attached to the thermostat.
So, in materialist account, the organ is "complex" and therefore, when you stimulate it with hormones, anything can happen this or that way, but the fact that anything can happen must not deter us from assuming that the causality is precisely from the hormones to the rest, not the other way, definitely not from non-physical towards physical, nevermind the actual observations.
In materialist account, everything that appears wrong with the experiment is explained by means of gaps: "We don't know everything yet. Please fund our studies better." In logic and philosophy there are no gaps. Lack of explanation is precisely that - lack of explanation. It's proof that something is wrong with the account itself and in a principled way. Materialism is full of such holes. The hard problem of consciousness is one of the better known ones. It would be nice if you had a direct response to the problem of consciousness the way I phrased it, or show how I failed to explain something, anything. Because, seriously, I will be happy with nothing less than a full and complete account. If my account has holes, you are doing me a service when you point them out.
I took a look behind your link and, as expected, it fails to explain anything. It gives the evolutionary explanation to emotions, and says about e.g. fear and disgust that they are protecting the integrity of the individual or of the organism. Which, of course, is true in about half of the cases, wrong in half of the cases, i.e totally unexplanatory. For example: How is your disgust of religion and fear of the concept of God protecting the integrity of your organism right now? Conclusion: Emotions have some behavioural context, sure enough, but beyond that there is no "neural basis" to them, and even the behavioural context is fluid enough so that any assumption that lays too much emphasis on it shoots itself in the foot. The behavioural context and the "neural basis" are very limited and very primitive explanations that leave most of reality unexplained.
Materialism always was materialism of the gaps, rush inductive generalisations on things that appear to be, forgetting that appearances may deceive. Induction is misleading. Russell knew it. You have to arrive at the right principle first to organise your facts, then we can begin to discuss the real thing.
So, in materialist account, the organ is "complex" and therefore, when you stimulate it with hormones, anything can happen this or that way, but the fact that anything can happen must not deter us from assuming that the causality is precisely from the hormones to the rest, not the other way
Indeed, that would be an absurd thing to say, ignorant at best. Lucky us that nobody says it, then.
Materialism always was materialism of the gaps, rush inductive generalisations on things that appear to be, forgetting that appearances may deceive.
Something of the gaps does not mean to say "behold, these are the gaps!" It means to say "look what I can squeeze into the gaps!" You keep talking as if my tentative conclusions and hypotheses were my starting point, which I find very odd. I find the fact that you consider that tentativeness a weakness even more odd. If you want to know for whether our lexical access functions primarily episodically or abstractly, you devise an experiment to find out what direction the evidence points at.
Edit: anyway, I'm going to stop posting here.
Philosophical problems aren't everything in life.
Edit: anyway, I'm going to stop posting here.
You start, you stop. :)
Philosophical problems aren't everything in life.
Hallelujah!
You start, you stop.
I could add an ominous
for now. [glow=red,2,300]MUHAHAHAHA![/glow]
You keep talking as if my tentative conclusions and hypotheses were my starting point, which I find very odd. I find the fact that you consider that tentativeness a weakness even more odd.
Yup, another fundamental difference. Seriously, it never got through that you were talking tentatively, as if showing a cautious interest in the matter to see if anything useful can be done with it. You never left that impression. Instead, an increasing amount of fixed presuppositions kept emerging that you never let go no matter how untenable and disproven.
Tentatively, all workable ideas should be welcome. At least this is how it works for me when I am in the tentative mode. But in this discussion I am quite sure it got through that I never talked tentatively. I was open about my premises all along and gave several full rounds of the way I reason. In this mode I am ready to be proven wrong. Flaws can be demonstrated. Incoherence can be revealed. Negative can be proven. In philosophy, you don't even need experiments for that. All it takes is thinking straight. Specifically, thinking straighter than me.
And let it be known that I am not quite happy with the change of the thread title either. With the old title, it was more about religion, about the quest, about defining principles and spiritual goals and practising the methods. This is what religiousness is - to me. With the new title it's like "throw anything into here and have fun".
---------------
Religion is not so much about proving others wrong. It's just that people who are too dismissive are worse than wrong, because they are missing the point. Properly, religion is giving goals to those who don't have it. When you can't find the meaning of life on your own, it's inevitable that you have to accept it from others because there has to be some meaning to keep you going. Very few people can define the meaning of life for themselves, and that's why big exoteric religions exist, to help them out.
Big religions are not just opium for the masses. They have cultural traditions and history that give societies, well, if not straightforward meaning, then at least structure. People need structure in their lives. This structure cannot be simply taken away. It is severely damaging to lose this structure, it's about as bad as losing a job. Actually even worse, because for many people religion is what keeps them going when they lose a job.
It was not my wish to end up proving stuff right and wrong. It's not so much about right or wrong as it is about giving things structure and meaning, so that when something is lost in life, the rest of the structure keeps you still up, psychologically. As long as the rest of it still stands, you can repair it. And if it's well built, you can keep building further on it, until the structure covers everything conceivable, thus becoming a theory of everything.
Now, you may think that it's science's or philosophy's job to provide theories. Unfortunately modern science of the materialist paradigm fails miserably. It's easily proven that materialism is mostly lacking and, when not lacking, wrong. I am still under the shock of what Frenzie made me read (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Neural_basis_of_emotions). The article says that emotions, such as fear and disgust are to protect the individual's or organism's integrity. What is this supposed to mean? On the surface, it means that fear and disgust are occasionally good for us. So, it looks like explaining something about life. What are those occasions when fear and disgust are good for us? It doesn't spell out any principles. Now the article doesn't look so explanatory any more. It looks insufficient, i.e. begins to fail. Then get this: "In the social emotion of contempt there is a rejection of certain behaviors or ideas rather than an expulsion of toxic substances or their tell-tale signs. Contempt can be seen as a biological metaphor for disgust. [...] The advantages of contempt are apparent: the rejection of behaviors deemed dangerous to individuals or groups, and the social isolation of those who produce such behaviors." What does this say? Contempt is occasionally good. But suppose we ask: If it's good, should we follow through with the impulse? Expel people who have contemptuous behaviour? How? On what occasions? Basically, the question is: Does *is* translate into *should*? Science doesn't say. At least this article doesn't - which is actually good because all attempts by scientists to translate *is* into *should* that I have seen have been a complete failure. Science has nothing interesting to say about how to live a human life.
Philosophy does a better job. Philosophy has a nice repertoir of moral theories and of principles to compare them. Choose your favourite and be happy. However, know that since there are logical principles that can provide comparative ranking order to any and all theories, there may always be a better theory. Also, philosophy in general does not emphasise spirituality specifically, so people with spiritual inclinations may find it lacking in the end.
Hence religion. Religion can handily do everything where science is lacking, to spell out morals and ultimate goals. It surely does when used this way, constructively - self-constructively most of all. And it readily lends itself be used this way whenever disgust, ridicule, double standards, and disingenuity are dropped in one's approach to religion.
These days, since religions are many and directly competiting with each other in the marketplace of ideas, religions also do the amazing job of philosophy, the job of proving each other's comparative betterness. Anyone can choose the religion that fits them best, either the one with most elaborate metaphysics and workable concept system, the one with most straightforward moral theory, most fascinating symbology or mythology, or with the prettiest rituals. Anything wrong with it?
Anything wrong with it?
Yes, you just said why - "Anyone can choose the religion that fits them best".
That's turning religion in just another form of consumerism.
Anything wrong with it?
Yes, you just said why - "Anyone can choose the religion that fits them best".
That's turning religion in just another form of consumerism.
Not quite so in this context. In the context I gave, I think it's comparable to eating. You have to eat to survive. If you don't eat, you will die. When you eat, it's better to eat food that is good for you.
Some things are bad for eating. They are not meant to be food. Some food is not necessarily bad, but may cause indigestion for some people, so they have to make some adjustment in diet. In young age, one type of food fits best, in old age, another type. Is this consumerism? I'd say it's common sense.
Anyway, how do you think religion is/should be individually acquired?
Anyway, how do you think religion is/should be individually acquired?
That's a good question.
I see two major lines.
Since religion has to be perennial, heritage.
Since religion must reflect the gift of reasoning, Catholicism.
But there's much more to say about your question. I need some time to structure a more complet answer in English.
Now I remembered that St. Paul also compared faith to eating. Great minds think alike :D
As babies, people should take milk, but when they grow in faith, they can take meat too. Surely you know the verse I am referring to, if you have read the Bible. Another writer, I think it was Thomas a Kempis, said that milk was answers to prayers and sweet encouragement from God, but those grown strong in faith are ready for the meat of sense of loss of God, hard temptation, etc. like Jesus on the cross or during 40 days in the desert.
So there, religion has different shapes and forms according to the person in question and the person's stage or level of being. Every big religion is multifaceted in this way, otherwise they would not be able to cover the whole population of societies and countries.
But my question was serious. I am interested in your view too. How should religion be individually acquired?
I'm not Belfrager, but I think by injection.
individually acquired?
Your insistence on "individually" raises complex problems since by religion we mean
organized religion.
As for organized religions, the individual is necessarily seen as part of a whole, a whole that includes his language, culture, nation, society, class and a particular (organized) religion. Basically the individual is born whit it as non material reference. Most of people follows this cultural matrix where they were born and raised.
When we refer to the relatively few people that, by many different reasons, goes for their own way in search of a religion or running away from all of them, I see no special reason, it can be just philosophical, it can be emotive, it can be a matter of inner faith, it can be just a trend that he sees people he admires to follow or an incapacity to understand basic concepts.
What I'm interested to is in stopping the false idea that all organized religions are equal and even less, with the same quality. Because there's quality in religion and it is possible to determine those who have more and those who have less, if any.
We can't compare as equal a religion with two thousand years of theological and philosophical work by the brightest minds with another that doesn't have any doctrinal structure but to parroting some text.
When we refer to the relatively few people that, by many different reasons, goes for their own way in search of a religion or running away from all of them, I see no special reason, it can be just philosophical, it can be emotive, it can be a matter of inner faith, it can be just a trend that he sees people he admires to follow or an incapacity to understand basic concepts.
Or the ones who marry into one, specifically Catholicism. They may turn out to be more rabid than those who were born into it. I don't understand it but have experienced it.
individually acquired?
Your insistence on "individually" raises complex problems since by religion we mean organized religion.
As for organized religions, the individual is necessarily seen as part of a whole, a whole that includes his language, culture, nation, society, class and a particular (organized) religion. Basically the individual is born whit it as non material reference. Most of people follows this cultural matrix where they were born and raised.
What do you make of Jesus' words "You are not of this world?" If they are not applicable to this context, then where?
When we refer to the relatively few people that, by many different reasons, goes for their own way in search of a religion or running away from all of them, I see no special reason, it can be just philosophical, it can be emotive, it can be a matter of inner faith, it can be just a trend that he sees people he admires to follow or an incapacity to understand basic concepts.
I grew up in an atheist culture, nation, society. Should I follow the cultural matrix and stay as such? No verification of things by myself? No self-determination? And I disagree that this situation is some occasional anomaly. Most people I know are intellectually and spiritually displaced. They are seekers, in process of a quest because the current prevalent culture fails to provide support and structure to their lives. Where I live, this is so with the majority of people, not some negligible minority.
What I'm interested to is in stopping the false idea that all organized religions are equal and even less, with the same quality. Because there's quality in religion and it is possible to determine those who have more and those who have less, if any.
If your premise is that the majority go with the prevalent culture - and should - and the prevalent culture entails an organised religion, then the prevalent organised religion is, in this sense, the best quality that the people can have. The prevalent religion, depending on the place, may be Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Islam, Voodoo, whatever. It evidently undermines social stability and thus worsens the quality of life for individuals, if they end up with a different religion than the prevalent one. On the other hand, it's also not so good to have a religion imposed on you instead of being given the opportunity to be able to choose, or, even better, to adapt and grow into the religion.
So, of course religions are not equal, but the inequality has many dimensions. E.g. Islam is not good *here,* but it's okay *there.* Christianity may be "true" here but the same "truth" appears totally different in e.g. South America. And the individual dimension makes it even more complicated. Everyone of us has a rebellious stage when growing up. For some it lasts longer, and it includes rebellion against the parents' religion/ideology. In my case, it meant thorough questioning of materialism and atheism. If the prevalent religion cannot meaningfully accommodate such questioning, which is part of natural human growth, then is the religion itself mature enough?
We can't compare as equal a religion with two thousand years of theological and philosophical work by the brightest minds with another that doesn't have any doctrinal structure but to parroting some text.
I'm sure you admit that many Christians are hardly beyond parroting. And parroting is actually a respectable achievement all by itself, because many have not even read the Bible so as to have some material to parrot. Of course it's better to speak of one's own genuine conviction, but as far as I know, genuine conviction, true first-hand religious experience is given to precious few.
Even atheists here lack positive conviction and comprehension of their own world view. Parroting some talking points (such as teapot in the sky or tyrannical skydaddy) or authorities (Harris, Dawkins) is hopefully a good start that may lead to deeper knowledge eventually.
What do you make of Jesus' words "You are not of this world?" If they are not applicable to this context, then where?
We are making different levels of approaches and that can't be done simultaneously. Course Jesus Christ's words refers to this material world and therefore show people the way to the non material, spiritual world. But there's no organized religion at such a world, isn't it?
I grew up in an atheist culture, nation, society. Should I follow the cultural matrix and stay as such? No verification of things by myself? No self-determination? And I disagree that this situation is some occasional anomaly. Most people I know are intellectually and spiritually displaced. They are seekers, in process of a quest because the current prevalent culture fails to provide support and structure to their lives. Where I live, this is so with the majority of people, not some negligible minority.
Notice that I haven't said that the search for an individual path or truth or whatever was wrong, I just said that is not what most people do and it is not compatible with organized religions. Such decisions imminently belongs to the individual sphere of action and conscience not to the collective sphere.
So, of course religions are not equal, but the inequality has many dimensions. E.g. Islam is not good *here,* but it's okay *there.* Christianity may be "true" here but the same "truth" appears totally different in e.g. South America.
And how does an organized, hierarchically structured religion as Catholicism deals with the necessity of being right regardless different cultures and places? By focusing into the adaptation to those particularities of the pureness of it's doctrinal message. It's by adopting to the reality of each population and culture and more, of each individual (to answer to he other point you make about personal evolution/age) that a religion shows how well it's message can be Universal.
And a religion to be taken seriously and just not a sect, it has to be Universal.
Parroting some talking points (such as teapot in the sky or tyrannical skydaddy) or authorities (Harris, Dawkins) is hopefully a good start that may lead to deeper knowledge eventually.
Some things can't be said but to the right audiences... :)
You say that and you'll be immediately accused of wanting to provide opium to the masses...
The problem a religion has to deal with is that for the majority of people, parroting is the best they can do.
Or the ones who marry into one, specifically Catholicism. They may turn out to be more rabid than those who were born into it.
What do you mean with "marry" into a religion? Marrying with someone of a certain religion?
Ahh, I see, those who move to or adopt a new religion. Yes, it's like that people that stops smoking they turn impossible to hear.
What do you make of Jesus' words "You are not of this world?" If they are not applicable to this context, then where?
We are making different levels of approaches and that can't be done simultaneously. Course Jesus Christ's words refers to this material world and therefore show people the way to the non material, spiritual world. But there's no organized religion at such a world, isn't it?
No organised religion in the spiritual world? So, Jesus was inviting people away from the variegated religions of this world to the spiritual world where the distinctions cease? (This happens to be exactly how I interpret these words.)
Notice that I haven't said that the search for an individual path or truth or whatever was wrong, I just said that is not what most people do and it is not compatible with organized religions. Such decisions imminently belongs to the individual sphere of action and conscience not to the collective sphere.
You didn't say that the individual path was wrong but you also didn't say how the individual path may relate to the organised religions, if they have any connection at all. To me, the individual is naturally informed by organised religions around him. The individual path consists mostly in the individual's attempts to adapt and accommodate one or some of the organised religions around.
The individual path is not really an invention or innovation, personal making up of stuff. It's a personal understanding and expression of things that are historically and culturally there and fit the situation. When it works for the spiritual purpose (i.e. enables approaching the spiritual world), it's all that matters.
And how does an organized, hierarchically structured religion as Catholicism deals with the necessity of being right regardless different cultures and places? By focusing into the adaptation to those particularities of the pureness of it's doctrinal message. It's by adopting to the reality of each population and culture and more, of each individual (to answer to he other point you make about personal evolution/age) that a religion shows how well it's message can be Universal.
And a religion to be taken seriously and just not a sect, it has to be Universal.
The name Catholicism is appropriate, at least, and surely looks adaptable and accommodating. But remembering the words "You are not of this world" it doesn't seem that in the end the path should be about any particular religion shaped in any particular way or having as universal adaptability as possible. It's not about religion, but about religion understood and applied rightly. It's about the essence of religion.
No organised religion in the spiritual world? So, Jesus was inviting people away from the variegated religions of this world to the spiritual world where the distinctions cease? (This happens to be exactly how I interpret these words.)
Organized religion is organized by men. Jesus Christ never made a Church, he said to Peter go and make my Church. God doesn't organize religions, men does. God doesn't impose you to pray this way or that way or even pray at all, organized religions imposes it.
But remembering the words "You are not of this world" it doesn't seem that in the end the path should be about any particular religion shaped in any particular way or having as universal adaptability as possible.
Well... Jesus Christ told to Peter to make His Church, he didn't said to the Buddha, I like your Church... Peter made Christianity and the Pope is his direct successor.
Organized religions have certain limits to the amount of questioning. :)
As for my knowledge, only Catholicism admits a dualism between the individual path by itself and, at the same time, the total inclusion of the individual into the Church's organized structure. There's space for it and in fact most of it's theology is the result of just that.
Compare the former Pope and this new one and you have the most perfect example of two different personal quests tied by the devotion to the same doctrine, the Church and our Saints.
That's the deep meaning of "human dignity", so much defended by the Catholic Church against all odds and respecting many other conceptions of dignity, as poverty, forgiveness, etc. Also a personal quest is a matter of dignity.
Well oddly Belfrager - and probably for you (!), I can go a goodly bit along with that except that I of course from my background challenge matters pertaining to the Roman Catholic Church. Generally well opinionated with that addendum!
Well oddly Belfrager - and probably for you (!), I can go a goodly bit along with that except that I of course from my background challenge matters pertaining to the Roman Catholic Church. Generally well opinionated with that addendum!
We are what we are plus our circumstances. Ortega Y Gasset.
Sometimes that makes easier to agree with enemies than to agree with friends...
Well... Jesus Christ told to Peter to make His Church, he didn't said to the Buddha, I like your Church... Peter made Christianity and the Pope is his direct successor.
Organized religions have certain limits to the amount of questioning. :)
I'm tempted to say that this largely affirms my point about the distinction between worldly religion and the goal of religion (the goal being not worldly), but this would diminish too much the amazing insight you give to me. I did not suspect that there was such a clear recognition between Jesus' message and Peter's church. It's quite insightful.
I am still not sure if it's just you who construe it this way or is there some broader Catholic consensus on this. I must admit I have found Catholicism generally uninteresting, apart from Dutch medieval mystics, so I am not properly familiar with Catholic view. (Catholic meaning down to year 1054, when the term Catholic really becomes meaningful, as distinguished from Orthodox etc. Before that year it's just Christianity.)
As for my knowledge, only Catholicism admits a dualism between the individual path by itself and, at the same time, the total inclusion of the individual into the Church's organized structure. There's space for it and in fact most of it's theology is the result of just that.
I admit my ignorance on how much space Catholicism admits for individual paths while managing to include the individuals in the church. I suppose it varied over time and the current view is not so dogmatic. In turn, I'd assume you haven't really looked into how much Buddhism and Hinduism, and even Islam, encourage individual paths. They do.
If you read any Buddhist or Hindu scripture, you'll see how philosophical and psychologically insightful they are, in contrast from the Bible which is only mythology and inspirational talks. There's no philosophy in the Bible. Ecclesiastes comes closest, but it is nowhere near the clear logic, solid metaphysics and epistemology of Buddhist and Hindu scriptures - by modern standards. Eastern scriptures bear much resemblance to the kind of writings that Plotinus and Augustine produced, and Oriental philosophy did millennia ago that which our philosophy is doing only now when commenting on Plato and Aristotle.
Dutch medieval mystics
Hadewijch sends her regards.
Ay, al es nu die winter cout,
Cort die daghe ende die nachte langhe—
Ons naket saen een somer stout,
Die ons ute dien bedwanghe
Schiere sal bringhen. Dat es in schine
Bi desen nuwen jare:
Die hasel brinct ons bloemen fine;
Dat es een teken openbare
—Ay, vale, vale millies—
Ghi alle die nuwen tide
—Si dixero, non satis est—
Om minne wilt wesen blide.
Edit: I've got an English translation around somewhere… and here it is.
If now, alas! it is cold winter,
With short days and long nights,
Bold summer speedily walks in
To set us free from distress
In a short time: that is plainly seen
From this new year;
The hazelnut tree offers us fair blooms,
The season's public token.
— Ay, vale, vale, millies —
All you who in the new spring
— Si dixero non satis est —
Wish to be joyful for Love's sake!
A personal ad-hoc translation in prose (so you can compare if you like):
Ay, although the winter's cold and the days are short and the nights are long, still a bold summer is on the way, which will liberate us from our trouble. That is clear from this new year: the hazelnut tree shows us fine flowers, that's a clear sign. Ay, it's not enough to wish you all a thousand times luck, you all who wish to be joyful in this new season for love's sake.
There's no philosophy in the Bible.
You aren't confusing Catholics with Protestants, are you? :)
Protestants concentrates their religiosity into the obsessive reading, in a total literal interpretation, of the Bible in a way not too much different from what Muslim fundamentalists do with the Coran.
To Catholicism, the fundamental thing is the teachings, examples, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and what we can and should learn form it in order to understand God's will.
The Bible is recognized as a sacred text by the Holy Mother Church but must always be read with caution as the highly parabolic text it is. And this is correct, a set of texts written thousand of years ago, for people of those times, needs today to be seen not in a literal way but by mean of a higher level of analysis that can extract what is perennial from what is merely circunstancial.
Not to speak about the Old testament, so beloved to the Protestants, that poses particular difficult problems.
The Cathecism will show you many of the philosophical postures of the Catholic Church and there's a Compendium (http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html) exactly written for that. You may find the compendium not to much top philosophic but it is meant to introduce people to further reflexions. Give it a look and it will give you the general tone of the Church's philosophy in brief.
Also fundamental to understand the Catholic reasoning are the Papal encyclicals.
I recommend you very much this one CARITAS IN VERITATE (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html) by Benedict XVI.
There's no philosophy in the Bible.
You aren't confusing Catholics with Protestants, are you? :)
Protestants concentrates their religiosity into the obsessive reading,...
My confusion is much deeper. I thought Christians were supposed to be familiar with the Bible, their own scripture. Apparently I was wrong assuming it for Catholics, the way I assume it for any other denomination. It's just my own obstinate assumption. Somehow I think people should know what their beliefs and propositions, stemming from whatever source, mean and entail, and whether there's a system behind it or not.
Protestants don't read the Bible obsessively, no. Everybody is lazy these days. South Europe's good example is taking over the continent.
Still there are denominations whose membership truly knows their Bible. They are the most heavily proselytising ones - Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. It's not quite right to lump them under the broad Protestants umbrella. They are fundies, rejected by the established Protestant churches as well as the Catholics and the Orthodox. And they themselves distinguish themselves too from all other Christians. They consider their own church the only true Christianity. So the rejection is mutual.
Only fundies think Bible proves and talks about every little thing. Also, specifically some weird American sects have a hard time distinguishing between Old and New Testament. Their beliefs amount to some kind of marginally reformed Judaism, not Christianity.
These distinctions are important. The established old Protestant churches, those that have functioned as traditional state churches the way Catholicism has, they are very similar to Catholicism (or so I tend to think). The similarities are that they have had to cover entire memberships of countries, so people belong to the church as a matter of birthright (or birth burden rather) and thus a significant amount of the membership have little real connection with the teachings. It's traditional to have a Bible in their homes, but hardly anyone reads it. And the interpretation is far from literal. They know full well the distinction of the letter and spirit. And the established Protestant churches have been foremost in the Christian world to bless gay marriages and accept them as priests - as an official policy citing the "essence of Jesus' teachings, namely, the message of love". This should make it clear how little they care about the letter of the Bible, and their understanding of the spirit is also completely diluted.
Personally, I have read the Bible several times. And it became fairly clear in the end that no church on earth represents what it teaches, and belonging to any church would only be self-deception.
But it's interesting to see how it works for you. For you it's irrelevant to read the Bible. The interpretation of everything important is in the teachings, which is sufficiently covered in Sunday school for kiddies.. The interpreters, the philosophical representatives of the teachings are priests, bishops, and the Pope, and it's a good thing to look up to them at a distance, instead of emulating what they do. Interesting.
Well Man can never be perfect. As for differences between Protestantism and (Roman) Catholicism, I regard my tradition as Catholic in it's universal meaning not the Roman adding to it. Belfrager's view he is of course entitled to however Romanism isn't happy with the basic simplicity of the faith so had to conjure up all sorts of weird additions. Transubstantiation, Mariolatry and Queen of Heaven, sacrificing Jesus in that Mass thing, prayer beads (which pagan faiths practiced, Mary's date for rising to Heaven (another made up thing), throwing in statues and all the strangeness of so-called relics. We Prots re-discovered the simple matters of the man from Galilee hence the Reformation and the deleting of a mixture of Christianity and the adding of non-Christian practices.
I respect his right to be as he wants however dismissing us because we just want something straightforward without all the additions as well as Princes of the Church and wanting to be Caesar re the Vatican and everything else is a bit pushing it! I fully respect his right to views and worship but no wish to be intolerant of his right. At the same time the actual histroy of the Roaman Church and the Vatican is hardly something to be too boastful of. I like an old view that Christianity was a wonderful garden but got full of odd growths which we then cleaned out rather than an alternative church life style! :knight: :D
Mariolatry
Thanks for that one. :lol:
We Prots re-discovered the simple matters of the man from Galilee
:lol:
No wonder that the most materialist society in world history to be exactly the protestant aberration. A pseudo divergence made in order to legitimize profit for the "temple merchants".
If the "man of Galilee" is to return, he would kick you all out again.
No wonder that the most materialist society in world history to be exactly the protestant aberration.
Actually, the largest Christian denomination in America is Catholicism.
Actually, the largest Christian denomination in America is Catholicism.
Aleluia... finally the atheists recognizes it...
Now, I wait for the protestants to do the same,,,
We seriously need some Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, and other religions represented in this thread.
Quite fascinating seeing Mr. Howie and Belfrager unite despite their long-standing disagreements. :right:
Wiccan
? those are the ones with druids and witches?
Yeah... I like those..
Tut, tut, Southern laddie we didn't unite I acknowledged a point in what Belfrager said and could agree with him on and emphasised the differing traditions. Now you want more religions on here because like in Opera we will go round in circles I suppose. Many moons ago a young man I knew going into the RC priesthood said it would be quite something if he could get me to his seminary for a debate with 23 other of his fellows. It didn't come off unfortunately. Maybe just as well as it would have left them in an unfair and beaten situation...
Anyway there are no seminaries here at all now. Goodness the influence I have!
Belfrager and Howie agree that Catholicism and Protestantism are different. I disagree. To me the difference seems marginal. Anglican church is Catholicism without the Pope. Lutheranism is Catholicism without the Pope and extensive idolatry. That's the entire difference.
There are more differences between fundie sects and established denominations than between Catholicism and Protestantism. Fundies represent a real difference, a real alternative, if it be called that, namely, differences in theology, forms of worship and level of intrusion of church into personal life. The (dis)agreements of Belfrager and Howie are simply amusing.
@Colonel Rebel
I put up a thread for Buddhism. You can do the same for Hinduism and Wiccan.
All religions are alike in one major respect.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.highgrowthstock.com%2FIanBlog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F11%2Fblog-wishful-thinking.png&hash=1647da6646c16af5a4d6b8caada48080" rel="cached" data-hash="1647da6646c16af5a4d6b8caada48080" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.highgrowthstock.com/IanBlog/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/blog-wishful-thinking.png)
Belfrager and Howie agree that Catholicism and Protestantism are different. I disagree. To me the difference seems marginal. Anglican church is Catholicism without the Pope. Lutheranism is Catholicism without the Pope and extensive idolatry. That's the entire difference.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Catholicism and Protestantism are much more than mere religion nuances. Besides deep doctrinal and philosophical religious differences, totally irreconcilable, both are at the foundations of the actual clash of civilizations happening in the world.
You can't search for a religion without understanding that religions expresses an option about the world at such different areas as economics, social, cultural, artistical, philosophical, etc. and not exclusively something separated from the real world because it only regards to the inner spiritual world.
That's why I've been focusing in the sociological side of religion and always emphasizing "organized" religion.
In other words, the Pope is more important and influential than the President of America and Russia together... :)
You can't search for a religion without understanding that religions expresses an option about the world at such different areas as economics, social, cultural, artistical, philosophical, etc. and not exclusively something separated from the real world because it only regards to the inner spiritual world.
Indeed it never clicked for me why and how this should be so. It would of course be nice if a sweet fluffy religion ruled the planet and ensured everlasting peace amongst people, but I can hardly see this happening, because, by definition, sweet and fluffy would never win in this bitter ruthless world. Truth and justice do not prevail in this world full of lies and evil. Hence "not of this world". To me Jesus' words easily make sense, whereas organised religion doesn't, except as a state-ish organisation with slightly more thorough ideology than mere political ideologies and theories. You seem to affirm the state-ish view:
In other words, the Pope is more important and influential than the President of America and Russia together... :)
But this is not enough for me. I want the other world and religion must show the way there, both as the first and last thing. Otherwise it's insufficient.
Btw, here's another alleluia moment for you: Ulf Ekman lämnar Livets ord och blir katolik (http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=114&artikel=5804565)
Ulf Ekman leaves Word of Life and converts to Catholicism. Background: Ulf Ekman is the founder of the Christian sect Livets Ord (Word of Life), a Swedish equivalent of the kind of evangelical charismatic fundamentalism plentifully found in America, in fact shaped after the American model. Throughout his life Ulf Ekman has sharply condemned Catholicism. Now that in his ministry he has had real contacts with Catholic church, he ended up leaving his own church and converting. One busy restless soul saved and one sect less. That's a win-win, right?
To me Jesus' words easily make sense, whereas organised religion doesn't, except as a state-ish organisation with slightly more thorough ideology than mere political ideologies and theories. You seem to affirm the state-ish view
It's a front of battle that affects directly our lives.
You see, the strictly personal position about spiritual matters aren't possible of being discussed, or, at least, you can only discuss and deepen it with those that shares more or less the same views. Communication doesn't exists between opposite views.
So, what it rests is that "state-ish" discussion.
One busy restless soul saved and one sect less. That's a win-win, right?
Yes, but not important for me, I'm not an evangelist wanting to convert others.
Swedish culture is not mine and a Swedish Catholic is so close to me as a Kirghistan Catholic would be. They are Catholics living in a non Catholic world and it has to show.
Catholicism, due to it's centralized hierarchy has to deal with this problem, and the way it is done is to give autonomy to local bishops to adequate the main doctrine to the local realities but always with a total discipline towards the Church and the Holy Priest. It works fine, but at the same time it creates a certain separation between distant Catholics.
On the other side, the good part is that you don't assist to lunatics inventing their own versions as you have with the Protestants and Muslims.
But yes, one protestant sect less is certainly a good thing, however very diluted in the ocean of conversions they are suffering. And they are going to convert even more with this new Pope.
The Church does things well done. Slow, but steady. Inexorably.
Besides deep doctrinal and philosophical religious differences, totally irreconcilable, both are at the foundations of the actual clash of civilizations happening in the world.
Nice!
Civilisational clashes caused by mere delusions, huh?[abbr=:huh:](https://dndsanctuary.eu/Smileys/default/huh.gif)[/abbr]
Besides deep doctrinal and philosophical religious differences, totally irreconcilable, both are at the foundations of the actual clash of civilizations happening in the world.
Nice!
Civilisational clashes caused by mere delusions, huh?[abbr=:huh:](https://dndsanctuary.eu/Smileys/default/huh.gif)[/abbr]
No, not by mere delusions but by idiots like yourself.
I suppose that you are even a step bellow mere idioticy.
Must say that ersi's stuff about the Anglican and Lutherans is a very limited horse with blinkers. Try saying that to the Episcopals say in Africa for example or the Anglicans in Ulster and then there are the Presbyterians and other mainstream Protestants who are hardly infinitesimal. n fact a headbanger here in a discussion with me came out with the head scratching thing that the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian tradtion) and the Church of Rome were the same! Borders on that rather over simplification from ersi.I leave Belfrager to follow the tradition he wants and am a supporter of freedonm oc hice even if a tradition I am now with.
Of course my simplification of Christian denominations would seem oversimplification when all you know about religion is Christianity. When all you know is Christianity, then the differences between the denominations seem huge, confusing and insurmountable. I have done years of comparative studies in religions (pretty much all religions both historical and current) and to me the differences within Christianity look honestly trifling compared to differences with other religions. Not to mention that Christianity never seemed like something for me in the first place.
idioticy
It's "idiocy".
Nothing personal, though:P
:)
My goodness this man never stops...
He's an expert.
An expert in idioticy or bellows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellows)? :angel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellows
???
I leave Belfrager to follow the tradition he wants and am a supporter of freedonm oc hice even if a tradition I am now with.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=33.238;msg=12726)
Protestantism, the way of turning sons of nobody into wannabe noblemen.
" freedonm oc hice" ???
Is that the orangist low classes attempt of speaking Latin? or just hiccups?
You are on shaky ground as one poster whose first language in not English criticising the English of another poster whose first language is not English.
I was speaking with some people at work today, and apparently someone in another district got fired for "continued cursing around a preacher". (The short-term work I am doing is just a step above general labor, and everyone curses on the job, though one generally doesn't curse nearly as much around one's boss.)
Needless to say, I told them that was absolute bs and that said former worker should sue the shite out of the country.
I don't give a damn if the man whose jimmies got rustled is a preacher or not; he isn't special, and if doesn't like the work, quit.
But of course, in this region of the country, people kiss preacher's asses all the time, often putting them on pedestal.
Bunch of goofy fkcers I work for..... ::)
Kind of shows the arrogance of youth and arrogant misuse of the grey cells cursing around someone.
You are on shaky ground as one poster whose first language in not English criticising the English of another poster whose first language is not English.
You're calling rjhowie's gibberish 'English'? :eyes:
You are on shaky ground as one poster whose first language in not English criticising the English of another poster whose first language is not English.
You're calling rjhowie's gibberish 'English'? :eyes:
It scans better than "attempt at English".
You are on shaky ground as one poster whose first language in not English criticising the English of another poster whose first language is not English.
You are correct, my first language
in not English.
As I surmised before I transferred here that this would become a carbon copy f Opera. Namely the same wee club of self-righteous, smug and know-it-alls. That Macallan is as before adds to that and a Mod?? Head saking and ridiculous. People who think they are something and accuse others of being beyond the pale or do gibberish always fail to recognise their own weakness.
As I surmised before I transferred here that this would become a carbon copy f Opera. Namely the same wee club of self-righteous, smug and know-it-alls. That Macallan is as before adds to that and a Mod?? Head saking and ridiculous. People who think they are something and accuse others of being beyond the pale or do gibberish always fail to recognise their own weakness.
Welcome aboard.
you have described yourself perfectly.
There goes another irony meter (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irony_meter) :irked:
I guess you just can't make them rjhowie-proof.
As I surmised before I transferred here that this would become a carbon copy f Opera.
Firm grip on the obvious. Not sure what else you could surmise from a forum of refugees. Perhaps a bit early for what this will become tho. It's barely out of the gate.
Can we give Rj a title so he doesn't feel so emasculated?
People who think they are something and accuse others of being beyond the pale or do gibberish always fail to recognise their own weakness.
Welcome aboard.
you have described yourself perfectly.
Do I detect a smidgen of sarcasm, sir?
People who think they are something and accuse others of being beyond the pale or do gibberish always fail to recognise their own weakness.
Welcome aboard.
you have described yourself perfectly.
Do I detect a smidgen of sarcasm, sir?
No
People who think they are something and accuse others of being beyond the pale or do gibberish always fail to recognise their own weakness.
Welcome aboard.
you have described yourself perfectly.
Do I detect a smidgen of sarcasm, sir?
No
Will you please expand on that?
Can we give Rj a title so he doesn't feel so emasculated?
Imperious Member? :right:
Can we give Rj a title so he doesn't feel so emasculated?
Imperious Member? :right:
:lol: :wait: Excuse me... I wasn't supposed to laugh at that. :-X
Can we give Rj a title so he doesn't feel so emasculated?
Imperious Member? :right:
"The Impervious King" :left:
People who think they are something and accuse others of being beyond the pale or do gibberish always fail to recognise their own weakness.
Welcome aboard.
you have described yourself perfectly.
Do I detect a smidgen of sarcasm, sir?
No
Will you please expand on that?
You excised this bit " Namely the same wee club of self-righteous, smug and know-it-alls." from the original quote.
Surely this is Mr. h describing himself.
To point this out is stating a fact. No sarcasm involved.
Can we give Rj a title so he doesn't feel so emasculated?
Imperious Member? :right:
"The Impervious King" :left:
I thought he wanted to be tsar :right:
Can we give Rj a title so he doesn't feel so emasculated?
Imperious Member? :right:
"The Impervious King" :left:
I thought he wanted to be tsar :right:
:idea: We may be getting close here...
Confederate Tzar I
Can we give Rj a title so he doesn't feel so emasculated?
Imperious Member? :right:
"The Impervious King" :left:
I thought he wanted to be tsar :right:
:idea: We may be getting close here...
Confederate Tzar I
Confederate Tsar Billy Bob I. ? :insane:
Can we give Rj a title so he doesn't feel so emasculated?
Imperious Member? :right:
"The Impervious King" :left:
I thought he wanted to be tsar :right:
:idea: We may be getting close here...
Confederate Tzar I
Confederate Tsar Billy Bob I. ? :insane:
That might be too long? Too bad there's never a moderator around when you need one. :beer:
I wouldn't want to include 'imperious' as that would clash with Macallan's aloofness. A lifelong monarchist, Tsarist, Confederate, Chiang-Kai Shek respecter, staunch Protestant, I remain as continuous as ever. Have even had a chapter written about me in a book and interviewed on BBCRadio Belfast for 15 minute (and a private station), BBCScotland tv, I do allow myself to come on here and show concern for the hoi-polloi. :cool:
Have even had a chapter written about me in a book
Good Christ...
The seven capital sins:
Lust
Gluttony
Greed
Sloth
Wrath
Envy
Pride
in no special order.
Easy now. You're addressing, The Impervious Confederate Tzar Billy Bob - Chiang-Kai Shek, Esq I, there. Surely he's not out of line to state his obvious greatness? The title transcends all classes, ranks and ideology known to us lessers.
:left: :right: :lol: (sry, I tried to do that straight-faced)
You excised this bit " Namely the same wee club of self-righteous, smug and know-it-alls." from the original quote.
Surely this is Mr. h describing himself.
To point this out is stating a fact. No sarcasm involved.
Do you have anything nice to say?
My sainted mother used to say, "If you don't have something nice to say, lie."
snip
Do you have anything nice to say?
Does Mr. h?
snip
Do you have anything nice to say?
Does Mr. h?
Seems to me a couple of years ago he said something nice about a queen...one with a crown, not the other kind.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/thankyoudh6.gif)
I think it is time I re-introduced my new religion.
It is pretty much like all the other religions, except that your sins are forgiven in advance.
Also, you don't pay per sin, on some sort of sliding scale, but by a lump sum, monthly, in advance.
Think of the time and effort saved. No confessing, no gloomy confessional, no guilty, dream-filled nights, no preaching.
Pay in cash, by cheque or plastic, by bank transfer.
What could go wrong?
I think it is time I re-introduced my new religion.
It is pretty much like all the other religions, except that your sins are forgiven in advance.
Also, you don't pay per sin, on some sort of sliding scale, but by a lump sum, monthly, in advance.
Think of the time and effort saved. No confessing, no gloomy confessional, no guilty, dream-filled nights, no preaching.
Pay in cash, by cheque or plastic, by bank transfer.
What could go wrong?
A glitch, a bank failure, a plastic meltdown.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSgeYksUr3G3Bkwx5C2iSurwNXtyMDhBNx47ngBAGTCZV19tJj0)
Or a shocked unbelieving who got electronically done, eh? Thank goodness I am a Scots Presbyterian.
Or a shocked unbelieving who got electronically done, eh? Thank goodness I am a Scots Presbyterian.
I'm not sure about the first sentence, but otherwise I'm happy for you.
I just ran across something that I'd never heard about previously.
The Supreme Court is going to hear a case on corporate religious rights.
WASHINGTON — A challenge to part of President Obama's healthcare law that hits the Supreme Court on Tuesday could lead to one of the most significant religious freedom rulings in the high court's history.
Four years ago, in their controversial Citizens United decision, the justices ruled that corporations had full free-speech rights in election campaigns. Now, they're being asked to decide whether for-profit companies are entitled to religious liberties.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-contraceptives-20140324,0,7435606.story#ixzz2wtLrej2b (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-contraceptives-20140324,0,7435606.story#ixzz2wtLrej2b)
Is anybody else surprised?
I just ran across something that I'd never heard about previously.
The Supreme Court is going to hear a case on corporate religious rights.
WASHINGTON — A challenge to part of President Obama's healthcare law that hits the Supreme Court on Tuesday could lead to one of the most significant religious freedom rulings in the high court's history.
Four years ago, in their controversial Citizens United decision, the justices ruled that corporations had full free-speech rights in election campaigns. Now, they're being asked to decide whether for-profit companies are entitled to religious liberties.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-contraceptives-20140324,0,7435606.story#ixzz2wtLrej2b (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-contraceptives-20140324,0,7435606.story#ixzz2wtLrej2b)
Is anybody else surprised?
Nope.
Even worse, as this collective group of cu**s has already ruled that "corporations are people", it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they ruled in favor of their corporate masters.
The lot of them need to have their arsed whipped.
Even worse, as this collective group of cu**s has already ruled that "corporations are people", it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they ruled in favor of their corporate masters.
The lot of them need to have their arsed whipped.
And you are precisely the man to do it. Have it televised too, for the amusement of the world.
Even worse, as this collective group of cu**s has already ruled that "corporations are people", it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they ruled in favor of their corporate masters.
The lot of them need to have their arsed whipped.
And you are precisely the man to do it. Have it televised too, for the amusement of the world.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi9.glitter-graphics.org%2Fpub%2F443%2F443659re0wmamdtn.gif&hash=c90fa8b64b7316e21b2c272d5039090a" rel="cached" data-hash="c90fa8b64b7316e21b2c272d5039090a" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i9.glitter-graphics.org/pub/443/443659re0wmamdtn.gif)
Even worse, as this collective group of cu**s has already ruled that "corporations are people", it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they ruled in favor of their corporate masters.
The lot of them need to have their arsed whipped.
And you are precisely the man to do it. Have it televised too, for the amusement of the world.
A mere proletariat like myself would find that difficult. :P :cheers:
A mere proletariat like myself
Well said.
There's too much proletariat at these forums.
A mere proletariat like myself
Well said.
There's too much proletariat at these forums.
Damned elitist bourgeoise attitudes....
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reactionface.info%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2F1287666826226.png&hash=d49f96ff26cb10b9d0266396ff5525cc" rel="cached" data-hash="d49f96ff26cb10b9d0266396ff5525cc" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.reactionface.info/sites/default/files/images/1287666826226.png)
Let me dispel the idea that the world of religion can't get weirder. Yes, that's the Dalai Lama saying a prayer in the US Senate. What will conservative Christians do with this one?
[video]http://youtu.be/-fEfxuWP8pc[/video]
Let me dispel the idea that the world of religion can't get weirder. Yes, that's the Dalai Lama saying a prayer in the US Senate. What will conservative Christians do with this one?
[video]http://youtu.be/-fEfxuWP8pc[/video]
Something like this (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/A_Splode) :left:
1. Assume there's only one god/God.
2. Admit that all religions are true.
= It's ok.;)
But don't forget to turn your brains off before doing that.
But don't forget to turn your brains off before doing that.
Where's the switch?
===================================================
There's a wonderful site, http://www.openbible.info/ (http://www.openbible.info/), that deals with things the Bible can teach us. Frankly, I think it should be
openbabble.
4 Bible Verses about
Quantum Physics
Hebrews 11:3 ESV / 24 helpful votes
By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Hebrews 11:1 ESV / 5 helpful votes
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Helpful Not Helpful
Genesis 1:1-31 ESV / 5 helpful votes
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
John 11:25-26 ESV / 4 helpful votes
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
Where's the switch?
Whose? :-X
I didn't know Somer Valley was quite religious a radio.
They've been teaching me 'scientificness' of 'the Bible'. Amusing contrivance, :yawn:.
What will conservative Christians do with this one?
[video]http://youtu.be/-fEfxuWP8pc[/video]
I dunno but the colour of the Lama's dress might be familiar to many Americans :devil:
That fraud!
=========================================
This one shocked me...Buddhist violence!
A Buddhist monk looks at a group of policemen out side a vandalized house in Hlekuu, north of Yangon Myanmar, Saturday, April 5, 2014. Sectarian tensions flared in Hlekuu, following a personal dispute between a Buddhist and Muslim shopkeeper on Friday. Hundreds of police were deployed after Buddhist mobs started ransacking a three-story home owned by a Muslim where two Muslim boys at the center of the dispute were seeking shelter. Myanmar, a predominantly Buddhist nation of 60 million, has been grappling with religious violence since emerging from a half-century of military rule three years ago.
I dunno but the colour of the Lama's dress might be familiar to many Americans :devil:
Puzzlement. It's not familiar to me. What do you have in mind?
Puzzlement. It's not familiar to me. What do you have in mind?
It's familiar to me in the sense that he usually wears something like that. Other than that, I don't know.
I dunno but the colour of the Lama's dress might be familiar to many Americans :devil:
Puzzlement. It's not familiar to me. What do you have in mind?
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ebayimg.com%2Ft%2FMens-Shirt-Stag-Party-Fancy-Dress-Guantanamo-Bay-Cuba-Camp-X-Ray-Design-Orange-%2F00%2Fs%2FMzAwWDQwMA%3D%3D%2F%24%28KGrHqRHJFcE%2Be%21lCRcEBP7wI7fb6g%7E%7E60_35.JPG&hash=8ae1e8f86a8aeee97bab784ca6f94bb9" rel="cached" data-hash="8ae1e8f86a8aeee97bab784ca6f94bb9" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Mens-Shirt-Stag-Party-Fancy-Dress-Guantanamo-Bay-Cuba-Camp-X-Ray-Design-Orange-/00/s/MzAwWDQwMA==/$(KGrHqRHJFcE+e!lCRcEBP7wI7fb6g~~60_35.JPG)
My favourite colour as it happens and very popular at my monthly meeting!
The 'quote' do-hickey is not working for me today and I tried everything, so to quote Ersi from months ago "Big things are not easy to understand." Your repeated implications that you are in some sort of special category of people who are capable of understanding “big things” that others cannot, is very small of you. I was hoping that one day you would lose this pomposity of yours, but apparently you have an ego that needs constant feeding.
“Then again, 'nothing' is conceptually there among the metaphysical categories - in the category of non-existence. Existence is another metaphysical category that includes everything that exists.”
Are you purposely trying to baffle people with your bullshit? Metaphysical is an austere sounding adult word for the child’s term ‘make-believe’. The M-word is just like saying ‘what if?’. Nobody has been there, so no one knows that it even exists and yet many people describe it quite precisely, including who lives there, its purpose and what it is like. Unfortunately, the descriptions of the M-realm are so varied that it can really be whatever you want it to be or need it to be (just start fantasizing). You, Eric, use the M-realm as a crutch to get you through this life, which is perfectly fine—some people actually need religion. However, you speak of it to us as fact and the very last thing the M-realm is, is a fact. Btw, this existence/reality can only be in the M-realm if you put it there in your own mind. I’m sad to say that I doubt you would know reality if it slapped you in the face.
“The physicist, if he is non-philosophical and careless in logic, may easily equate existence with detection and, conversely, non-detection with non-existence.”
You don’t know what science is or how it works. Science is the pursuit of the laws and facts of nature pertinent only to this reality/environment. Show science another realm or reality and how to get there and they will relentlessly pursue the facts there as well. Talk gibberish about spirits, ghosts and Gods in an untouchable realm (which (conveniently), is only untouchable so one can’t disprove it), and a scientist is really not interested, unless you find one that is a bit wishy-washy (philosophical). Good science NEVER equates non-detection with non-existence!! Believers in God made this false deduction of science themselves because they fear science and have some pressing need to demean it. If science wants to say something doesn’t exist, it has to stand up to the same rigors of every other scientific fact and be proven for a fact that it doesn’t exist (where do you get all this slanted nonsense?). The Large Hadron Collider, was 40 years and $10 billion in the making just to prove or disprove that a fundamental but theoretical quantum particle (the Higgs boson), existed. Theoretical physics said it had to exist or else much of quantum physics would have to be rewritten—as of 2013 it was proven to exist to the satisfaction of the global scientific community. Science is not a butterfly collection type of hobby, Ersi--it is the most important, serious and exacting pursuit on this planet and leaves your religion and philosophy in the dust of their own insignificance (well….perhaps I exaggerate just a tad, but only a tad).
“So, there are modes of existence. Objective existence is not the entire existence. There are ways to explore the non-objective mode of existence, but this is out of reach of physics. As I observed in the beginning, the philosopher discerns a clear distinction between non-existence and undetectable existence. This distinction is indiscernible for the physicist, if he is not a careful enough thinker, but I suppose I have shown clearly enough how this distinction itself is important. ”
This is such slapdash hogwash I am loath to even comment on it. (Sigh…), so in a few very short and full-of-holes paragraphs you have absolutely proven that, without a doubt, there ARE other modes of existence? At best, you may have irrationally convinced yourself of this, but don’t throw out these broad sweeping statements at us like you were some sort of know-it-all. The great thing about your make-believe existences, for you at least, is that no one (I don’t know why you constantly only choose physicists), can disprove them. So now, you are making the mistakes that you wrongly accuse science of, by asserting that disprovability equals existence, which is simply illogical and absurd. Science doesn’t play these meaningless games simply because there is no point or purpose to them. In my opinion, science did religion a big favor by stating that a God need not have been invoked to create this universe, it would have created itself anyway. Science doesn’t say that God didn’t do it, just that he wasn’t necessary (but after all, science wasn’t there).
“These kinds of distinctions are arrived at by means of logical and conceptual philosophical analysis. The metaphysical categories is an example of such analysis. It's a way to "detect the undetectable".”
(God, give me the strength…) I’ve read the convoluted logic of philosophical analysis as it relates to the M-realm and one would have to be quite desperate and want it to be true very badly in order to swallow it. Despite all that our sciences have done to inform us of realities unknown to sense perception or naïve common sense, no one (philosophers admit), is able, using the normal touchstones of truth, to argue convincingly for the character of some ‘Ultimate Reality’ or for ‘Beings’ that exist in a supersensible or supernatural world. What gives you alone, this extraordinary ability Ersi?
My favourite colour as it happens and very popular at my monthly meeting!
Word has reached me that a specific Scot, known for his ardent Protestant views, was seen wearing Red Socks/Shoes at his Orange Order meetings.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fd2jkk5z9de9jwi.cloudfront.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2F-14041-440x285.jpg&hash=8bc477883a0b2fe99b69c22e144e75fb" rel="cached" data-hash="8bc477883a0b2fe99b69c22e144e75fb" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://d2jkk5z9de9jwi.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/-14041-440x285.jpg)
You don’t know what science is or how it works. ---- Good science NEVER equates non-detection with non-existence!!
Indeed. That's one of the characteristics by which to distinguish good science from the bad. Bad science exists and we have had examples of it in this thread (which you ignored, conveniently for yourself).
You don't sound very knowledgeable about science, so let's take a look at the good science, shall we? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
What does the guy say? How do the scientists do it? They GUESS it! That's right! Now, this is precisely where rigorous philosophy, particularly metaphysics, helps scientists. Metaphysics is the art of forming logical guesses (called "propositions", that's a baby-step term in philosophy) that make sense and are likelier to lead to constructive realistic results rather than just going about it haphazardly and randomly. Philosophy educates the scientific guesses. An educated guess is logical and methodical, it minimises uncertainties and is able to prevent damage from empirical experiments if the scientist educates himself accordingly. In science they talk about the scientific method, but the concept of method as such is derived from the realm of philosophy and logic.
Conventional logic deals with certainties, yes or no, with no middle ground. There's the law of excluded middle, law of non-contradiction, and necessary conclusions from premises. All mathematics operates the same way. If math is a science, then so is logic (and philosophy incidentally consists of logic, nothing else). If math is not a science to you, then I have given much more attention to you than you are worth.
Science doesn’t say that God didn’t do it, just that he wasn’t necessary (but after all, science wasn’t there).
And philosophy says why and how God makes sense, the same way as infinity and zero make sense in math. There is some conceptual context for everyone where God is in fact absolutely necessary. Even Daniel Dennett (the neoatheist philosopher) says that in some context he believes in God. Namely, that God is a concept. Which is what everything is, philosophically. In philosophy, everything is a concept, and everything is approached through conceptual analysis, and the results of the analysis are necessary. Where I disagree with Dennett are his metaphysical premises compared to my metaphysical premises. Where I agree with him again is that we both have metaphysical premises - and so does everybody else, necessarily, as opposed to your "M-word is hogwash bullshit" nonsense.
What gives you alone, this extraordinary ability Ersi?
Why do you think I am alone? Maybe I seem pretty much alone in these forums, but it's different in real life. And here too we have those who can keep track of my reasoning as well as those who can't. In fact, how many here can keep track of your reasoning? Or, to put it more bluntly, how many agree that you have a reasoning?
Your pomposity and certitude in ignorance is quite unique. I have not yet met anyone with such a deep lack of comprehension of metaphysics as yourself. Actually, I haven't even met you, so you are not real as per your own logic. Good for you!
Despite all that our sciences have done to inform us of realities unknown to sense perception or naïve common sense, no one (philosophers admit), is able, using the normal touchstones of truth, to argue convincingly for the character of some ‘Ultimate Reality’ or for ‘Beings’ that exist in a supersensible or supernatural world.
Which philosophers? And why do philosophers get to decide?
Most scientists come down on the atheistic side, but not all.
Despite all that our sciences have done to inform us of realities unknown to sense perception or naïve common sense, no one (philosophers admit), is able, using the normal touchstones of truth, to argue convincingly for the character of some ‘Ultimate Reality’ or for ‘Beings’ that exist in a supersensible or supernatural world.
Which philosophers? And why do philosophers get to decide?
Most scientists come down on the atheistic side, but not all.
I took this from an article by the editor of a philosophy magazine. Philosophers decide philosophical things because that's simply what philosophers do, you don't have to believe them--most people have their own philosophies about many things.
Many scientists are atheists/agnostics because the convoluted drama acted out in the Bible between humans and the Divine, is pure silliness to them. Impregnating a 14 year old virgin to become a man who will die a dramatic and gory death so that we (including heartless serial rapists/murderers) can get a free pass to heaven seems like very pedestrian human melodrama to me. Does this sound perfectly sane and logical to you? Considering that we are talking about the most powerful and perfect being in the universe, I would assume He could reason better than this.
Impregnating a 14 year old virgin to become a man who will die a dramatic and gory death so that we (including heartless serial rapists/murderers) can get a free pass to heaven seems like very pedestrian human melodrama to me. Does this sound perfectly sane and logical to you? Considering that we are talking about the most powerful and perfect being in the universe, I would assume He could reason better than this.
It's absurd to me as is everything about religion.
To the religious nothing is too absurd to believe in.
Most religions were invented in times when humen;)'s thinking patterns/abilities were different from nowadays'. I believe though, that common sense would still happen time to time -- but how often!???
I believe though, that common sense would still happen time to time -- but how often!???
Ask a Talibaner.
You don’t know what science is or how it works. ---- Good science NEVER equates non-detection with non-existence!!
"What does the guy say? How do the scientists do it? They GUESS it! That's right! Now, this is precisely where rigorous philosophy, particularly metaphysics, helps scientists."
Not until this moment did I realize I was talking to a child pretending to be all grown up. Apparently, all you watched (or absorbed), from your clip was the opening quip when Feynman was being a bit flip about formulating new scientific hypotheses (guesses--like Newton's laws of motion and gravity). Feynman is an esteemed theoretical physicist as well as an amateur comedian...but then that involves emotions and being human--which you don't do.
Keep your silly metaphysical philosophy away from science! Science does not need nor want philosophical help--I can assure you of that. You seem like some sort of little groupie always trying to rub shoulders with science, math & physics because somehow you think that that will make you and your philosophy more legitimate. Can't your M-philosophy stand on its own two feet?
"Metaphysics is the art of forming logical guesses (called "propositions", that's a baby-step term in philosophy) that make sense and are likelier to lead to constructive realistic results rather than just going about it haphazardly and randomly."
M is now artistic, philosophical, mathematical and scientific--anything else (cookbook perhaps)? Let me be perfectly serious with you for a moment. Which came first, an M-realm or the idea of one? Logically the idea came first which means the M-realm was made up by an idea. It simply had to be made up because no one knows where or what it is, nor has anyone been able to prove anything about it. People 'make believe' all the time, even before they called it M, so it is certainly nothing new or special--it's ancient. The idea of a make believe realm intrigued a few philosophers who contemplated and argued about it so much that it started to have a life of its own, but it was still only make believe. You draw logic, math and science into the make believe realm because you need some real, tangible, down-to-earth heavy hitters to make this realm believable and keep this thing going. Science wants nothing to do with this world of make believe Ersi, can't you leave them out of this?
You call science haphazard and random guessing, that was some pretty amazing guessing that got the astronauts landed on the moon and safely back home again with pin point precision. Quantum mechanics was needed to make your computer, cell phone and CD/DVD player--were those haphazard random guesses as well. Science works and has propelled us to where we are today...would you prefer to be sitting in a cave with a stone hatchet? Moreover, of what practical use has M been lately, other than to provide false hope for those who can't muster the courage to die with dignity. (Those people very much need that, so don't get me wrong.) Science does things, big things, serious things, important things and relevant things (since your into things), M does nothing.
If you find it necessary to belittle me, just keep in mind that while I'm not a professional scientist of any type, I excelled in all varieties of science studies, studied advanced physics, have done many, many experiments, majored in Engineering (electronics) at UCLA, taken some of the highest levels of advanced mathematics classes, proved Einstein's E=mc² equation to be true and taught myself enough about quantum physics/mechanics to have a better than average grasp of it. If I remember correctly, you're not much for math or science, so how can you logically say I'm not knowledgeable about science? You mimic all M believers who have some irrational need to demean science and scientific thinkers.
M will never do anything practical to advance our civilization forward into a level one galactic society in which we stop burning fossil fuels and derive all of our energy from the atom as we expand and explore into the universe. Make believe can be good exercise for the brain and meditation can be useful if you want to consider that M, but it can only take you into a make believe world and never a real place.
"Namely, that God is a concept. Which is what everything is, philosophically. In philosophy, everything is a concept, and everything is approached through conceptual analysis, and the results of the analysis are necessary."
One can imagine in their mind that everything is a concept and make it work in some make believe model, but it is still just using your mind to make it believe anything it can imagine. In M there are an infinite number of realms with infinite number of possibilities in each, so therefore there is a designer M-realm for everyone and they are all equally true by not being able to falsify any one of them. Logical? Practical? Useful? No, but hey--knock yourself out. ("...and the results of the analysis are necessary." What is that??)
You seem like some sort of little groupie always trying to rub shoulders with science, math & physics because somehow you think that that will make you and your philosophy more legitimate. Can't your M-philosophy stand on its own two feet?
But it does. Math stands on its own and so do physics and metaphysics. They are equals, and they are comparable. They are all legitimate in their own right.
Which came first, an M-realm or the idea of one? Logically the idea came first which means the M-realm was made up by an idea. It simply had to be made up because no one knows where or what it is.
This applies to equally to math, physics, and metaphysics.
You call science haphazard and random guessing, that was some pretty amazing guessing that got the astronauts landed on the moon and safely back home again with pin point precision.
As in Apollo 13?
Quantum mechanics was needed to make your computer, cell phone and CD/DVD player--were those haphazard random guesses as well. Science works and has propelled us to where we are today...would you prefer to be sitting in a cave with a stone hatchet?
And you conveniently forget all the weird and unusable inventions that didn't make it to the limelight. Well, no wonder, they didn't make it to the big market and were thus either unnoticeable or forgettable, so that's why we don't mention them. However, I still know about them even when you don't mention. Plus I could mention a bunch of dangerous scientific experiments that cost millions of lives, and inventions that poison our food and environment as we speak. Does your other eye not see anything at all?
By the way, hatchet works. That's how I actually cut my wood. You should try it too.
Moreover, of what practical use has M been lately, other than to provide false hope for those who can't muster the courage to die with dignity. (Those people very much need that, so don't get me wrong.)
What's your idea of dying with dignity? Is there any science in it? Is it devoid of metaphysics?
If I remember correctly, you're not much for math or science, so how can you logically say I'm not knowledgeable about science? You mimic all M believers who have some irrational need to demean science and scientists.
As soon as you provide an actual usage case of science or rationality, instead of emotional outpouring, I will definitely acknowledge it. Thus far you don't even demonstrate the capacity to read what I type with a balanced mind the way it was written.
I acknowledge sincere exercise of rationality, as soon as you demonstrate some. For example. show that you can read text as it was written, instead of reading your own bias into it. Or if the text is too difficult for you, try interpret it charitably as good philosophical debate tradition requires, instead of making things worse by piling insults upon your misunderstandings.
The way you are now, you don't look like doing anything constructive and the end result for you won't be constructive either. At the same time, in your tremendous ignorance you simply talk past my fields of inquiry. Your apparent aim is to demolish my views, but you fail to even remotely address them, thus failing at your objective. My views are not based on emotions and they are not subject to any revision based on emotions either.
However, I still know about them even when you don't mention. Plus I could mention a bunch of dangerous scientific experiments that cost millions of lives, and inventions that poison our food and environment as we speak.
Do you mean human lives or other animals?
However, I still know about them even when you don't mention. Plus I could mention a bunch of dangerous scientific experiments that cost millions of lives, and inventions that poison our food and environment as we speak.
Do you mean human lives or other animals?
The example I had in mind are military inventions. I could raise the number to a modest billion. But with animals it could be uncountable.
"Which came first, an M-realm or the idea of one? Logically the idea came first which means the M-realm was made up by an idea. It simply had to be made up because no one knows where or what it is."
"This applies to equally to math, physics, and metaphysics."
No, science and math deal with ideas in this reality, not an imaginary one.
"You call science haphazard and random guessing, that was some pretty amazing guessing that got the astronauts landed on the moon and safely back home again with pin point precision."
"As in Apollo 13?"
This wisecrack simply reinforces my vision of you as child-like in the, 'beyond-your-grasp', world of science. It takes great courage to go where no one else has gone (Columbus, the pioneers, astronauts), why not take a shot at all of them. You speak of the Apollo 13 mission as if that incident alone somehow invalidates all science. Apollo 13 was a clear demonstration of the resourcefulness of brave scientists in a strange and hostile environment and of their human will to survive. Scientists will indeed use cardboard and tape to repair a rocketship if it means surviving the absolute cold of outer space--so what?!!
"And you conveniently forget all the weird and unusable inventions that didn't make it to the limelight. Well, no wonder, they didn't make it to the big market and were thus either unnoticeable or forgettable, so that's why we don't mention them. However, I still know about them even when you don't mention. Plus I could mention a bunch of dangerous scientific experiments that cost millions of lives, and inventions that poison our food and environment as we speak. Does your other eye not see anything at all?"
I have no idea of what scientific experiments have cost millions of lives, even atomic weapons have killed perhaps 200,000 people, but that wasn't an experiment--it was intended to kill. And besides your M God in his M realm is responsible for killing many times more people on purpose than science ever has done by accident. I must say that because of your naive responses here, my single eye sees much more than both of yours.
"Moreover, of what practical use has M been lately, other than to provide false hope for those who can't muster the courage to die with dignity. (Those people very much need that, so don't get me wrong.)"
"What's your idea of dying with dignity? Is there any science in it? Is it devoid of metaphysics?"
Dying with dignity to me simply means facing the cold hard fact that this life necessarily will end and there is no rational proof of anything beyond that. Death is a scientific certainty and yes, it is bereft of M.
"I acknowledge sincere exercise of rationality, as soon as you demonstrate some. For example. show that you can read text as it was written, instead of reading your own bias into it. Or if the text is too difficult for you, try interpret it charitably as good philosophical debate tradition requires, instead of making things worse by piling insults upon your misunderstandings."
Are you completely unaware that provoking people by acting too big for your britches will elicit emotional responses in this realm?
No, science and math deal with ideas in this reality, not an imaginary one.
You are making no sense. Define real and define imaginary, then we can move on.
You speak of the Apollo 13 mission as if that incident alone somehow invalidates all science.
You are totally not paying attention. Apollo 13 is an example that science is not all-good to absolute precision the way you said. Science can go wrong. Bad science exists and it's necessary to distinguish it from the good. This is a necessary distinction. Moreover, science itself cannot make this distinction. Philosophy can.
And besides your M God in his M realm is responsible for killing many times more people on purpose than science ever has done by accident.
If God is unreal, then how does that compute? You really are not making any sense.
Dying with dignity to me simply means facing the cold hard fact that this life necessarily will end and there is no rational proof of anything beyond that.
So, dignity is found by enthroning irrationality. You must be very dignified by your own terms then, whereas I am sadly lost in rationality? And you are the guy to save me from this? Interesting.
Define real and define imaginary, then we can move on.
Here is where all hope is gone - and bullshit starts filling the room.
Define real and define imaginary, then we can move on.
Unrelated (or maybe not) with your discussion with jseaton2311, your words made me thought that, firstly, you'll need to define defining.
Define comes from the Latin
De Finire which means putting limits, boundaries, separating what is from what is not. How is it done i's an extremely complex process that evolves logics but not only logics, also capacity for perception, as well as cultural framesets are deeply involved in the process of defining something.
There's also a certain amount of admissible (or not) margin of error, our mind works with definitions that are the outcome of previous definitions that are the outcome of previous definitions... and so on. Small mistakes are made at each of those steps and the final result rarely can be one hundred percent correct from a strict logic point of view.
For such accuracy we need mathemathical logics with mathematic notation and that's not an easy thing to do.
Finally, by the very definition of definition, God can't be defined. He has no limits to point.
For such accuracy we need mathemathical logics with mathematic notation and that's not an easy thing to do.
Mathematical definitions are okay by me. And easy too.
Finally, by the very definition of definition, God can't be defined. He has no limits to point.
Infinity and unboundedness are satisfactorily defined terms in math.
For such accuracy we need mathemathical logics with mathematic notation and that's not an easy thing to do.
Mathematical definitions are okay by me. And easy too.
Finally, by the very definition of definition, God can't be defined. He has no limits to point.
Infinity and unboundedness are satisfactorily defined terms in math.
Not exactly Ersi, infinity can still be very problematic in mathematics. Concerning infinity, here is my take. When we say, for example, that there is an infinity of natural numbers, we mean only that there is no largest number. Whenever you add 1 to a number, you will get another number that is greater still. Nothing very profound there. To say otherwise would greatly complicate even basic arithmetic.
It may even be possible to do away with the use of the word "infinity" (or any equivalent notion) in most if not all of mathematics. It may be nothing more than a convenient shorthand. When we say, for example, the limit of some expression as x tends to infinity, we could as easily have said, the limit as x increases without bound. The latter would have the advantage that there would be no confusion about there being some kind of metaphysical endpoint called "infinity."
God can't be defined.
Belfrager, I think this sentence means ultimately that nobody has any idea about what God is, or, put in other words, God can be anything and anything can be God. I suppose this is not what you meant, right?
According to your summary, nobody can define God ultimately or with absolute accuracy, but nevertheless, to some extent, it's possible to say what God is (or can be) and what God surely is not. This definition may not be accurate, but puts some imprecise bounds around what can be called God. Right?
There are various reactions to the logical paradoxes that stem from naive set theory. One is to deny infinity, which is the most primitive reaction, IMHO.
My solution is to admit self-referential logic. This makes sense because personal selfhood is the self-evident experience of anyone. Also, mirror and holograph are objectively observable phenomena. Hence it doesn't make sense to deny infinity and it makes sense to admit self-referential logic that solves the logical paradoxes of the naive set theory.
You speak of the Apollo 13 mission as if that incident alone somehow invalidates all science.
You are totally not paying attention. Apollo 13 is an example that science is not all-good to absolute precision the way you said. Science can go wrong. Bad science exists and it's necessary to distinguish it from the good. This is a necessary distinction. Moreover, science itself cannot make this distinction. Philosophy can.
In this realm Ersi, mistakes and errors abound in everything humans do--not just science. "Bad science" is simply science done imprecisely or not according to the scientific method--no philosophy is needed to understand that. "Evil science" is mostly a figment of science fiction books and movies. There are chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction which can be used as a deterrent to aggression or by evil rulers as a warped way of keeping order or to simply kill the enemy in times of war. The degree of evil involved there, philosophy can have.
Are you the type of person who would ban all childhood vaccines because 1 in 10,000 will end in the death of a child? :irked:
Define real and define imaginary, then we can move on.
Unrelated (or maybe not) with your discussion with jseaton2311, your words made me thought that, firstly, you'll need to define defining.
Define comes from the Latin De Finire which means putting limits, boundaries, separating what is from what is not. How is it done i's an extremely complex process that evolves logics but not only logics, also capacity for perception, as well as cultural framesets are deeply involved in the process of defining something.
There's also a certain amount of admissible (or not) margin of error, our mind works with definitions that are the outcome of previous definitions that are the outcome of previous definitions... and so on. Small mistakes are made at each of those steps and the final result rarely can be one hundred percent correct from a strict logic point of view.
For such accuracy we need mathemathical logics with mathematic notation and that's not an easy thing to do.
Finally, by the very definition of definition, God can't be defined. He has no limits to point.
So. Can god create a stone he cannot lift? Or does a lack of limitations mean he can not exist?
There are various reactions to the logical paradoxes that stem from naive set theory. One is to deny infinity, which is the most primitive reaction, IMHO.
My solution is to admit self-referential logic. This makes sense because personal selfhood is the self-evident experience of anyone. Also, mirror and holograph are objectively observable phenomena. Hence it doesn't make sense to deny infinity and it makes sense to admit self-referential logic that solves the logical paradoxes of the naive set theory.
Let me try this. Our mind and our senses were designed to detect things in the realm where we dwell which is in the realm of the large or Newton's and Einstein's realm. It was developed that way by nature simply for us to survive in this realm. There is another realm of the exceptionally small (quantum realm), where particles no longer act as they do in the large realm. Light will behave as both a wave and particles depending simply upon whether you are observing it or not. Physics called this bizarre simply because our minds did not develop in the quantum realm. The reverse would of course also be true; if our minds and senses developed in the quantum realm then the realm of the large would seem equally bizarre. This is NOT metaphysics, although I believe M would like to claim it as such. M does claim to be the study of all reality (real and imaginary), in terms of concepts and perceptions which is more physics than M, but whatever, that’s fine...so is logic just leave the philosophy out of it--no, they are not the same thing. Logic clarifies, philosophy muddles by using convoluted logic to try and make it work.
Now the mathematical realm works somewhat the same way, except to some people math is obvious and easy and for others it is foreign and bizarre (why…who knows). As to infinity, we have nothing in our realm that we perceive as infinite. We live in the world of the finite, and aside from the concept of infinity, we cannot visualize or relate to it in a meaningful way. A board is 2x4x12 and is finite in all 3 dimensions of space, in fact there is nothing that we observe in this realm that is infinite, therefore when you tell someone that something is infinite is both directions (no beginning, no end), it is impossible to thoroughly understand that. Cantor had an elegant mathematical demonstration of infinity on paper that included different ‘sizes’ of infinities and infinite sets that were ‘more infinite’ than others proving there was no ‘greatest’ infinity—there was always one infinity more infinite. I have gone quite far in the field of mathematics including the use of imaginary numbers, however, I'd have to say that while the concept of infinity is not that difficult, comprehending ‘actual infinity’ is beyond my capacity and most others’ as well.
Our mind and our senses were designed to detect things in the realm where we dwell which is in the realm of the large or Einstein's realm.
The way I define the mind and senses, the senses are spatio-temporal, yes, but the mind, if the intellect is included, is beyond that.
It was developed that way by nature simply for us to survive in this realm.
Highly arguable, but I will argue this some other time.
There is another realm of the exceptionally small (quantum realm), where particles no longer act as they do in the large realm. Light will behave as both a wave and particles depending simply upon whether you are observing it or not. Physics called this bizarre simply because our minds did not develop in the quantum realm.
As I noted, the mind (incl. intellect) is not spatio-temporal. Conceptual abstraction is perfectly normal, nothing bizarre to the intellect. There have been physicists to whom wave-particle duality was easily conceivable as a mathematically definable unity since day one. Such as Niels Bohr, Max Planck, and Wolfgang Pauli. To others this was not so easily grasped, so they disputed, debated, argued, puzzled, and called things "bizarre". This also makes sense. Individual intellects are not equal.
The difference between the wave and the particle is only verbal. In reality they are (or can be understood as) different aspects of the same continuum. The particle can be described either as a series of waves (a Fourier transform) or as a wave looped into itself (a self-referential wave). The wave can be described as the oscillating trajectory of a particle.
Logic clarifies, philosophy muddles by using convoluted logic to try and make it work.
Prejudice noted.
As to infinity, we have nothing in our realm that we perceive as infinite.
If there's "our realm", then there's also some other, "their" realm, logically conceivable. Our, their, and so on to infinity. This is how the mind works, effortlessly for me. Mental conception is a form of perception, at least is to me. I perceive it clearly and I can direct it any way I want, and stop it whenever I want, to deal with some mundane business for a change. Can't you?
We live in the world of the finite, and aside from the concept of infinity, we cannot visualize or relate to it in a meaningful way.
You can't. I can. And I can live with this fact. Can't you?
As to infinity, we have nothing in our realm that we perceive as infinite.
If there's "our realm", then there's also some other, "their" realm, logically conceivable. Our, their, and so on to infinity. This is how the mind works, effortlessly for me. Mental conception is a form of perception, at least is to me. I perceive it clearly and I can direct it any way I want, and stop it whenever I want, to deal with some mundane business for a change. Can't you?
More precisely perhaps, there two sub-realms within this reality that are necessarily indispensable to the whole. Namely the quantum realm and the mathematical realm (upon which the whole of our reality is likely based). There will be a unified theory of everything soon, hopefully within my lifetime.
We live in the world of the finite, and aside from the concept of infinity, we cannot visualize or relate to it in a meaningful way.
You can't. I can. And I can live with this fact. Can't you?
[/quote]
I am being truthful, you are simply on that damned high horse again (or more likely, self-deluded and on the horse).
(I am not going to argue about your flawed views of quantum physics, it's too far off topic).
Belfrager, I think this sentence means ultimately that nobody has any idea about what God is, or, put in other words, God can be anything and anything can be God. I suppose this is not what you meant, right?
Exactly the contrary.
In theological terms nothing can exist "outside" God.
The most stony, radical, fundamentalist, basic, without any hope soever atheist (none of those I can see here, since at DnD we just have the soft, bourgeois, trendy atheists) can't exist beyond God.
Mathematical definitions are okay by me. And easy too.
I believe that.
By the way, where's OakdaleFTL? :)
Maybe sobering up?
Maybe sobering up?
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=33.325;msg=15981)
He he :)
Something that you can't with your Irn Bru, can you Protestant friend? :)
So. Can god create a stone he cannot lift?
By the very definition of God, God can anything that your small imagination can imagine and much, much, infinitely much more,
He "can" everything. If that satisfies you limitations, he even can lift stones he "can't lift". Cappice?
God, unlike us, is not limited by logics or any other limitation you can imagine. It comes from the definition.
It's a fucking definition, that I agree. :)
My solution is to admit self-referential logic. This makes sense because personal selfhood is the self-evident experience of anyone.
Very well said. But then there's no point on discussing with others.... and you don't want such a thing.
To "win" a logic discussion can be like a drug. Addictive. :)
To "win" a logic discussion can be like a drug. Addictive. :)
Yes, it can be. It can also get one to the proverbial high horse, making the others realise that they are on a low horse, on a tiny pony. Looks like this is a regularly necessary realisation for Jseaton.
But for me the expression never meant anything.
To "win" a logic discussion can be like a drug. Addictive. :)
Yes, it can be. It can also get one to the proverbial high horse, making the others realise that they are on a low horse, on a tiny pony. Looks like this is a regularly necessary realisation for Jseaton.
But for me the expression never meant anything.
Hmmm, perhaps there is no comparable saying like this in your culture, but nevertheless, you should be able to decipher that this means believing you are above others in importance simply because you are spatially above them--a simple metaphor for being a pompous ass. ('Low horse' does not compute here).
Humility, compassion and understanding are qualities that lean towards the Divine (perfection), so you're going the wrong way guy. (This is also a major reason why I don't believe that, if there is a God, he is any of the Gods made up by humans so far, because none of them exhibit Godlike qualities--they all exhibit human frailties (anger, egotism, revenge, irrationality, etc).
(This is also a major reason why I don't believe that, if there is a God, he is any of the Gods made up by humans so far, because none of them exhibit Godlike qualities--they all exhibit human frailties (anger, egotism, revenge, irrationality, etc).
Let's suppose for the purpose of discussion that there was a god giga-years ago. Obviously, the evolution of assorted galaxy collections hasn't evolved to the point of making bacteria, let alone human precursors. What qualities would that god have? Would they in any way resemble human emotions? Needs? Wants? Desires?
What claptrap.
(This is also a major reason why I don't believe that, if there is a God, he is any of the Gods made up by humans so far, because none of them exhibit Godlike qualities--they all exhibit human frailties (anger, egotism, revenge, irrationality, etc).
Let's suppose for the purpose of discussion that there was a god giga-years ago. Obviously, the evolution of assorted galaxy collections hasn't evolved to the point of making bacteria, let alone human precursors. What qualities would that god have? Would they in any way resemble human emotions? Needs? Wants? Desires?
What claptrap.
Not at all sir. During the heydays of making up Gods, people weren't very imaginative in coming with godlike qualities that would stand the test of time. People knew what people were like, so they said he was like us or we were like him, whatever. Why are you asking me what god is like? If there is a god, there is not one single human word that could characterize him, so I sure as f**k ain't gonna try. If there is a god we could only describe him in human terms, all of which pertain to and are limited by the human mind and human experiences. I don't believe that god would be anything like what we have ever known or experienced--trying to say anything about god would be an exercise in futility.
Take your pre-bacteria god and shove it.
So. Can god create a stone he cannot lift?
By the very definition of God, God can anything that your small imagination can imagine and much, much, infinitely much more,
He "can" everything. If that satisfies you limitations, he even can lift stones he "can't lift". Cappice?
God, unlike us, is not limited by logics or any other limitation you can imagine. It comes from the definition.
It's a fucking definition, that I agree. :)
:lol: You make this too easy.
He "can" everything. If that satisfies you limitations, he even can lift stones he "can't lift". Cappice?
God, unlike us, is not limited by logics or any other limitation you can imagine. It comes from the definition.
I suspected that god would be able to f**k a goat. No I know it for sure.
('Low horse' does not compute here).
If high horse is an entity, then so is low horse, logically. High and low compute in the exact same way as warm and cold. I may lack the culture, but I have the logic.
Humility, compassion and understanding are qualities that lean towards the Divine (perfection), so you're going the wrong way guy.
Here you are actually logical - surprisingly, because normally you are not.
Let's be consistent with logic here for once. You are on a mission to take me off my high horse, therefore, logically, you want to seat me as low as yourself. My aim, on the other hand, is to point your low horse out to you, so you could select a more noble seat, if you want. How do the qualitative leanings look now?
(This is also a major reason why I don't believe that, if there is a God, he is any of the Gods made up by humans so far, because none of them exhibit Godlike qualities--they all exhibit human frailties (anger, egotism, revenge, irrationality, etc).
Humans display human qualities. Divinities display divine qualities. This should be common sense. Real gods are not made up. Real God is and exists no matter what we think or do or don't. This should be common sense too.
When we got this cleared up, the question remains why you keep getting all enthusiastic about man-made gods and have decidedly nothing to do with the real and true one.
('Low horse' does not compute here).
If high horse is an entity, then so is low horse, logically. High and low compute in the exact same way as warm and cold. I may lack the culture, but I have the logic.
Not any good if it's meaningless.
You make this too easy.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=33.333;msg=16626)
Yeah, I know and, yet, I'm still waiting for so many to get there. :)
Humility, compassion and understanding are qualities that lean towards the Divine (perfection), so you're going the wrong way guy.
Here you are actually logical - surprisingly, because normally you are not.
Let's be consistent with logic here for once. You are on a mission to take me off my high horse, therefore, logically, you want to seat me as low as yourself. My aim, on the other hand, is to point your low horse out to you, so you could select a more noble seat, if you want. How do the qualitative leanings look now?
Your idea of noble is not anything I would want to aspire to.
"Humans display human qualities. Divinities display divine qualities. This should be common sense. Real gods are not made up. Real God is and exists no matter what we think or do or don't. This should be common sense too."
You are suggesting that you know and understand the divine--forget the high horse, you are going to need oxygen where your head is going. The true qualities of divinity are unknown to all and I suggest they couldn't be expressible in human terms or understood by humans. Now please, 99.999% of me does not believe that any divine being exists, so those are 'Plan B' thoughts only...lol.
Real gods are not made up. Real God is and exists no matter what we think or do or don't. This should be common sense too.
When we got this cleared up, the question remains why you keep getting all enthusiastic about man-made gods and have decidedly nothing to do with the real and true one.
1. Which deity is the "Real God"?
2. Common sense is not so common apparently, as you cleverly leave out that religion is not inherent in our beings/makeup, rather it is learned.
3. One arrives at the conclusion that you'll be proving how your "Real God" is not man-made and how the "others" are man-made?
2. Common sense is not so common apparently, as you cleverly leave out that religion is not inherent in our beings/makeup, rather it is learned.
Actually there are indications that religion is inherent. For example Robespierre, one of the main architects of the gorious heydays of the French Revolution, having slain enough priests, monks and nuns to his taste, made unambiguous moves to institute an alternative religion made up by himself. Another example is Stalin, the supreme leader and father of the peoples of the USSR. Once the Orthodox Church had been pushed basically underground, Stalin's personal cult took quasi-religious forms.
These examples show that religion cannot be eliminated without replacement, which basically means religion is inherent, an inevitable aspect of what it means to be a human. When you try to ignore it or eradicate it, it will come back bugging you in gross shapes.
It's also philosophically meaningful to assume that spirituality in fact is inherent, because it only makes sense to formulate the concept of God in such way that God exists no matter what you think or do or don't. If you think God's existence depends on whether you believe in God or not, or if God needs to be defended against disbelievers, you are not really being spiritual or religious. When God's existence is a transcendent reality independent from our beliefs and proofs, when you see God as a logical inevitability and you perceive it as an inherent necessity to follow through with your spiritual tendencies, then you are really religious.
In any other case you're just talking. For example, have you really proven atheism to yourself so that you are aware of everything it entails and are okay with it? Thought so.
3. One arrives at the conclusion that you'll be proving how your "Real God" is not man-made and how the "others" are man-made?
I never saw you as a proof kind of guy, more like an emotion-driven shifter. If you are proof-driven now, then this must have been another conversion. Too much conversion is bad for you.
...Robespierre, one of the main architects of the gorious heydays of the French Revolution, having slain enough priests, monks and nuns to his taste, made unambiguous moves to institute an alternative religion made up by himself. Another example is Stalin, the supreme leader and father of the peoples of the USSR. Once the Orthodox Church had been pushed basically underground, Stalin's personal cult took quasi-religious forms.
These examples show that religion cannot be eliminated without replacement, which basically means religion is inherent, an inevitable aspect of what it means to be a human. When you try to ignore it or eradicate it, it will come back bugging you in gross shapes.
Sounds not proving anything.
3.
Wasn't answered.
:rolleyes:
You don't need proof, o mighty Guru Josh. You know everything. Proofs are for babies. And for colonels.
Edit: I just understood how Jseaton seems so familiar. He is straight out of movies and comic books:
Hollywood Atheist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodAtheist). First step - don't believe in god. Second step - constantly be angry at the god you don't believe in. Shake your fist at the sky and think blasphemous thoughts, if god doesn't strike you down by lightning be more angry at him.
It's like something I heard in a French ad. I don't know if I heard right, but it sounded like "téléréalité cauchemar" :)
You know everything.
It's actually just about the opposite.
Do I know something? I assume I know something -- for practical purposes. Like Euclid assumed that the continuum is flat and parallel lines don't intersect.
Like Euclid assumed that the continuum is flat and parallel lines don't intersect.
They do! But there are rare cases where they don't. It only happens in a condition of Euclidean pornography.
It was mammography. Euclid really liked mammography.
Ersi: "Edit: I just understood how Jseaton seems so familiar. He is straight out of movies and comic books:"
You are not the first one to mistake me for a Super Hero. (So you get your info from comic books huh? Fascinating.)
Ersi: "When God's existence is a transcendent reality independent from our beliefs and proofs, when you see God as a logical inevitability and you perceive it as an inherent necessity to follow through with your spiritual tendencies, then you are really religious."
God is becoming less and less of a necessity to the creation of our universe. Darwinism booted God out of biology and quantum physics is delivering the coup de grace to God’s necessity. Only a fool would say they could prove or disprove God, however, science is answering the deep 'Why?' questions that are part of fundamental human curiosity much better than religion ever has or ever can. The universe is not mystical any longer because physics is bringing us closer to seeing our world, universe and (perhaps), multiverse in terms that previous generations peddled as supernatural.
If our universe arose spontaneously from nothing at all, one might predict that its total energy should be zero. And when we measure the total energy of the universe, which could have been anything, the answer turns out to be the only one consistent with this possibility. Coincidence? Maybe. But data like this coming in from revolutionary new tools promises to turn much of what is now metaphysics into physics. Whether God survives is anyone's guess, but is a really God necessary to produce nothing?
JS, your posts are appallingly unengaging. If you ache for interaction, maybe try answering some of my old posts. I have written here several posts the length of a treatise. For example here is my response to the problem of evil https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=33.msg9063#msg9063
In this post, instead of Euthyphro dilemma, read Epicurus' paradox. I corrected the mistake a few posts onwards.
And to help you with quoting. When you select some text and press Quick-Quote, the quote will be thrown into the Quick Reply box at the bottom of the page, but the Quick Reply box is closed by default, you have to open it by pressing the + on its side. Even when the box is closed, the Quick Quote still silently works.
Otherwise use the normal Quote button, but then you have to edit the markup properly, which is not so easy.
And to help you with quoting. When you select some text and press Quick-Quote, the quote will be thrown into the Quick Reply box at the bottom of the page, but the Quick Reply box is closed by default, you have to open it by pressing the + on its side. Even when the box is closed, the Quick Quote still silently works.
Although I should point out, the quick quote doesn't do nested quotes properly at this moment.
JS, your posts are appallingly unengaging.
Someone like you simply can't stand to hear or contemplate that what they believe today will necessarily be gone tomorrow. I wasn't trying to engage you, I seldom do, I was merely pointing out that the end of god-belief may come sooner than you think. It will take many generations of people growing up with the clear truth about our existence to supersede and replace religion, but no one can stop time, tide or the advancement of knowledge (not even a Don Quixote like you on a very high horse). We will evolve into a galactic civilization in a 100 years or so and from there go on to harness the energy from our entire galaxy to do unimaginable things to explore and conquer our universe in similar fashion that we did the New World. A few crazies will still be babbling about 'God', but they will have a very nice place for them, rest assured.
(No reply necessary)
@JS
I already changed. Namely, I changed to what I am now. These changes don't happen too often, as we both know from experience. However, if you think some apocalyptic change is imminent for me and you want to speed it up, then act up.
And to help you with quoting. When you select some text and press Quick-Quote, the quote will be thrown into the Quick Reply box at the bottom of the page, but the Quick Reply box is closed by default, you have to open it by pressing the + on its side. Even when the box is closed, the Quick Quote still silently works.
Although I should point out, the quick quote doesn't do nested quotes properly at this moment.
You mean when you select some text, but the selected text already is a quote from another post, then the Quick Quote button still attributes it as from the person whose Quick Quote button you press, right? I thought it wasn't possible to change this. I thought it would always attribute exactly as from the person who wrote the post whose Quick Quote button you pressed.
Anyway, successive quotes are still possible, which should satisfy most needs. It's just that one should carefully select the text really written by the person whose post one is quick-quoting, then it will be okay.
You mean when you select some text, but the selected text already is a quote from another post, then the Quick Quote button still attributes it as from the person whose Quick Quote button you press, right? I thought it wasn't possible to change this. I thought it would always attribute exactly as from the person who wrote the post whose Quick Quote button you pressed.
It actually shouldn't be too hard to fix it up imperfectly (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=153.msg7703#msg7703); that is, without the timestamp and link to the original post. I might investigate that tomorrow while taking a break from writing.
2. Common sense is not so common apparently, as you cleverly leave out that religion is not inherent in our beings/makeup, rather it is learned.
Actually there are indications that religion is inherent. For example Robespierre, one of the main architects of the gorious heydays of the French Revolution, having slain enough priests, monks and nuns to his taste, made unambiguous moves to institute an alternative religion made up by himself. Another example is Stalin, the supreme leader and father of the peoples of the USSR. Once the Orthodox Church had been pushed basically underground, Stalin's personal cult took quasi-religious forms.
These examples show that religion cannot be eliminated without replacement, which basically means religion is inherent, an inevitable aspect of what it means to be a human. When you try to ignore it or eradicate it, it will come back bugging you in gross shapes.
It's also philosophically meaningful to assume that spirituality in fact is inherent, because it only makes sense to formulate the concept of God in such way that God exists no matter what you think or do or don't. If you think God's existence depends on whether you believe in God or not, or if God needs to be defended against disbelievers, you are not really being spiritual or religious. When God's existence is a transcendent reality independent from our beliefs and proofs, when you see God as a logical inevitability and you perceive it as an inherent necessity to follow through with your spiritual tendencies, then you are really religious.
In any other case you're just talking. For example, have you really proven atheism to yourself so that you are aware of everything it entails and are okay with it? Thought so.
3. One arrives at the conclusion that you'll be proving how your "Real God" is not man-made and how the "others" are man-made?
I never saw you as a proof kind of guy, more like an emotion-driven shifter. If you are proof-driven now, then this must have been another conversion. Too much conversion is bad for you.
1. Have you considered that the terms "quasi-religious" and "power-hungry" might be similar for a reason?
It's also philosophically meaningful to assume that spirituality in fact is inherent, because it only makes sense to formulate the concept of God in such way that God exists no matter what you think or do or don't. If you think God's existence depends on whether you believe in God or not, or if God needs to be defended against disbelievers, you are not really being spiritual or religious. When God's existence is a transcendent reality independent from our beliefs and proofs, when you see God as a logical inevitability and you perceive it as an inherent necessity to follow through with your spiritual tendencies, then you are really religious.
2. Assuming is the worst thing one can do, as it can make an ass out of you and me. :P
On a more serious note, yes, it does indeed make sense to
formulate the concept of a deity, as I already mention, religion is learned. Children do not come into this world with an inherent tendency to believe in a deity. Instead, their parent or guarding teaches it to them, most likely because it was what was taught to them, and they might not have bothered considering questioning it all, as they were comfortable with the religious lifestyle and all that goes with it.
After all, putting all of one's problems onto a persona/invisible being/existence is much easier than taking responsibility and shouldering one's problems, one's self.
3. Early on in my posting days on D&D, this was the case; however, in 2009, having both sides present proof made a great deal of sense to me, and it still does. I am not the same emotional-driven poster. :)
1. Have you considered that the terms "quasi-religious" and "power-hungry" might be similar for a reason?
The behaviour may look similar, but the concepts are different because the driving motivation behind them is different. So, they are different for a good reason.
2. Assuming is the worst thing one can do, as it can make an ass out of you and me. :P
On a more serious note, yes, it does indeed make sense to formulate the concept of a deity, as I already mention, religion is learned. Children do not come into this world with an inherent tendency to believe in a deity. Instead, their parent or guarding teaches it to them...
Children are not born religious, true, but they are not born atheist either. They are born clueless of what religion and atheism mean. They learn the distinction and then lean one way or the other. And they don't necessarily grow up to become as their parents. There's a rebel phase in our adolescence where anything may happen. Decent parents' children may turn out as criminal junkies, and drunkards' children may become decent purely as a reaction against parents. Same with the religion too. I, for example, grew up in a country and society where everyone, including my parents, is an atheist. Atheism is the official religion here so to speak, but I always struggled with atheism and materialism intellectually and spiritually already at age 10. Nobody taught me this struggle. Nobody else struggled. Everybody else just let it be. I was completely by myself seeing philosophical problems with atheism and materialism, and it was up to me alone to solve the problems for myself. Nobody showed me the solution.
So, to tell me that religion is learned from parents is the most breathtakingly yawning argument one can make. And it's a bit too easily proven false too, as I did. In fact, your own conversion proves you wrong. Your parents are church-going, right?
1. Have you considered that the terms "quasi-religious" and "power-hungry" might be similar for a reason?
The behaviour may look similar, but the concepts are different because the driving motivation behind them is different. So, they are different for a good reason.
2. Assuming is the worst thing one can do, as it can make an ass out of you and me. :P
On a more serious note, yes, it does indeed make sense to formulate the concept of a deity, as I already mention, religion is learned. Children do not come into this world with an inherent tendency to believe in a deity. Instead, their parent or guarding teaches it to them...
Children are not born religious, true, but they are not born atheist either. They are born clueless of what religion and atheism mean. They learn the distinction and then lean one way or the other. And they don't necessarily grow up to become as their parents. There's a rebel phase in our adolescence where anything may happen. Decent parents' children may turn out as criminal junkies, and drunkards' children may become decent purely as a reaction against parents. Same with the religion too. I, for example, grew up in a country and society where everyone, including my parents, is an atheist. Atheism is the official religion here so to speak, but I always struggled with atheism and materialism intellectually and spiritually already at age 10. Nobody taught me this struggle. Nobody else struggled. Everybody else just let it be. I was completely by myself seeing philosophical problems with atheism and materialism, and it was up to me alone to solve the problems for myself. Nobody showed me the solution.
So, to tell me that religion is learned from parents is the most breathtakingly yawning argument one can make. And it's a bit too easily proven false too, as I did. In fact, your own conversion proves you wrong. Your parents are church-going, right?
1. Not really, as both desire control, and of course, the more control one has the more power on ascertains.
2. Agreed that children do not know what either means, but de facto, without knowing about deities/the possibility of one or many deities, children are born without religion. Even though it may bore you to tears, this is simply how it is. For instance, before I was told what churches/synagogues, and the lone mosque in Oxford were, I used to think they were castles. 8)
You only proved it false in your mind my friend.
My parents used to, yes. But after my siblings and I reached 18, neither go much anymore. Pray tell how my change of stance on the matter, years ago, proves me wrong, please.
Pray tell how my change of stance on the matter, years ago, proves me wrong, please.
Simple, really. If your claim is "religion is learned. Children do not come into this world with an inherent tendency to believe in a deity. Instead, their parent or guarding teaches it to them, most likely because it was what was taught to them..." then any instance of conversion proves it false. You may have learned your religion from parents, but it didn't stick. Instead, you converted to atheism, so see, it's not a one-way street. To be precise and applicable to your own life case, you should formulate the acquisition of religion differently, because your own claim does not properly apply to you.
Of course, you continue, "...and they might not have bothered considering questioning it all, as they were comfortable with the religious lifestyle and all that goes with it." This, however, is also not a one-way street. One grown up with irreligious, anti-religious, atheist, or indifferent parents may inquire and question those stances and end up religious. Happens. Happened to me, for example. I don't have a church to go to, but this does not stop me from formulating my stance as religious after a proper inquiry into the matter.
By the way, you quibbled above about formulating the concept of God as if that was a bad thing. It's only a bad thing when you are not intellectual. But if you are an intellectual - i.e. if you are the inquiring, questioning, methodically problem-solving type of person - then you formulate your concepts in order to clarify them to yourself and to articulate them when you need to explain yourself to others. It's a normal survival thing, really, to formulate concepts.
In fact, I'd argue that if you have not formulated atheism for yourself in this sense, then you are not really atheist, because you are not quite aware of what you got yourself into. You are just kind of relieved by what you got rid of for the time being, but without further clarification you don't know if you got rid of it for good. And if in the past you did not formulate religion in the similar way, then your former self was not really religious either.
It's impossible to know what the natural, unsocialized state of humans is like because all of them are born into a group that directs their intellectual growth. You can't be an atheist until somebody in the community introduces the concept of a god. Presently, I'm neither a religionist nor an atheist. Given the vastness of the known universe, I find the concept of a Jewish god dying on a cross, presumably for the good of everybody out there, absurd.
Is logic good or bad?
If good - still, here's a syllogism:
1) God denies logic.
2) Logic is good.
= God denies good.
/ Nothing personal./
The first premise is contentious. How do you support it?
How do you support it?
Me!??
:left:
O'k! :yes: If 'God' doesn't deny logic, then logically - 'He' doesn't exist. :rolleyes:
O'k! :yes: If 'God' doesn't deny logic, then logically - 'He' doesn't exist. :rolleyes:
Typical Russian! 'God' is a woman, so it should read 'She' doesn't exist.
Nah, the woman can exist - I don't mind.
"God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists since we cannot prove the consistency." -- Morris Kline
'God' is a woman, so it should read 'She'
Reminds me of a joke.
Four Catholic men and a Catholic woman were having coffee.
The first Catholic man tells his friends, "My son is a priest, when he walks into a room, everyone calls him 'Father'."
The second Catholic man chirps, "My son is a Bishop. When he walks into a room people call him 'Your Grace'."
The third Catholic gent says, "My son is a Cardinal.. When he enters a room everyone says 'Your Eminence'."
The fourth Catholic man then says, "My son is the Pope. When he walks into a room people call him 'Your Holiness'."
Since the lone Catholic woman was sipping her coffee in silence, the four men give her a subtle, "Well....?"
She proudly replies, "I have a daughter, slim, tall, 38D breast, 24" waist and 34" hips. When she walks into a room, people say, "Oh My God."
If the four men were monks and the woman a nun, it would be a funny joke.
If the four men were monks and the woman a nun, it would be a funny joke.
Wrong, it would be an impossible joke.
As it is, is funny and educative.
It shows the delights of Catholicism to everyone (probably but the ice cold, logic-robotic Estonians...) :)
Impossible jokes are even funnier. Btw, congrats for making it to the hero status, Belfrager.
Let's form the New Avengers squad? :ninja: :wizard: :knight:
I was forced to turn into an Hero... glad I didn't turn Captain America.
What 'supernatural' powers do you have, an 'ero?:)
I'm immune to Russian linguists no matter how boring they are. Useful, eh? :)
:cow:
This is for Jim, the one with special interest in Christianity:
So, I’m an atheist blogger and a professional philosopher. So this puts me in the unenviable position of having to deal with ignorant atheists who not only disparage philosophy but disparage sophisticated theology without understanding it. And honestly it makes me wince sometimes. I believe we can do better. We can make better arguments that address Christians’ real positions, rather than beat up on straw man versions of their arguments.
And it’s important to note that Christians don’t believe in such silly and absurd things like that God is a man in the sky with a beard. I used to be a devout Christian and I never thought any such silly thing. God is ineffable. God cannot be material. God cannot, as sophisticated theology and philosophy teaches us, be “a” being at all. God is, rather than ineffable ground of all being or Being Itself. God is that from which all other beings derive their essence and that by which they are instantiated in reality. To call Him merely “a” being would be absurd since that would imply He was just one of the beings rather than that inexplicable, self-existence in which, and through which, all those beings have their being.
This comes from someone who actually knows what he is talking about. Continue reading... (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2014/05/dear-fellow-atheists-stop-saying-christians-believe-god-is-a-bearded-man-in-the-sky-they-dont/)
God is ineffable. God cannot be material. God cannot, as sophisticated theology and philosophy teaches us, be “a” being at all. God is, rather than ineffable ground of all being or Being Itself. God is that from which all other beings derive their essence and that by which they are instantiated in reality. To call Him merely “a” being would be absurd since that would imply He was just one of the beings rather than that inexplicable, self-existence in which, and through which, all those beings have their being.
Bullshit, sorry.
If
some god is not
a being, thus it/she/he/phe does not exist. Otherwise its/her/his/pher non-being - and at the same time existing? - will deny linguistics, gnoseology, logic, etc. Thus again, the world as we know it should turn into a mere insanity, mess, etc.
I used to be a devout Christian and I never thought any such silly thing.
And now he's an atheist and doesn't think "any such silly thing" either. Logic fail.
Philosophers need something to work on. :right:
I used to be a devout Christian and I never thought any such silly thing.
And now he's an atheist and doesn't think "any such silly thing" either. Logic fail.
Why is that a logic fail? If the guy never believed any stuff, then he never converted to atheism. He was atheist all along, and only accidentally belonged to some church, just like people are born in some country but may feel better home completely elsewhere.
Anyway, a simple logical solution for all cases when addressing people's beliefs is to address the actual beliefs that are there, not those that are not there. This guy's faith did not need demolishing, because it never existed, but at least he has done the homework now, not like most people.
I believe in Yellow Nipples. They are ineffable, so just shut up.
Why is that a logic fail?
I'm Dutch and I don't like kaassouflés (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaassoufflé), therefore no Dutch people like kaassouflés. :)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F7%2F73%2FBroodje_kaassouffle_crop.jpg%2F350px-Broodje_kaassouffle_crop.jpg&hash=8e961ee52361b77547d7bd8c40cf0aa7" rel="cached" data-hash="8e961ee52361b77547d7bd8c40cf0aa7" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Broodje_kaassouffle_crop.jpg/350px-Broodje_kaassouffle_crop.jpg)
But anyway, based on your extract I didn't realize it was satire, so I take back my reaction.
You should've submitted it to my "cookie" thread, huh? In case you like it, ;).
Yes, it's a satire. But it's an informed one, not ignorant. It actually speaks somewhat to thinking Christians, not to non-thinkers who should logically not even be worth addressing.
But you knew this, right? You know there's a difference between layman and expert, and the difference matters, right? I'm sure you know it, but when it comes to anything to do with religion, you conveniently forget all about it.
Or do you prefer the appeal-to-popularity fallacy here? By this analogy, e.g. physics would be whatever an average schoolboy believes it to be. The physicists are in minority, so they'd better shut up about their own convoluted ideas on the matter.
But you knew this, right?
I believe I just said I didn't realize it was a satire, so no…
You know there's a difference between layman and expert, and the difference matters, right? I'm sure you know it, but when it comes to anything to do with religion, you conveniently forget all about it.
Sounds like you missed the point.
Sounds like you missed the point.
There's a lot of that about.
There was no point to miss. There was a soundbite maybe. You need some more effort to make a point out of it.
Alright.
The aim for posting this was to amuse Jim, and perhaps make him think a bit too, if it's possible to make an old man think with a new perspective. Sadly looks like he is not here these days.
Read the piece as an amusing satire that it is, but don't go along with its fallacies. Namely, there actually are Christians who have the kind of philosophy about God as the text describes, and it's no more special, funny, or weird as any other kind of metaphysics is.
Metaphysics works as explanation of things in life for people who do metaphysics. Importantly, metaphysics is that which distinguishes an explanation from a mere guess, belief, or doubt. So metaphysics is a good thing, when used rightly.
Most people don't do metaphysics and live just fine. They can live, but their ideas and actions are more ad hoc and self-contradictory. They live okay, because they are the majority.
It is logically fallacious to equate these two classes of people. When you mix them up, you get either a fallacy or a satire. Or a fallacious satire, which can be amusing.
I know I took all the fun out of it. Sorry.
There is "philosophical" Religion and there is "religious" Religion. Different subjects for different objectives.
The first demands culture, study and good teachers, the second "only" demands faith. The result is not the same.
Advanced Religions knows how to conjugate both, obviously.
From all the serious debates, arguments and writings I ever saw between philosophical pro religion and pro atheism, religion had deeper, more solid and correct reasoning.
I find modern atheism to be merely an extension of a dominant culture of individualism, hedonism and easiness disguised as a pseudo-philosophical stance.
Well said there.
God is no longer a necessary entity to explain our existence. You can’t tell that to the average believer, they will argue forever that some God created all of us and the universe. However, there is a new story about to be told in the science classrooms of our children. The story states simply that our universe would be here today, just as it is, with or without any God. This statement still allows for the belief that God could have done it, but just as with Darwinism, eventually most rational people will come to realize that God is simply a fairy tale told by scientifically ignorant peasants in ancient times.
You can read the book ‘The Grand Design’ by Stephen Hawking (along with other leading physicists), and try to understand it the best you can (it is written in layman’s terms), or you can be an ostrich and bury your head in the sand with the old ideas of your God until you croak. I prefer to be on the cutting edge of new scientific discoveries and I’m in the process of reading this book now. It is an elegant story which not only makes perfect scientific sense, but also fits seamlessly with the well-established laws of physics and nature.
So if someone (perhaps Ersi), wants to claim the existence of a supernatural being in the universe, he will have to find a new purpose for his existence because creation is going to happen anyway. Ersi wishes to live forever, so no doubt ‘eternal life’ will be his God’s specialty (be careful what you wish for, btw). The fact of the matter is that any designer God is as good as the next one because it’s only make-believe, so fantasize away.
Since a God isn’t necessary for our existence, is the existence of a God necessary? No, it is not. We can close the book on God once and for all now—besides a God complicates the question of existence simply because you then have to explain an impossible-to-explain entity—very messy and contra Occam’s Razor. It will certainly take some time for God to fade into obscurity, but fade he will. Science explained the existence of all species as coming from lower species and now science has shown how we came into existence as a universe in the first place. Everyone can stick to their antiquated and highly debatable ideas of god if they wish, but if you want to simplify your life and yet stay one step ahead of the rest—just read the book. :monkey: :cheers:
people learn to lie at some point because not everyone deserves to know the truth
onthe other hand ,
there is no truth , there is only Perception
I have just listened (again) to Pergolesi's Stabat Mater, and am overwhelmed (again) in the contemplation of the immensity of the sublime music that has been written "to the glory of God".
sometimes , some memories that makes us feel happier
is just some memories that make us feel happier .
our memories , and what we believe , not a guarantee can make another people feel happier if they have that kind of memories .
You can read the book ‘The Grand Design’ by Stephen Hawking (along with other leading physicists), and try to understand it the best you can (it is written in layman’s terms), or you can be an ostrich and bury your head in the sand with the old ideas of your God until you croak.
Old is not necessarily bad. Stephen Hawking is old, at least older than me, and this is not a bad thing. I have read an older book by him, A Brief History of Time, and I am okay with the concept of God there. A quote from there:
When asked: "What did God do before he created the universe?" Augustine didn’t reply: "He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions." Instead, he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe.
Therefore it's false to assume that God is an arbitrary starting/end point for irrational people. Instead, God is a logically necessary metaphysical foundation of everything for intellectuals who see or seek reason and rationality everywhere.
Please become acquainted with the actual arguments for God, instead of flawed strawmen. Hawking inspired me to read Augustine, and from there I have read on and thought things through myself. I'm not interested in directly recommending books to you, but the argumentation that Hawking referred to, I found it in Augustine's Confessions. Go to the actual source texts to find out the actual source arguments, instead of misrepresented third-hand summaries.
Also, here's an intro for you what an argument is. Argument is a set of propositions among which there are premises and a conclusion. The classical form of argument is the syllogism. The schoolbook example of the syllogism:
Premise #1: All men are mortal.
Premise #2: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Notice that you cannot deny the conclusion. The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. You can only attack one or some of the premises. For example, you can take "All men are mortal" and quibble: "How do you know this? Have you verified everybody's death? How is it that you and I are alive and not dead? Maybe Socrates was the kind of dude who is actually immortal, an exception to what appears mostly to be the case?"
When you question the premise this way, you undermine the conclusion. If you manage to prove that the premise is false, the conclusion is refuted and you shall have defeated the argument.
So, it has no effect at all on me when you deny God and keep touting the triumph of science. It has no effect on me because *God is the conclusion,* and my premises include science in proper perspective. To provide you with (yet) an(other) opportunity to exercise actual argumentation, here's a proof of God for you:
- Instead of atomism or emergentism (forms of physicalist theory), I hold to the continuum theory. Lengthy argumentation here in two successive posts https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=33.msg9793#msg9793
- The continuum theory implies an omnipresence, where the principle of life and consciousness inheres.
- The technical term for the principle of life and consciousness is spirit, and this also happens to be one of the names/titles/descriptions of God (John 4:24)
Since a God isn’t necessary for our existence, is the existence of a God necessary? No, it is not. We can close the book on God once and for all now—besides a God complicates the question of existence simply because you then have to explain an impossible-to-explain entity—very messy and contra Occam’s Razor.
I quite agree with the principle of explanatory economy, and that's why I adhere to spiritual monism. The tenet of this philosophy is that, in the ultimate sense, only God exists. It doesn't get any more economical than this. Instead of gods of the gaps, there's omnipresent God. There's no grand designer, watchmaker, or first mover. There's Existence Itself in singular nature.
Then how does the world appear variegated and the things in the world multiple? By means of the power of will that inheres in the omnipresent consciousness. The live will may acquire a direction, thus making it appear that consciousness moves in some particular direction. Such particular directions of consciousness we call time, movement, dimensions of space, causation, evolution, etc. In truth its omnidirectional, but to us it analytically appears as a particular dimension #1, #2, etc., wherein there's entity #1, #2, etc. So on to infinity. There are really infinite ways to analyse existence. Note that this is not the theory of emergentism (from matter, which I refuted earlier in this thread). Rather, its name is the theory of emanation (from spirit), akin to the original Gnosticism and Neoplatonism.
When things are infinite in number, then how is it that it's all one? By means of self-referential logic. The tenet of self-referential logic states that a thing is the same as its properties. You are the same as the list of your properties or qualities. Your character or nature is your definition, and your definition is what you are - it equals yourself. (Note that the list is not about your physical components or body parts, but exactly properties/qualities, both material and immaterial. This distinction is technically important.) Ultimately, the absolute existence is an infinite mass of verbal or notional properties/qualities conceivable in endless ways. When the analysis has been brought to a successful (right and good) conclusion, the mind arrives at the blissful state of rest. You either analyse the existence to death or you let the inevitable conclusion illumine thy self (soul).
Also a note on the problem of evil. God is the same as His own nature and the world is its reflection. If God is all good, then whence cometh evil? God is good because he wisely provides everyone with intellect to have a meaningful life, and free will to work it out. God is also merciful in allowing the critters' free will to reign for their lifetime. Indeed, that's what makes the will free; it's its rational definition! God is generous in giving such life with free will to everyone impartially, both to the good and to the evil beings.
From the absolute point of view, only God exists and the world is His glory. From the individual point of view, many go after the glory and thus forget God. The result is evil. Spiritual people choose God over the glory, which in turn leads to good fruits. In spiritual metaphysics, God is the light of the world, and hell is the shadow cast by the world. Hell is not directly God's doing, but an inevitable result proportionate to one's affirmation of the world over God. More comments on the problem of evil https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=33.msg9063#msg9063
Now you know the game. Or should. If you still don't get it, then all I said in the humour thread is ridiculously true. But even so there's still hope. String here has said is a PhD in philosophy and can perhaps share from his authoritative knowledge base in a didactical way.
God is a logically necessary metaphysical foundation of everything for intellectuals who see or seek reason and rationality everywhere.
I couldn't agree more. :rolleyes:
- Instead of atomism or emergentism (forms of physicalist theory), I hold to the continuum theory.
You're probably right but we'll have a lot of difficulty if we want to defend to a general public the existence of God based at the continuum theory.
I find the continuum theory very much something that either is a monumental fallacy (a fallacy that I can't identify because it seems to me to make sense in everything and to be a much more "pure" model) or a revolutionary truth.
So revolutionary that it affects the entire way how humans sees the world.
But if so, it will change linguistic and philosophical concepts necessarily. By so, it will affect sociology and psychology. It will affect our understanding of History, it will literally change the past. It will even change sex, I suppose...
The world human beings created was not modeled by the continuum theory but by several evolutions of the atomistic perception.
As a conservative, I think that's too soon to spread continuum from the closed world of physician's labs and spread it to the general world.
People don't get it and people don't need it.
It will be impossible to make a coherent liaison, a bridge, between both "atomic and continuum God(s)" for the established religions.
By the way, your explanation about it is better and more concise than many science or philosophy vulgarization books or wikipedia's articles. I strongly recommend our DnD colleagues to re-read it again.
Finally, with the continuum there will be no more any distinction between physics and philosophy. We'll get the Unified Theory of Knowledge. :)
I find the continuum theory very much something that either is a monumental fallacy (a fallacy that I can't identify because it seems to me to make sense in everything and to be a much more "pure" model) or a revolutionary truth.
So revolutionary that it affects the entire way how humans sees the world.
Really? Have you even read your Bible? Oops, I remembered that you consider it an obsession. Then you will simply have to take my word on it. Continuum theory is not some new revolutionary thing. Instead, it's the original thing. And it's not going to change the sciences and the society to something new, but provides an opportunity to get back to the normal.
The world human beings created was not modeled by the continuum theory but by several evolutions of the atomistic perception.
False. Just take my word on it. Continuum theory is the original basis of science, has always been undeterred in metaphysics and mathematics, and has returned in physics as electromagnetism gained more interest and quantum mechanics was developed. Continuum theory is both the ultimate source and end of it all. Atomism was a temporary aberration.
And no, this is not
the reason that converted me. Continuum theory is what I always held, because it always worked. It's universally applicable in all circumstances despite atomists' insistence to the contrary. It's possible to be converted by connecting the dots, but this is not what converted me. However, when talking to outsiders, it makes more sense to talk in terms that allow connecting some dots.
I'm afraid that your continuum post wasn't enough to reply to the dot-points my dot- post made. :)
Too much semantics for too less substrate.
But this is a discussion very worthy. I'll get back later after finishing more prosaic business.
In math, there's an infinite amount of dots on an infinitely long line. Also there's an infinite amount of dots on a finite line. How does this compute? The dots are imaginary, that's how.
If the dots are imaginary, then what is undeniably true or real? That wherein you imagine the dots, that is undeniably true. That where you draw the lines to connect the dots, that is real all along no matter how you draw the lines to build structure. The substance (or substrate, as you say) wherein we do semantics - that is undeniable. It's the absolute continuum, beyond formulation, yet it's the logically undeniable background of everything. It's both inevitable and self-evident.
I agree that God is imaginary.
In the beginning was the Verb - it seems to me that the" Verb" is not exactly the continuum theory or even was supposed to refer to energy, the energy you refer and that is measured in Joules... :)
The Verb means the "action", by the way.
There are many ways of "not reading" the Bible, my friend.
............................
What interests me here is the relationship between a promising theory of the physical world and religion, being religion considered at both the philosophical approach and the established, organized religion's approach.
Everything is energy and there's nothing but energy. Okay, where's God?
Two possible answers:
1) as ever,in order to create the world (in this case, energy) God has necessarily to be "out of this world". It's not possible to be part of its own creation. Nothing changes from the classic theories and God keeps on being an "entity" with exactly the same logical needed attributes.
2) God is also energy and nothing but energy. Then, we and everything else are a part of God. Pantheism, God everywhere. Not new.
I'll bet my money in the first one.
How does the spiritual world goes along with the continuum theory? that's a nice question.
God is a logically necessary metaphysical foundation of everything for intellectuals who see or seek reason and rationality everywhere.
He used to be, yes. However, that is old school and the new school theory "of everything" has yet to be accepted by lay people because, for all practical purposes, it happened overnight. It was just over 80 years ago that the neutron was discovered and science has rocketed to today where quantum particles and their behavior is all but solved. It is only by having a complete understanding of the most fundamental particles in nature that science can conclusively demonstrate how everything came into being.
Practically speaking, science will not usurp thousands of years of religious belief overnight. People are slow to accept anything new, especially the seemingly incomprehensible discoveries of science (unless it is convenient and serves their purpose). Most people today are unwilling to let go of old and comfortable ideas, and rightly so because it has worked for much or most of their life (many people would actually be better off holding on to their old ideas and ways of living).
But rather than debate endlessly about God, let me concede that the concepts of science and math are easy to grasp for only a certain percentage of the population and many of the rest will go with what is easiest for them grasp (the path of least resistance). There is no shame in not understanding science and math any more than there is shame in not being able to do art (stick figures is as far as I go).
Hope lies in the next generations who will be taught this new science early in their life and then make their choice on what to believe. The laws of nature and science are the purest truths available on this planet—yes, science postulates incorrectly all the time, but trial and error is the only way of finding the absolute truth (not bottomless philosophical debate). The ultimate truth is exquisitely simple and all the jigsaw pieces of scientific truth fit together seamlessly to form a glorious and conclusive picture of how we came to be…it is absolutely priceless!
JS, you have some problem with my conclusion and you keep going on about it, but you are not addressing any of my premises. This is precisely the wrong way to do it. Try again. Try it the right way.
There are many ways of "not reading" the Bible, my friend.
Right. Different sects manifest a different non-reading of the Bible, overemphasising some aspect while conveniently forgetting others. Jehovah's Witnesses only evangelise about last days. Westboro Baptist Church specialises in spewing damnations and curses. Certain Bible Belt folks lift snakes and drink poison. And Catholicism nicely accommodates distinct holy orders where you can choose your favourite virtue - austerity, charity, idolatry, etc.
You are right that you can build a legitimate doctrine around the concept of Logos and I admit that such doctrine would not lend itself to easy interpretation in terms of the continuum theory. I personally don't see how to reconcile them and this is one of the reasons why my focus is on the concept of spirit instead, not Logos. Logos sounds instrumental. Spirit sounds fundamental. Everybody takes whatever works for them, and I've taken spirit.
What interests me here is the relationship between a promising theory of the physical world and religion, being religion considered at both the philosophical approach and the established, organized religion's approach.
Everything is energy and there's nothing but energy. Okay, where's God?
It's not the same as energy. Energy would be some sterilised version of it, strictly physicalised or physicised, devoid of consciousness, devoid of truth, full of fluctuations, differences of intensity, etc. When it's reduced and relativised this way, you can legitimately ask, "Okay, where's God?" However, spirit is not relative like this. Instead of energy, or maybe in addition to energy and space (omnipresence), think of it as omniscience and omnipotence. It cannot be bottled up. When you think you are bottling it up as energy, then who is bottling it up? It's the same spirit on the subject side of the metaphysical equation who is allowing experiments on the object side through your instrumentality. You can bottle up nuclear energy alright, and the explosion looks stunning to the eyes, to all the senses, but this only blinds you to the power on the subject side which enables all this.
Spirit correctly understood is primarily on the subject side of the metaphysical divide, and only secondarily on the object side. On the object side you are right, it's correct to call it energy, but this only due to applied limitations, whereas spirit properly has no limitations. We may experiment with energy and subdue it, but to perform these experiments, to think of ways to capture and bottle stuff up really means to borrow from God in every sense and aspect. Anytime we look anywhere, when we think of anything, do anything, we borrow from the subject side all the strength, effort, attention, and perception. And the subject side = spirit = God (in degrees, not univocally). Also our own body and the objects perceived are ultimately borrowed the same way, via a series of reductive delimitations of spirit. When you properly consider it now, you cannot ask, "Okay, where's God?"
God is the metaphysical subject, i.e. that which makes the objective world intelligible, i.e. that which makes the objective world extant in any relevant sense in the first place. God is spirit (John 4:24; see, we are quoting the same gospel) and, accordingly, spirit is God.
For creationists, God is (or should be, in the name of consistency) both the cause of creation, i.e. the Creator, and also the outcome - formal and material cause of the creation. Understood this way, God's omnipresence is never violated.
Two possible answers:
1) as ever,in order to create the world (in this case, energy) God has necessarily to be "out of this world". It's not possible to be part of its own creation. Nothing changes from the classic theories and God keeps on being an "entity" with exactly the same logical needed attributes.
You bet your money (almost) rightly, but I have some quibble about the way you formulate this point. First, I'm sure we understand classic theories differently. Is it Newtonian physics or Aristotelian cosmology for you? Among European traditions, Neoplatonism stands closest to me, and this is different from Newtonian and Aristotelian views.
Second, God is not an entity. More specifically, not an entity among others. In Neoplatonism, the only true "entity" is God, while everything else is imaginary. Note that imaginary does not equal unreal. Imagination is real enough.
Third, you are right to point out that God must be distinguished from the world. Above I stated that God's omnipresence should not be violated, but at the same time it's true that the distinction of God and the universe is of vital importance. Now, this distinction is established conceptually through incisive metaphysics, not through physics. It's precisely metaphysics, not physics, which enables a razor-sharp distinction of God and the universe, and at the same time reconciles the distinction with God's omnipresence. Physics cannot do this.
How does the spiritual world goes along with the continuum theory? that's a nice question.
Now, had you asked how the spiritual world goes along with the physical world, what's the distinction and what's the relation, I would be interested to answer at length. But you didn't ask.
It seems to me that you possibly understood the continuum theory as a mere physics theory. Wrong impression. Continuum is more like a universal philosophical concept, readily applicable to math, social sciences, physics, anywhere really. To spirituality too. I personally did not pick it up from any book. I was born with it. Then I had to struggle hard with Newtonian atomistic physics in school, which forced me to gradually clarify and elaborate the continuum theory until I understood its full implications.
JS, you have some problem with my conclusion and you keep going on about it, but you are not addressing any of my premises. This is precisely the wrong way to do it. Try again. Try it the right way.
I am no longer willing to dance with you Ersi. You want your cake and eat it too. YOU want to debate only what YOU want to debate in the way YOU want to debate it on YOUR home court or nothing at all. Your ideas and debates are forever circular and no conclusion can ever be satisfactorily reached by either side. If you can be forever happy with your conclusions about God, then why not just take the money and run...or are you looking for something else--admiration, glory, worship? Well, I'm not the one.
You say that there is bad science, that it is mistaken or just plain wrong, but that just shows how little you know about how science works. Science has no agenda, no promises to keep and it is not out to get God--it simply finds the truth,reports it and moves on. You are a witness to an era where the decline of religion is just beginning, it will be slow, but it is absolutely unstoppable sir. :coffee:
Someone watches too much Discovery Channel.
today where quantum particles and their behavior is all but solved.
You are right that you can build a legitimate doctrine around the concept of Logos and I admit that such doctrine would not lend itself to easy interpretation in terms of the continuum theory. I personally don't see how to reconcile them and this is one of the reasons why my focus is on the concept of spirit instead, not Logos. Logos sounds instrumental. Spirit sounds fundamental. Everybody takes whatever works for them, and I've taken spirit.
I see your dichotomy Logos/Spirit - instrumental/fundamental only valid as if Logos being defined as the rational nature of Spirit. I'm not certain if you wanted to mean it that way.
nstead of energy, or maybe in addition to energy and space (omnipresence), think of it as omniscience and omnipotence. It cannot be bottled up. When you think you are bottling it up as energy, then who is bottling it up? It's the same spirit on the subject side of the metaphysical equation who is allowing experiments on the object side through your instrumentality. You can bottle up nuclear energy alright, and the explosion looks stunning to the eyes, to all the senses, but this only blinds you to the power on the subject side which enables all this.
You're forgetting the fourth characteristic of God besides omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence (as so frequently people do). He has to be Good.
Does God needs to be good with the continuum theory? I don't know.. The continuum extirpates God from moral values, I'm afraid.
First, I'm sure we understand classic theories differently. Is it Newtonian physics or Aristotelian cosmology for you? Among European traditions, Neoplatonism stands closest to me, and this is different from Newtonian and Aristotelian views.
For the present discussion It doesn't matter if you lean into Ideas being the only pure beings or if you think that laws of physics are kind of God's hand in order to keep the universe stable. It's indifferent.
Second, God is not an entity. More specifically, not an entity among others.
The very definition of God excludes him of being an entity among others.
How do you want me to refer to God if not as an entity and not taking an entire paragraph just to mention him? :)
It's precisely metaphysics, not physics, which enables a razor-sharp distinction of God and the universe, and at the same time reconciles the distinction with God's omnipresence. Physics cannot do this.
I entirely agree.
Now, had you asked how the spiritual world goes along with the physical world, what's the distinction and what's the relation, I would be interested to answer at length. But you didn't ask.
Course I didn't ask. I imagine the length of the post that I would have to comment... :)
That was not the point about this discussion.
It seems to me that you possibly understood the continuum theory as a mere physics theory. Wrong impression. Continuum is more like a universal philosophical concept, readily applicable to math, social sciences, physics, anywhere really. To spirituality too. I personally did not pick it up from any book. I was born with it. Then I had to struggle hard with Newtonian atomistic physics in school, which forced me to gradually clarify and elaborate the continuum theory until I understood its full implications.
No, I don't see it that way.
My first and only contact with such theory was during a conversation while having dinner with a friend of mine that is a physicist at the field of physics of fluids. Never read any book and even less wikipedia's articles about it. He mentioned it and I made lots of questions about it. A very, very interesting conversation.
It results straight away the philosophical consequences of such theory. One bottle of wishy was not enough for going deeper than just the surface.
As you know, after man start looking into the the world of the infinitely small, where laws from "our scale" doesn't apply anymore, you can't be a physicist without having a deep interest about philosophical issues.
For now, what turns really interesting is that you seem to be a "continuum mystical".
Some things never change, the moment this theory appears and there's already divisions. :)
By the way, Catholicism is not a sect and you don't have the Orders that pleases you the most, you have just one thing - the Church of Peter, to whom Jesus Christ said
Go and make MY Church.
Poor Peter is seems that Estonia was too far away for him... :)
I see your dichotomy Logos/Spirit - instrumental/fundamental only valid as if Logos being defined as the rational nature of Spirit. I'm not certain if you wanted to mean it that way.
I really didn't mean to dichotomise much. The most important difference between the two is that I have no idea how the concept of Logos could be useful, whereas spirit has answered all the questions I ever had.
You're forgetting the fourth characteristic of God besides omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence (as so frequently people do). He has to be Good.
Does God needs to be good with the continuum theory? I don't know.. The continuum extirpates God from moral values, I'm afraid.
Good is there too, naturally. All the conceivable qualities are there in the continuum. "All conceivable" means infinite in number. Since they are infinite, there's no complete list of them. It only makes sense to mention the concepts relevant to the discussion, instead of as many as possible.
One way to describe it is that the qualities are infinite in number, but another way, equally legitimate, is that they are non-different from each other. All the properties or tendencies that are natural to the continuum are naturally good, but whichever one you name, you cannot emphasise it too much over others.
And the third way to describe it is to say that it's "not of this world", i.e. whatever can be affirmed of this world, does not apply "there". Surely you are familiar with the principle of so-called negative theology.
As you know, after man start looking into the the world of the infinitely small, where laws from "our scale" doesn't apply anymore, you can't be a physicist without having a deep interest about philosophical issues.
Not just the infinitely small, but also the infinitely large is self-evidently analysable in terms of the continuum theory. It's only "our scale" that is tougher to the continuum theory, because people tend to take sense-data for ultimate reality, leading to materialist assumptions that cannot reasonably hold anywhere beyond the usual five senses.
For now, what turns really interesting is that you seem to be a "continuum mystical".
Some things never change, the moment this theory appears and there's already divisions. :)
Right about "mystic". I speak confidently about it because to me it's direct perception, not a theory. It's theory only when communicated to others. Doubts, divisions and disputes naturally arise between people for whom it's not direct perception.
@Belfrager
To address your doubts that my views are somehow innovative or heretical, here's a nice article I found, an overview of the development of major milestones in the development of the concept of God in the Western world http://journalofanalytictheology.com/jat/index.php/jat/article/view/jat.2014-1.120013000318a/222
When you read it, you can safely disregard all references to Radical Orthodox School. They appear to be some debate group who have occasioned the writing of this comprehensive overview. This clue perferctly sufficed for me to make the article readable. Alternatively, if you happen to have friends in that club, tell me who they are :)
Sure enough, I come closest to Plotinus, who was gentile, not Christian. But he was no infidel, and he was a major source for Augustine whose work seems to have consisted in dressing up the concept of the One in biblical terms. In a way I'm exaggerating of course, as Augustine definitely had his own insight, but the distinctions between Augustine and Plotinus, which is the first subsection in the article, are so subtle that to the uninformed they seem either nonsensical or negligible, while the informed reader can infer the little cultural and circumstancial reasons for the differences.
It's a very good article. I am happy to find another lady almost as understanding of the subtlest shades of metaphysical truth and with the ability to convey mystical insights as Evelyn Underhill was. I have no dispute with the writer. I would put some things differently than the article does, but this only because I am not a sweet tender lovely lady, not overly attentive to details, and not an academically acknowledged specialist either.
It's precisely metaphysics, not physics, which enables a razor-sharp distinction of God and the universe, and at the same time reconciles the distinction with God's omnipresence. Physics cannot do this.
Physics can't tell you how to bake good French bread either...your statement is the very definition of inanity. Why do you mention this piffle about physics when physics has no interest in God? You continually take these cheap potshots at physics because you really have no other viable criticisms of physics.
It's a very good article.
Yes it is and an excellent lesson on the evolution of the onto-theological question through times.
In resume, I don't think that "my" God being an entity makes him "less God" than a God considered as being beyond entity.
The arguments for this position (as well as its contrary) are very well stated at the article.
I need to read it with some more time in order to discuss it. Putting God even more primordial than the notion of entity raises problems that I'm afraid would necessarily make any further discussion about the ontological nature of God impossible.
@jseaton2311 - You quote me wrongly.
@jseaton2311 - You quote me wrongly.
He's not quoting you at all. He quotes me, but attributes the quote wrongly to you.
As to those concepts of God, when we go beyond the speculative metaphysics and get to the real mystical insight, Plotinus' construal allows for the eventual unconditional merger with the absolute ineffable One, whereas Christian construal doesn't. Nobody is supposed to see God, says the scripture. Therefore those Christian mystics who got close to it in their lifetime, were careful to make qualifications in their descriptions for fear of getting incinerated as heretics. For example blessed Ruysbroek said that even in the utmost depth of God-experience he (Ruysbroek) was still distinct from God, though apparently one, like fire and iron in the smithy, and that he would humbly let the church judge his words on this.
That's exactly what blessed Ruysbroek says. He puts a check on himself referring to church's authority. What's your reaction? I personally prefer uninhibited individual quest.
That's exactly what blessed Ruysbroek says. He puts a check on himself referring to church's authority. What's your reaction? I personally prefer uninhibited individual quest.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=33.412;msg=21984)
None of us knows what was to be alive at the thirteen century, none of us knows what was the relationship people from that time had with liberty for start and even less with religion or the Holy Mother Church.
We also don't know what a thirteen century man would think about "uninhibited".
History of Mentalities is a very recent and very promising area of Historical Studies exactly because it aims to let us learn about what was to be alive at those remote times. Much more important than knowing that some battle was at the 24 or at the 25 is to know what those men thought while directing for an eminent death. Everyday was an eminent death, by the way.
Just the other day, you mentioned the Catholic Church as a place were each one could chose from a variety of Orders, kind of a spiritual gourmet menu... I'm certain we have very nice contemplative Orders where you can feel totally uninhibited for your quest.
Ah, no forums I'm afraid, social mysticism hasn't arrived yet. :)
None of us knows what was to be alive at the thirteen century, none of us knows what was the relationship people from that time had with liberty for start and even less with religion or the Holy Mother Church.
We also don't know what a thirteen century man would think about "uninhibited".
Actually it's pretty easy to know. A good starting point is to understand that politics is essentially the same across the board.
I'm not saying that the Church's dealing with differences was bad or should not have happened. It's natural and necessary that the Church deals with perceived deviation and opposition. It's also pretty natural, though not easily excusable, that those in the Church in position to deal with it adopted questionable methods. Naturally it cannot be judged by our current standards alone. But I am definitely saying that in the process some bright individuals were prevented from full realisation.
And this is not saying anything overly harsh. It has been going on in all places, at all times, and it's therefore obvious that it has also happened and is going on in the enormous big org that the Church is. And therefore it's obvious why some people determined for their own realisation are cautious of the big org.
History of Mentalities is a very recent and very promising area of Historical Studies exactly because it aims to let us learn about what was to be alive at those remote times.
Study of biographies and microhistory has always been a subfield in historical studies. Nice that you are discovering it too :)
Just the other day, you mentioned the Catholic Church as a place were each one could chose from a variety of Orders, kind of a spiritual gourmet menu... I'm certain we have very nice contemplative Orders where you can feel totally uninhibited for your quest.
Ah, no forums I'm afraid, social mysticism hasn't arrived yet. :)
The idea would be exactly to get away from any kind of forums. This sort of stuff is really for contemplation alone, not for chatting about. Something like this looks cute https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqU18nKiVss
This sort of stuff is really for contemplation alone, [...]
Not exactly... most of those Orders have strange ideas about sanctity through manual work... you'll have to sweat a lot while digging at the monastery garden... :)
So, you did well choosing the Carthusians, those don't dig but in the depths of the Soul.
It remains to be seen if they accept you...
It's not easy to enter such Orders. They take it extremely seriously, as it should be what's a radical decision for the entire life. No Catholic Order wants people entering and leaving so those who feels such appeal have to go trough many steps and processes until they eventually reach entrance to an Order.
For people that are just needing a time for personal reflexion, contemplation, whatever away from day to day life there are spiritual retreats for a week or two.
All that is made always under the supervision of Priests and in strict accordance with the Church rules and guides.
You wouldn't like it. :)
This sort of stuff is really for contemplation alone, [...]
Not exactly... most of those Orders have strange ideas about sanctity through manual work... you'll have to sweat a lot while digging at the monastery garden... :)
I am perfectly comfortable with manual work since early childhood. In contrast, my adult life is marked by office work, but this completely against my will and intention. Namely, I tried many tough sweaty jobs immediately after high school, but unfortunately they were extremely ill paid and insecure, so in the end I was forced to get a university degree and now I am stuck with decently paid easy sitting office jobs :(
I understand well the need to combine manual labour and contemplation. Even those with very strong inclination towards contemplation must have a period in their life, say a decade, full of manual labour, in order to get a proper taste of the elements of real life, because in the end it's all about attunement with reality, not wishful dreaming.
All that is made always under the supervision of Priests and in strict accordance with the Church rules and guides.
You wouldn't like it. :)
I have read the Benedictine rule for example. I like it just fine. In practice the rule may work differently of course. Some superiors may interpret it in some other way than the impression I got from reading. This is exactly why it's good to have a choice between multiple orders. And of course I understand the choice must be perfect, done just once for entire life.
I feel strong attraction for Thai forest monks and Tibetan cave meditation, but some monasteries closer around may provide other fun ways to combine physical exercise with holy contemplation and singing of hymns http://www.grreporter.info/en/fight_between_monks_esphigmenou_monastery_mount_athos/9775
Well... you seem to have your homework well done Ersi...
A last attempt do dissuade you, you realize that you would to voluntarily and happily accept celibacy, don't you?
In fact, is more than accept celibacy, is to desire it. Desiring no desire.
The temptation for a contemplative life affects many of us amongst those more prone to the mysteries of the soul, at some particular time of our lives.
Thankfully for most, it doesn't last long. :)
Well... you seem to have your homework well done Ersi...
[...]
In fact, is more than accept celibacy, is to desire it. Desiring no desire.
I've done my homework on this point too. And done it well.
I've done my homework on this point too. And done it well.
Ewww! (TMI)
From The Sydney Morning Herald
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3879/14281728799_d562f81b30_b.jpg)
Time the Jesuits gave up on that old cry. :D
A problem with
institutional religion is lack of commitment to principles. There are aspects of the doctrine and principles of natural theology that should always be adhered to, if the religious institution wants to be recognisable to its members. There may be some quibble about how natural theology should be construed, but any change should also stem from a theological principle, not from popular or populist whim.
For example the church's official view on gay marriages. In an interview with Finnish YLE, the archbishop of Swedish Church Antje Jackelén (http://yle.fi/uutiset/ruotsin_arkkipiispa_avioliiton_suoja_on_tarjottava_myos_homoille/7337161) (the first female archbishop in Sweden) emitted some noteworthy passages.
We teach that all people are of the same worth and we encourage relationships of love as big as life itself. It doesn't diminish the value of the traditional marriage when the protection provided by means of marriage is also provided to same-sex couples.
Now, if marriage has to do with family and procreation - as it does scripturally, biologically, and in natural theology - then it definitely alters the value of the sacrament of marriage to provide it to the same-sex couples. Without any thorough arguments such changes are devastating to the church's own historical position and status.
Compare this to a statement this week by the archbishop of Finnish Church (male) who said something like "homosexuals deserve an apology from the church" and there's lively discussion now what he actually meant, as the archbishop is known to be "philosophical" and didn't specify what the church should apologise for, who is responsible, if his own statement is sufficient for apology or should the priests and church members at large also assume an apologetic attitude in relation to homosexuals. One commentator was happy for the archbishop's indication of warmer ties with homosexuals, while another commentator noted that the archbishop appears to be deviating from the official church policy as outlined at the church council meetings.
Church of Finland's official line accepts female priests but not gay marriages. Church of Sweden accepts both female priests and gay marriages, but there's an opposing group of priests who don't follow these policies. Antje Jackelén promises further marginalisation to such dissenters based on this kind of reasoning:
When one works for Ikea, but agrees only to sell tables and not stools, one may still be an excellent table salesman, but it's unlikely to progress much in career this way.
The comparison with Ikea is of course exactly the kind of populist commercial perspective to religion that squarely goes against all ethical values. Ikea sells whatever has a market, whatever people buy. When a different thing becomes trendy, Ikea will begin selling that different thing. Should religion follow commercial or social trends and not uphold more permanent values? Is the church competing with Ikea? Are people going to the church to look for the same things as they find in Ikea? Obviously this used to not be so historically, so what justification is there to turn the meaning of institutional religion in society upside down now?
The Church of England accepted women priests in modern times and has ow agreed to female bishops but queer marriage is still not on. In Scotland the Church of Scotland has long had women clergy as has the Congregational tradition who were early movers. As for the church of Rome it did have married clergy until the middle ages until some old white socks in the Vatican decided that would stop. Instead for centuries they shut a blind eye to their clergy having it off in legions and not missing out on children either. Kind of hypocritical really. The former leader of the Romanists down in England (a cardinal) who died a few years ago stated publicly that refusing to let clergy marry was a man-made law (as we know) yet that Church still has 2% of it's standing clergy who are profligates. Indeed when one realises what 2% means in practice it is not just sad it is shocking.
A young nun I knew for a while admitted to me at a meal that she was all for married clergy and it must have been trying for her to keep her mouth closed inside the Roman corner.
The first video I post here:
[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BuOlKZ_C2k[/VIDEO]
A problem with institutional religion is lack of commitment to principles.
Some might say "too much of a commitment to principles". In my studies of theology, theologians do have an obligation to use, interpret and maintain the original text and meaning of biblical scripture but at the same time, they must try to make it contemporary enough to keep it interesting and relevant in today’s world. Theology warns itself not to get too close to any one cultural mood because moods change often and rapidly, and theology does not want to have an image of bouncing from one contemporary movement to the next haphazardly. For the most part, I can agree with this idea of maintaining a timeless connection with the original word of God, but in light of many of today’s problems coming to ‘critical mass’, I think theology can do a better job by embracing certain issues of today.
In the light of climate change, environmental damage, endangered species and impending challenges over the supply of energy and water, Christians concerned about ‘creation care’ are beginning to get to grips with what God actually meant by ‘… let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ Genesis 1: 26. I believe that theology should take a bolder stand on these issues, they may be the modern mood, but these issues are with us for the duration, i.e. they will never be passe. Theology needs to take into account that certain ‘moods’ are here to stay; the Bible speaks to these issues, therefore, theology needs to create formal doctrine on them.
Your example of same sex couples in nothing short of abhorrent. The people of biblical times knew nothing of the reasons for homosexuality. They also knew nothing of 'pi' and therefore, there are mathematical mistakes in the bible that theology admits to and accounts for by pointing to the ignorance of people during that time. Is theology and hence, religious doctrine not to take into account any modern scientific discoveries that are apparent to all but the most mindless of religious followers? I think I have mentioned that theology already allows for an 'intra-kind' type of evolution to account for the undeniable fossil records, so they are giving some ground to science, although begrudgingly. You just hate fags, that's all (or at least you should have used a less sensitive issue).
A problem with institutional religion is lack of commitment to principles.
Ah, Protestantism.
Oh-oh. That made me laugh coming from a church with a mixture of paganism with Christianity. For that I am going to start a lodge in Lisbon. :knight:
A problem with institutional religion is lack of commitment to principles.
Ah, Protestantism.
Yes, my example is from Protestantism. It seems like Protestantism set off with too limited operative principles, such as
sola fide and
sola scriptura as opposed to
prima scriptura, and the occasionally too rough implication that everybody should be at least half-monk, as opposed to having more diverse religious, half-religious, and lay functions in the society.
The history of Catholicism is not free from the same problems, being too restrictive and repressive at times, but overall there's more elaborate diversity and therefore more universal applicability. Catholicism seems to have been more stable institutionally. By the way, how is it going with the child-molesting priests? The issue is being simply let fade away?
And do you have any opinion on Russian Orthodoxy that sees Moscow as Third Rome? I.e. the real Rome currently is Moscow, not Rome :)
For that I am going to start a lodge in Lisbon. :knight:
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=33.427;msg=24400)
Nice, you're welcome, we have a small corner here for hosting such folkloric insignificances.
I reserved a place for you between Scientology and a Buddhist guru, hope you fell comfortable. :)
By the way, how is it going with the child-molesting priests? The issue is being simply let fade away?
That I know, at civilized places crimes are investigated by the police and judged by courts according to the Law, not with the masses lynching driven by atheist/protestant media. I'm no policeman or judge.
Besides, I would be very surprised when someone claims pedophilia to be a professional disease. Does it affects Catholic priests? and what about plumbers? firemen? electricians? engineers? linguists?
Just the priests? where's the difference?
You know perfectly where's the difference, at a deliberate attack and insult on one thousand million Catholics.
And do you have any opinion on Russian Orthodoxy that sees Moscow as Third Rome? I.e. the real Rome currently is Moscow, not Rome :)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=33.428;msg=24411)
Politically, the Orthodox Church had no other escape but not to be too much frontally against the atheist soviet regimen, theirs members being for all effects hostages of such regime.They did the best they could.
Today, I think they will have total freedom.They have their own Pope and must follow his leadership, it's not Catholic position to interfere.
From a religion point of view, I don't consider them, in any way, the enemy of Rome Protestantism is.
By the way, how is it going with the child-molesting priests? The issue is being simply let fade away?
That I know, at civilized places crimes are investigated by the police and judged by courts according to the Law, not with the masses lynching driven by atheist/protestant media. I'm no policeman or judge.
No policeman or judge, and not a particularly inquisitive representative of religion either. But sure, from the ordinary human point of view, your position is quite sensible.
You know perfectly where's the difference, at a deliberate attack and insult on one thousand million Catholics.
I know it's used to blame and insult the entire religion. And this is a sorry state of affairs. But I also know the scandal (i.e. the scale of the crime) was not so small. The implications are not imaginary.
And do you have any opinion on Russian Orthodoxy that sees Moscow as Third Rome? I.e. the real Rome currently is Moscow, not Rome :)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=33.428;msg=24411)
Politically, the Orthodox Church had no other escape but not to be too much frontally against the atheist soviet regimen, theirs members being for all effects hostages of such regime.They did the best they could.
The doctrine of the Third Rome emerged when Constantinople (the Second Rome) fell to Ottomans. It's not some Soviet doctrine, but ancient and ingrained, an inseparable trait of Russia's national psyche.
"Two Romes have fallen. The third stands. And there will be no fourth." --Monk Filofey of Pskov, 1510
From a religion point of view, I don't consider them, in any way, the enemy of Rome Protestantism is.
Because the Orthodox are on the other edge of the continent? Or is there some other specific reason? What makes Protestantism worse?
But I also know the scandal (i.e. the scale of the crime) was not so small. The implications are not imaginary.
All needed measures were already, immediately and without contemplations taken by Pope Benedict XVI and reinforced by Pope Francis.
The doctrine of the Third Rome emerged when Constantinople (the Second Rome) fell to Ottomans. It's not some Soviet doctrine, but ancient and ingrained, an inseparable trait of Russia's national psyche.
I was answering to a vast criticism about the Orthodox Church relating the Soviets, a bit like you can still hear criticism against the Papacy relating the Nazi German.
Because the Orthodox are on the other edge of the continent? Or is there some other specific reason? What makes Protestantism worse?
No, because I agree with you on your above words "but ancient and ingrained, an inseparable trait of Russia's national psyche."
It's a geographical, traditional and cultural thing, not a deep dogmatic division. They aren't so much different from Catholicism.
You'll see more significant differences in pratice between for example a North American Catholic and a South American one or from a Southern European and a Philippine.
Protestantism always were a social/economical/political movement disguised with religious "arguments" with the main objective of destroying the connection between the Catholic Church and society.
Protestantism is very much the "Materialism" (philosophical meaning) of religion.
All needed measures were already, immediately and without contemplations taken by Pope Benedict XVI and reinforced by Pope Francis.
I have not heard of any measures beyond some stern speeches, but let's say you know better. I am at a sufficient geographical distance so I don't care too much. The way Nordic Lutheran churches boldly go against the scripture with their jolly gay attitude concerns me much more.
The doctrine of the Third Rome emerged when Constantinople (the Second Rome) fell to Ottomans. It's not some Soviet doctrine, but ancient and ingrained, an inseparable trait of Russia's national psyche.
I was answering to a vast criticism about the Orthodox Church relating the Soviets, a bit like you can still hear criticism against the Papacy relating the Nazi German.
These are not comparable. The Pope's relationship with Nazi Germany was just a tiny diplomatic episode, whereas the Orthodox Church's relationship with the state is like that of a married couple. Specifically, marriage Russian style. When the czar seems valiant and galant, the church outright worships him. When the czar turns abusive (as during the Soviet era), the church submits to the abuse, because they cannot do anything against the higher power. The higher power here is the fact that caesaropapism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesaropapism) (the view that the czar is a quasi-Christic theocratic leader) is official church doctrine. Right now the Russian Orthodox church thinks they have a good czar again.
Being at a safe geographical distance, you of course have no feel of these things :)
...I agree with you on your above words "but ancient and ingrained, an inseparable trait of Russia's national psyche."
It's a geographical, traditional and cultural thing, not a deep dogmatic division. They aren't so much different from Catholicism.
Well, as I said, caesaropapism is official Orthodox doctrine, not a mere cultural thing, so it should entail a dogmatic division too. If some tiny word Filioque causes strife for millennia, then the Russian Orthodox view that the Third Rome is really the One and Only True Rome will also remain irreconcilable.
Protestantism always were a social/economical/political movement disguised with religious "arguments" with the main objective of destroying the connection between the Catholic Church and society.
Protestantism is very much the "Materialism" (philosophical meaning) of religion.
I largely agree, except that I believe that the early Reformers were sincere in that they thought that they were leading some genuine kind of spiritual and social awakening. The more politically astute counts and kings however immediately seized Reformation as an opportunity to justify plundering on ideological grounds, and the Reformers became witless pawns in the game. It's the fault of Reformation that it easily lended itself to such abuse.
The early Reformers sincerely believed in the new kind of relationship of church and state that they were instituting, but this has turned now into lame sucking up to social trends. In the words of the current archbishop of Sweden, the church is like Ikea. It cannot get any lamer than this.
In the words of the current archbishop of Sweden, the church is like Ikea. It cannot get any lamer than this.
Indeed.
These are not comparable. The Pope's relationship with Nazi Germany was just a tiny diplomatic episode, whereas the Orthodox Church's relationship with the state is like that of a married couple. Specifically, marriage Russian style. When the czar seems valiant and galant, the church outright worships him. When the czar turns abusive (as during the Soviet era), the church submits to the abuse, because they cannot do anything against the higher power. The higher power here is the fact that caesaropapism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesaropapism) (the view that the czar is a quasi-Christic theocratic leader) is official church doctrine. Right now the Russian Orthodox church thinks they have a good czar again.
Being at a safe geographical distance, you of course have no feel of these things :)
Hmm.. I see.
Well, as a monarchist that remembers me of the old support of Catholicism to the Monarchies at the comparison between social structure and the human body, both being a creation of God. The Czar would be the head... :)
Those were other times.
As for my geographical distance, well, I have my "spies". Your reports spares me the nuisance of traveling to the cold North. :)
Your characterization of the Orthodox Church was important for me to know.
except that I believe that the early Reformers were sincere in that they thought that they were leading some genuine kind of spiritual and social awakening. The more politically astute counts and kings however immediately seized Reformation as an opportunity to justify plundering on ideological grounds, and the Reformers became witless pawns in the game. It's the fault of Reformation that it easily lended itself to such abuse.
I don't know if earlier reformers were genuine or not but I'm sure that who the Reformation served wasn't Counts and Kings but a new social class, bourgeoisie and commerce in the first place.
Some Counts and Kings swifted sides, when they saw how to profit with it or just to get rid of their wives...
Counts and Kings change sides many times... :)
caesaropapism
:) Not a word that we listen frequently...
To Caesar what belongs to Caesar, to God what belongs to God seems to me a good principle our days if not used for extirpating society from religion.
The Orthodox had a terrible time under the Soviets. Very restricted churches closed, priest sent to Siberia, giving Bibles and trying to print things were a problem. At one time there were only half a dozen churches permitted to be open In Moscow. On one occasion a riot was provoked thus giving the regime an opportunity for closure. Like Belfrager, I am a monarchist and have a regard for such. In Russia the Tsars were all very strong Orthodox followers. Now here is the odd thing. During the 2nd World War that evil man Stalin sneaked to a church and even used the Orthodox Church to encourage the war effort. Because the Church had supported the monarchy they suffered unduly for it but today is flourishing and very much by the government.
Holy Virgin and whatever it's called, even Russian Orthodox Church is made of humans. Lenin was absolutely indifferent to religion. Trotsky was anti-religion. Stalin was an abusive deceiver with a religious past. He sought to take advantage of everyone. Stalin made it a requirement for the clergy that everybody had to be snitches for the secret police. The vast majority of the clergy did not acquiesce and were ruthlessly suppressed. Those who were left alive and even made clerical career, you can safely bet they obeyed.
Not judging. Just letting you know.
Holy Virgin and whatever it's called,
After the Holy Virgin you don't need to mention anything else... that's the top. :) (Catholic version)
All you have done there is in a sense complimented what I have already stated. So nothing surprising or new and generally there has been an awareness of the persecution of the Orthodox. Stalin had little interest in religion before he started his apprenticeship training to be a mass murderer although his mother had wanted him when grown up to be a priest. Visiting a church during the war was a moment of doubt and passing weakness on his part whilst for a while taking the pogroms on the church aside for some odd reasoning on his mind re the war effort. In nearer the end period of the USSR a Pastor Vims of the Baptist Church there was imprisoned for trying to advance Christianity.
A few decades ago there was a surprising incident in a provincial town when a new public building was being opened. The politicals were there on the platform making speeches and some voices chorused over the crowd for the local Baptist pastor to be allowed to say something as it was Easter.At first the party people ignored them then a Communist leader sneered and mocked telling the organisers of the event to let the fool up so they could have a laugh. So up he came to the platform and shouted "Christ is risen" and a whole sizeable portion of the crowd as old tradition shouted back "Christ is risen indeed."
Nowadays with the collapse of the Soviet dictatorship and since that event the Orthodox Church got vast numbers of churches back. Some had been museums, clubs or stores it places a centre place in public affairs, military chaplains, etc, and is in the parliament too. Change days.
No, RJ. I did not compliment you. I never have. You can regard my remarks as a complement, but not a compliment.
...I'm sure that who the Reformation served wasn't Counts and Kings but a new social class, bourgeoisie and commerce in the first place.
Reformation surely didn't do any service to the alleged divine function that a monarchist would happily see in aristocracy. Reformation and the social turmoil that it caused made a clear distinction between the complacent aristocrats who thought their name should suffice to keep them on high, and the politically shrewd ones who navigated the situation to ride the popular wave to keep themselves in power, to pillage and plunder to keep themselves wealthy.
The way it worked in the Nordic countries was that the kings abolished the Catholic church and ascribed all its liquid wealth to themselves to finance their own military campaigns, and donated the churches to the new reformist religious ministers. During (and by means of) the military campaigns the kings manoeuvred the aristocracy out of their way in terms of political and economic competition that the aristocracy had been. Aristocrats became the king's elite soldiers and advisors. Potential for territorial autonomy and independence for the aristocrats was undercut. Aristocratic titles effectively became designations for political posts. Any other worth attributed to aristocratic titles was merely nominal henceforth. This all was partly possible by appealing to the former rabble and turning it into the new middle class (bourgeoisie) and industrialists. Nowadays this is called populism.
This means any hint of the divine function in aristocracy ceased irreversibly. What is left of it is historical remnants of mere nominal value. No substance whatsoever, not even on the royal level. Modern kings are simply lifelong presidents overseeing a republic - overseeing in a detached way, not participating. As is appropriate to antiquated historical remnant.
To Caesar what belongs to Caesar, to God what belongs to God seems to me a good principle our days if not used for extirpating society from religion.
In the Nordic countries the extirpation of religion from the society seems to have happened all by itself. Now that formally people are not quite born into religion (there's no state church any more), the church membership is quickly sinking, indicating real religious indifference. Hardly anyone would acknowledge there's something in them that belongs to God. Similarly, they would not want to acknowledge the state either, but the state still holds the power to whip its citizens into submission, so there are more tangible ties with the state.
If you don't give to Caesar, Caesar comes to take it anyway. But where's God so that one could give?
Modern kings are simply lifelong presidents overseeing a republic - overseeing in a detached way, not participating.
If you say so, it means that you're not understanding what's the role of a King. (notice that I'm not saying that what you say doesn't happens, at some extent, in many monarchist countries.)
I'll let it for a specific thread about monarchy. Too much important to be a fait divers lost into another religion thread.
Nowadays this is called populism.
You just resumed Protestantism to it's core and essence - religious populism.
If you don't give to Caesar, Caesar comes to take it anyway.
:)
Yes, Caesar doesn't gives his credits away....
Hardly anyone would acknowledge there's something in them that belongs to God.
I see such position as a civilizational disease, the rottenness of the collective organic body, a society made of emptiness and fear.
But where's God so that one could give?
From a general perspective, my answer can be only one - Everywhere, there are many ways to serve God, you'll find yours.
From a more specific way, I can't but mention the Pope's actions and words. He's driving multitudes behind him based not on populism but courageous words of truth, justice and hope.
Christian theology borrows from philosophy all the time and I just finished a very long modern text book chapter on this subject--nothing of what we are discussing is mentioned or even hinted at. Now you might say, 'that's because the bible does not speak directly to it' which is true, but in teaching theology, ideas from philosophy are discussed all the time, especially if they support a Christian concept and even though they can never be made official church doctrine. :knight: :cheers:
Let's discuss religion here on the general religion thread.
Tell about the book you read. What did you get out of it? What did it tell?
Tell about the book you read. What did you get out of it? What did it tell?
The book is by leading theologian Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998). The chapter is 25 'The Constitutional Nature of the Human', at least in the second edition, there is an updated 3rd ed. in which it is chapter 23. Chapter titles can be seen here: http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/christian-theology-3rd-edition/134479
I can summarize the chapter this way: The makeup of humans is yet another topic raised by the question of what human beings are. Some thoughts suggest that humans are a single and complete being and other thoughts suggest humans are made up of two or more separate components. The three primary schools of thought on the makeup of human beings have been:
1. Trichotomism, which states a human is composed of three elements—body, soul and spirit. The body is the physiological part, the soul is the psychological part and the spirit is the religious part, which can perceive spiritual matters.
2. Dichotomism, which maintains that the human is composed of two elements, a material part (the body) and an immaterial part (the soul or spirit).
3. Monism, which insists that humans are not to be thought of as, in any sense, a composite of parts or separate beings, but instead as a fundamentally unitary being or self.
The major objections to a compound human nature are primarily philosophical in their nature. The most emphatic objection to dualism is that the concept is simply meaningless due to the principle of verifiability. This principle says that a proposition is meaningful only if one can present empirical data that would verify or falsify it. To refer to a living ‘person’ as also a metaphysical ‘person’ when deceased, is nonsensical since there is no empirical proof that the ‘soul person’ would bear any resemblance, mentally or physically, to the once empirically observable person. The obvious objection to this is that it assumes a proposition is meaningful only if verifiable with sense data. However, many supernatural religious concepts are not necessarily verifiable with sense data or scientific data.
When theology attempts to define the physical and spiritual makeup of humans from the minds of human theologians and then explain it to other humans, it seems as though the concept of ‘conditional unity’ is most consistent with scripture. An analogy to this conditional unity makeup may be best explained by comparing the human makeup to a chemical compound. A chemical compound is often not recognizable by its mixture of elements, i.e. water does not look anything like the two gases it is made from. The two gases water is made of can be extricated from the water and then reassembled again to make water in the same fashion as the Biblical resurrection (extrication), of the soul is preceded by a temporary return (reassembly), to the body.
There is much philosophical discussion of eschatology in terms of the body and soul and even comparisons made to animals and plants, but not even the liberal theologians mention anything of immortality being related to nature's instinct of survival. I will admit however, that there several chapters in part 10 which discuss salvation in much greater depth, but I won't have access to those chapters until later in the year.
You ask what I get out of this and, of course, that depends on how you mean that. You may think theology would be useless to an atheist, but it gives me great insight as to how humans understand and interpret the bible to form Christian doctrine. I find the process to be quite ingenious when it comes to incorporating a little science into the religious scheme of things; the philosophy is less interesting, but then theology only uses those philosophies that help promote their own cause--naturally, while they incorporate a bit of science only when forced to by popular demand.
I have chapter 25 in a 389 kb .pdf format if there is a way to post it or get it to you. :knight: :cheers:
The three primary schools of thought on the makeup of human beings have been:
1. Trichotomism, which states a human is composed of three elements—body, soul and spirit. The body is the physiological part, the soul is the psychological part and the spirit is the religious part, which can perceive spiritual matters.
2. Dichotomism, which maintains that the human is composed of two elements, a material part (the body) and an immaterial part (the soul or spirit).
3. Monism, which insists that humans are not to be thought of as, in any sense, a composite of parts or separate beings, but instead as a fundamentally unitary being or self.
For me, all these models are admissible depending on the context. The composition of the human being is a topic inasmuch as the parts are discernible (an analysis here) (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=407.msg24382#msg24382), but there is a hierarchy or order of priority between the components so that ultimately and essentially we are just one substance.
There is much philosophical discussion of eschatology in terms of the body and soul and even comparisons made to animals and plants, but not even the liberal theologians mention anything of immortality being related to nature's instinct of survival.
So you consistently missed all references to "aspirations of the soul"? This is the term they use to connect the survival instinct to eternal life.
I will admit however, that there several chapters in part 10 which discuss salvation in much greater depth, but I won't have access to those chapters until later in the year.
Yep, that's where you could find it.
No need to email the book to me. I know more about Christianity (intricacies of theology particularly) than you even imagine. And I prefer another theology on rational grounds.
You made a nice summary, but you didn't tell at all what you are getting out of it.
You made a nice summary, but you didn't tell at all what you are getting out of it.
I have developed an understanding of the concept of religion in history. Religion is one of those terms that all people assume they understand, but few of them can really define. Certain common features appear in many descriptions of religion--there is belief in something higher than individual human persons. This may be a personal god, a whole collection of supernatural beings, a force within nature, a set of values, or the human race as a whole.
However, religion is actually a composite of a belief or doctrine, a feeling, an attitude, and a way of life or manner of behaving, at least that's the way Christian theology teaches it. In this respect, I can see how perhaps a common belief in a higher power was selective in nature, as it promoted the welfare and ultimate survival of a group or band of humans. There is certainly nothing wrong with religion, and if the well-being of a group is advanced through belief in a god, then by all means it is good thing for that group. As an atheist, I simply believe that the forces of nature in this universe is the highest power that there is. :knight: :cheers:
As an atheist, I simply believe that the forces of nature in this universe is the highest power that there is.
A Nature of spontaneous creation... opps, there's a Nature.... it popped out of nothing.
To each one his beliefs.
A Nature of spontaneous creation... opps, there's a Nature.... it popped out of nothing.
To each one his beliefs.
Precisely. Moreover, it is much simpler and logical to assume that our universe came into being spontaneously than it is to believe that an infinitely complex and powerful entity popped into being without a cause, to create everything. Pulling a supernatural and inexplicable God out of a hat to explain this universe is logically less satisfying of an answer than a self-creating universe that started out consisting almost entirely of Hydrogen, the simplest and most basic element there is. :knight: :cheers:
Nature is something Real .
based on some mainstream theories , Nature and Universe should be Existed since Human even not exist yet , n/or Human not find the Universe yet .
this , probably different Perspective of Nature and universe .
but in here , The People see there are two Universe .
The Large Universe = Nature + Universe
the Small universe = Human + Human Mind .
on the other hand , something real if Calculated / formulated with something unreal, imaginary aka Fictive .
the result will become Gray , not White , and not Black [dont get confused with Black or white logical fallacy, or Gray fallacy )
in example = 1 ( real ) + 1 ( Fictive) = 2 (Fictive aka Half truth )
A Nature of spontaneous creation... opps, there's a Nature.... it popped out of nothing.
To each one his beliefs.
Precisely. Moreover, it is much simpler and logical to assume that our universe came into being spontaneously than it is to believe that an infinitely complex and powerful entity popped into being without a cause, to create everything.
To say that the universe came into being spontaneously from nothing is to explain nothing at all. God is at least an explanation :)
Moreover, God is not complex, much less infinitely complex. Quite to the contrary, God is absolutely simple, and everything else is a complication of it.
Pulling a supernatural and inexplicable God out of a hat to explain this universe is logically less satisfying of an answer than a self-creating universe that started out consisting almost entirely of Hydrogen, the simplest and most basic element there is. :knight: :cheers:
God is simpler than hydrogen and therefore a simpler explanation. God is also conscious and therefore qualifies as an explanation, in stark contrast from hydrogen.
God is not detectable, but is logically deducible. Admittedly, this is God-of-the-philosophers that average people do not have much clue about or find unbelievable, but this is understandable because they are average people :)
God is simpler than hydrogen and therefore a simpler explanation. God is also conscious and therefore qualifies as an explanation, in stark contrast from hydrogen.
Forget God. Consciousness is simpler than hydrogen?
Consciousness is simpler than Hydrogen , that's seems Pretty Legit .
Consciousness is Conscious with what you are doing .
on the other word, you know with what you are doing .
Consciousness is simpler than hydrogen?
If you ask in earnest, then first tell me what you believe consciousness to be. Then I will tell you what I believe consciousness to be and I can clarify how it's simpler than hydrogen.
Moreover, God is not complex, much less infinitely complex. Quite to the contrary, God is absolutely simple, and everything else is a complication of it.
How is it that you (and apparently, only you), know so much about the nature and makeup of god?
God is simpler than hydrogen and therefore a simpler explanation.
And I suppose Chess is simpler than checkers as well. As soon as you invoke the supernatural, you have gone into a realm of complete unknown, you merely 'think' it into simplicity in your mind and poof...it is simple. Supernatural is a big game of "What if..." (I played this game with my young children--they have since moved on), and you only claim to know about it because it has manifested itself as "real" in your consciousness. At any rate, you have never mentioned before that god is simpler than hydrogen or even a simpler explanation for this universe, so you must have just decided this on the spot--as with so many other things.
One can take any seemingly complex object and break it down into its simpler parts and then those parts into even simpler parts until the big picture of the complex object is easily apparent and simple. Science has done this with the universe, therefore, the scientific explanation is at least as simple the god explanation, but you haven't yet explained, in simple terms, how god came into being or what god consists of--other than being some wispy entity in another realm that is impossible to understand, much less explain. I don't speak Ersi-ese, so please explain this laughably simple god to me only in simplest of terms, after all, simple things only require a simple explanation. The universe came into being from a massively dense and hot speck that had no choice but to explode into everything we see now. If you say god did that, then the god explanation is already vastly more complex. :knight: :cheers:
Consciousness is Conscious with what you are doing .
on the other word, you know with what you are doing .
Hydrogen is too simple to know what it is doing, ergo, hydrogen is simpler than consciousness. :knight: :cheers:
Consciousness is simpler than hydrogen?
If you ask in earnest, then first tell me what you believe consciousness to be. Then I will tell you what I believe consciousness to be and I can clarify how it's simpler than hydrogen.
Matter it's never simple, it needs at least electromagnetic forces to hold it together and stable and it subdivides in many components that constitutes it. The lowest atomic number of 1 that characterizes hydrogen doesn't mean it to be a simple thing.
I agree one must agree on consciousness definition first in order to answer the question in a well founded way. But I suppose that most of us will never agree on what consciousness is.
Matter it's never simple, it needs at least electromagnetic forces to hold it together and stable and it subdivides in many components that constitutes it. The lowest atomic number of 1 that characterizes hydrogen doesn't mean it to be a simple thing.
When you consider that the basic laws of nature dictate what all atomic particles must do in this universe (given the conditions), then it is pretty simple to see what is going on with hydrogen and why (basic HS physics). Granted, the quantum world is not fully understood yet, but that doesn't mean it never will be simple to understand--we just haven't gone quite that far yet. :knight: :cheers:
i dont think Laws of nature like , Quantum , gravity etc will even exist if there is no some one that conscious enough to observe , understanding , and formulated that .
and that will need some conciousness to science if everything are just atoms that run or vibrate in different speed .
How is it that you (and apparently, only you), know so much about the nature and makeup of god?
Weren't you reading a book about theology? Right there someone else who knows these things.
At any rate, you have never mentioned before that god is simpler than hydrogen or even a simpler explanation for this universe, so you must have just decided this on the spot--as with so many other things.
I never mentioned it before because you never asked. And you never asked because you assumed you knew :)
One can take any seemingly complex object and break it down into its simpler parts and then those parts into even simpler parts until the big picture of the complex object is easily apparent and simple. Science has done this with the universe, therefore, the scientific explanation is at least as simple...
When you break stuff up, pieces are left behind. This does not make anything simpler. It only makes things messy.
Moreover, pieces do nothing to explain the whole. The whole is neat and functional before it is broken up. The mess does nothing to explain it. You only get the naive boyish feeling that you are approaching an explanation when you break stuff up, but the real explanation is in the contrary: Build something up and make it work.
...but you haven't yet explained, in simple terms, how god came into being or what god consists of--other than being some wispy entity in another realm that is impossible to understand, much less explain. I don't speak Ersi-ese, so please explain this laughably simple god to me only in simplest of terms, after all, simple things only require a simple explanation.
Did you read the post in the mysticism thread? What was too complicated about it?
You are not even getting that god is not in another realm. God is said to be in another realm only for the purpose of easier analysis, just like when one explains electricity, one would talk about the electric field primarily and not about wires, even though electricity is always conducted through wires. Electric field is simpler than wires, ilustrated by means of a geometric plane. Too complicated?
The universe came into being from a massively dense and hot speck that had no choice but to explode into everything we see now. If you say god did that, then the god explanation is already vastly more complex. :knight: :cheers:
Actually, when you say a massively dense and hot speck had no choice but to explode, then you are not explaining anything, whereas conscious willing god qualifies as some kind of explanation. What we are comparing is not a simple explanation versus a complex explanation, but a non-explanation versus an explanation. Simple or complex does not even apply here.
Granted, the quantum world is not fully understood yet, but that doesn't mean it never will be simple to understand--we just haven't gone quite that far yet. :knight: :cheers:
Looks like this is where our real difference lies. For me quantum mechanics is very easy and perfectly intuitive. As it's gradually becoming apparent, you use the word "simple" in the opposite sense, so no wonder that you are not understanding...
Looks like this is where our real difference lies. For me quantum mechanics is very easy and perfectly intuitive. As it's gradually becoming apparent, you use the word "simple" in the opposite sense, so no wonder that you are not understanding...
For the love of God, why don't you explain quantum gravity, so that a theory of everything can be formulated, winning you the Nobel prize in physics and making you rich and famous? If you don't want that, then just explain it to me and I'll do the dirty work. :knight: :cheers:
(Okay then, substitute the words 'easy to understand'.)
Actually, when you say a massively dense and hot speck had no choice but to explode, then you are not explaining anything, whereas conscious willing god qualifies as some kind of explanation. What we are comparing is not a simple explanation versus a complex explanation, but a non-explanation versus an explanation. Simple or complex does not even apply here.
Then a magic pink unicorn, is as equally good and likely an explanation for this universe as any god to have created it? In which case, there is a near endless number of explanations which is even more unsavory. You hate science because it interferes with what you believe and because it is on the brink of a theory of everything that you won't be able to completely ignore. I can admit a fraction of a percentage of doubt about god's nonexistence because I am only human--are you human enough to admit any doubt about god? Not an ice cube's chance in hell of that happening--I am 100% without doubt about that (one little chink in that Don Quixote armor of yours and poof...you're a goner). :knight: :cheers:
sometimes my mind always full of What , about how gravity Work .
isnt there any Simple equations , about how Gravity Force can attract everything that have mass.
isnt there any Simple theory of everything ?
and isn't this funny about why we discuss something like this , not in a thread about Science ? :D
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mememaker.net%2Fstatic%2Fimages%2Ftemplates%2F1590352.jpg&hash=92514217666895614492721466a1db5a" rel="cached" data-hash="92514217666895614492721466a1db5a" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.mememaker.net/static/images/templates/1590352.jpg)
Then a magic pink unicorn, is as equally good and likely an explanation for this universe as any god to have created it?
The problem with magic pink unicorn is that it's not simple.
(Okay then, substitute the words 'easy to understand'.)
The more correct wording is 'easy for you to understand' and this is where things get weird. Every time I talk to physicists, I have to wonder at their incapacity to understand simple things. For example once upon a time a physicist began talking what a mysterious thing wave-particle duality is and how the principle of uncertainty confuses things. I then had to explain to him with common-sense examples how these principles actually make perfect sense and how, based on my own field of expertise, this is precisely the way one would expect physics to end up.
There are two points I would derive from this. First, these things are so easy for me that there's no way to guess what on earth could be complicated for you. When we isolate a specific problem, then perhaps I can explain something. Second, if you aim at a grand unified theory, physicists probably are not even realising that they already have it :)
Let's try quantum gravity that you mentioned. What exactly is problematic about it?
i dont think another people will understand something that you dont understand . :beard:
well,
actually it is very simple .
If not understand , ask to someone
If know , explain and describe
If understand , explain or describe that in simple language .
Let's try quantum gravity that you mentioned. What exactly is problematic about it?
How would a theory of quantum gravity unify all know interactions in the universe into a single theory of everything (TOE)? :knight: :cheers:
Edit: Is string theory a better approach to the problem than loop quantum gravity? Why/why not?
When you consider that the basic laws of nature [...]
Basic laws of Nature have nothing of basic.
One of the problems with the atheist view that the universe it's a fruit of mere hazard, it's both to overestimate the power of hazard and underestimate the complexity of the universe, specially in what regards to the miracle of life.
There's simply no way that an hazardous process to create a stable system be it relating to material existence or to biological life. I will not even approach spiritual life.
The question about the simplicity of God (and also the simplicity of consciousness) it's that it is a wrong question. God is
simultaneously both simple and complex. (maybe I differ here with ersi)
If you consider simplicity by the primordial perspective, God is the most simple cause of all. If you consider that everything in Creation it's a part of God, then God it's a complexity beyond your comprehension.
it seems that's nothing to do with atheism .
when someone yell that as the problem with atheism , or the problem with religion .
that is the real problem .
Sir, there is no rule or law in this world to not have religion , or to not be an atheist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
also it seems the Enemy of Human race is insanity .
insanity , will causing Ego , and Ego will causing Stupidity .
i made a simple Equation about that small Universe ( Human Mind ) .
still pre-alpha , and not sure too if that is 100% valid and legitimate
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mememaker.net%2Fstatic%2Fimages%2Ftemplates%2F1590464.jpg&hash=8ab94bc3977504f6e5389dda0eacb87d" rel="cached" data-hash="8ab94bc3977504f6e5389dda0eacb87d" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.mememaker.net/static/images/templates/1590464.jpg)
How would a theory of quantum gravity unify all know interactions in the universe into a single theory of everything (TOE)? :knight: :cheers:
Quantum gravity can be reconciled with the rest of the known interactions the way the rest of the known interactions have been reconciled with each other thus far. The procedure is this:
1. Look at the way other forces and also dimensions have been reconciled thus far, electricity was identified with magnetism, mass became to be understood as energy, space and time were unified into spacetime, particle with wave, etc.
2. Identify the features by means of which these reconciliations occurred.
3. Follow the direction in which these features lead to redefine gravity.
Edit: Is string theory a better approach to the problem than loop quantum gravity? Why/why not?
It's the field theory instead. The field theory breaks down at Planck scale, but this is intended. Measurements cannot enter that scale and never will because there are *neither* particles or waves there. All attempts at mechanical explanation will fail. This is simply how this universe is built. Only conceptual analysis that I outlined above can make sense of that scale. Empirical observation of it is impossible. Already the double-slit experiment should have made it clear to physicists that there will arrive a level unamenable to measurements.
And when you collect your Nobel prize, send a postcard with a nice stamp to me too. (I'm pretty sure you won't get the prize, because you most likely will not be able to write about your amazing discovery on academic level. The writing is something I won't do for you, sorry.)
The question about the simplicity of God (and also the simplicity of consciousness) it's that it is a wrong question. God is simultaneously both simple and complex. (maybe I differ here with ersi)
If you consider simplicity by the primordial perspective, God is the most simple cause of all. If you consider that everything in Creation it's a part of God, then God it's a complexity beyond your comprehension.
Yes, we differ here, but I see your point. Mysteries are pretty :)
Mysteries are pretty :)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=33.466;msg=24783)
:lol:
and, specially, useful. Mysteries spares people a lot of work, more than they can handle it.
If you consider simplicity by the primordial perspective, God is the most simple cause of all. If you consider that everything in Creation it's a part of God, then God it's a complexity beyond your comprehension.
That is what is so wonderfully convenient about invoking the supernatural--you can make it do any damn thing you want or need it to do. You can even make it up as you go along, like you just did and like Ersi does all the time. You can wrap your supernatural god up tight with all kinds of protective layers to make it untouchable by any means, but in the end science will win out here on Earth--there is no reason to doubt this whatsoever. Science has eroded creationism down to a 36% following which is about the number of mindless believers there probably are in any religion--god is next (he is rapidly losing ground as we speak).
That is what is so wonderfully convenient about invoking the supernatural--you can make it do any damn thing you want or need it to do. You can even make it up as you go along, like you just did and like Ersi does all the time.
Either learn how our statements make sense in the context of the other things we hold (and ask where you don't see how) or point out where and what anyone made anything up. This way you would yourself make sort of sense.
And there is another task you have right now: Get busy writing the scientific papers that will earn you the Nobel prize.
You can wrap your supernatural god up tight with all kinds of protective layers to make it untouchable by any means, but in the end science will win out here on Earth--there is no reason to doubt this whatsoever.
What makes you think that you defend science more, or better, than I do? I see no evidence of that, very much the contrary.
Your posts aren't a good service to science in case no one has ever told you.
The idea of a materialist atheist driven science that will eradicate God from earth it's a very marxist-leninist kind of thing, by the way... sure those are your waters? I think not... :)
even correlation does not imply causation
but Something irrational , is not always irrational .
since even Science is Created from something irrational , then Converted to something Rational .
if someone want to Rationalize , something irrational like God thingy .
At least find the right methodes to get the right results .
Theory of everything , is a good Clue .
It seems , something relevant to do is some effort to make that as simple as possible .
Something is complicated , because there is no simple language to express that .
if in Physic, something Small is lighter, no need alot of energy to move it , and ofc can move faster than something bigger .
so does with language , simple language will easier to scanned then translated in Human Mind translator .
then we just need wait , someday there is coincidence , or happy accident , where someone remix that formula to a new Level :coffee:
Complicated Theory of Everything will move Slower and harder to understand .
While Simple theory of Everything , Will move faster and easier to understand .
well, that's alot of something . :D
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fweknowmemes.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F03%2Fits-something-meme.png&hash=19fc54253ce45633440716f6117bfdeb" rel="cached" data-hash="19fc54253ce45633440716f6117bfdeb" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/its-something-meme.png)
Either learn how our statements make sense in the context of the other things we hold (and ask where you don't see how) or point out where and what anyone made anything up. This way you would yourself make sort of sense.
You say that intuition is a more powerful tool than intellect and I don't entirely disagree. For what it's worth, my intuition is telling me that belief in any type god will slowly fall by the wayside and that the more practical and real-life explanation for our existence from science will soon surpass that of the god explanation in popular opinion. I also sense that religion will one day have to do a complete makeover in order to accommodate what science discovers--and to save itself from extinction--which will be a good thing.
I intuit this, not only from science's rapid pace of explaining everything it touches in terms lay persons can understand, but also from my studies of theology where I see somewhat frantic theologians trying to make more room for the real-life explanations of science. Educated people are no longer willing to believe by sheer blind faith alone, they are asking more and more difficult questions of religion and theologians realize that--either they keep up to date and relevant--or they are going to lose a large part of their flock to something else.
Religion is confining in that it tries to restrict free thinking by telling believers not to pay attention to science--not long ago the Pope even pleaded with leading physicists & scientists to leave the question of creation alone because it is something for religion to answer and not science. You think religion is not afraid of what science will find? Actually, it is scared to death of science because theologians are running out of wiggle room.
There has never been an obstacle too big or complicated for science to surmount simply because--
there necessarily exists a rational real-life explanation for everything--it's just a matter of finding it and then figuring out how to prove it. Half of science is dedicated to discovering our cosmological past and it is doing a more than adequate job of it. In reality, all of science boils down to one gigantic global fact-finding expedition and more and more people in modern society are interested in only the facts.
The great gift of science is that it’s telling us how to think in the long term. The human species could go on for hundreds of millions of years. Cosmological physicists have even figured out how to move Earth further from the sun so that as the sun heats up over billions of years, our descendants can move Earth. Science is scanning the heavens to track large and dangerous asteroids that may be on a collision course with Earth. Space science’s next project is to land men on an asteroid in the event that we may need to somehow deflect an extinction level asteroid. Science is not waiting for God to save us, science is taking steps now to preserve humankind for as long as this universe will exist. There will always be some who will wait an eternity for god to come and grant them salvation or eternal life, but it’s high time for the rest of us to ‘head west, young man’.
@JS
You are prophecying what's a long-gone past here where I live. And it cannot be that I am half a century or so ahead of time. Rather, I am on time :) But nice to revisit history every once in a while.
How are the Nobel papers going?
Almost finished, just the conclusion to go. :knight: :cheers:
You are prophecying what's a long-gone past here where I live. And it cannot be that I am half a century or so ahead of time. Rather, I am on time :) But nice to revisit history every once in a while.
Wow!! I didn't know you already figured out how to move the Earth away from the sun--what's the plan to deflect large asteroids? We could win another Nobel with this shit, (I gave you some credit for solving the TOE). :knight: :cheers:
Wow!! I didn't know you already figured out how to move the Earth away from the sun--what's the plan to deflect large asteroids? We could win another Nobel with this shit, (I gave you some credit for solving the TOE). :knight: :cheers:
These things are unfeasible for many reasons. It's insane to give humans so much power over celestial bodies. No Nobel can compensate for this. And I am only interested in the stamp, not the prize.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCeBvuAQ.jpg&hash=04ec78a390ddc76f09f3aba8e9843ea5" rel="cached" data-hash="04ec78a390ddc76f09f3aba8e9843ea5" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/CeBvuAQ.jpg)
Awesome
It's insane to give humans so much power over celestial bodies.
1000 years ago it was insane to say that man would go to the moon--nothing is impossible. In a scant 10,000 years when humankind may be scattered throughout the entire universe, questions arise as to whether we could evolve into pure energy, becoming immortal and omniscient--i.e. Gods. A Russian astrophysicist had some thoughts on this and his scale of society 'Types' is still recognized today. Read this short article and dream of becoming a god Ersi--instead of worshiping one. http://www.21stcentech.com/humans-achieve-type-1-civilization-2100/
yeah , nothing is impossible .
but sometimes deluded also another word for - thinking nothing is impossible
btw ..
in the Year + 1100 my ancestor also Write something about - the inverted World Era
also known as - The King Jayabaya , Jayabaya's Compass
some Random point in English will be like :
there are Cart Without horse
there are Boat that Fly in the sky
Many River losing the Source .
many Rain in the Wrong Season
Women dressed like man
many people Die because bitten by mosquito
People that Conscious Create ideas
It's insane to give humans so much power over celestial bodies.
1000 years ago it was insane to say that man would go to the moon--nothing is impossible.
Not saying it's impossible, just saying it's insane to do. Man went to the moon and nothing good came of that either. Btw, 1000 years ago man dreamt of conquering the space just as they did in the fifties.
Your dream of progress in 10,000 years is futile. Humanity won't survive that long. Much better chances that humanity will turn this planet into another moon. In the best case humanity bombs itself back into the stone age soon so they can start evolving again.
A Russian astrophysicist had some thoughts on this and his scale of society 'Types' is still recognized today.
I know all the things Russians dream up much better than you. I live in the midst of Russians if you didn't know by now.
Man went to the moon and nothing good came of that either. Btw, 1000 years ago man dreamt of conquering the space just as they did in the fifties.
For pity's sake Ersi, if you are going to colonize the galaxy and beyond--you have to start somewhere. Man has always looked up to the heavens and dreamed of going there--perhaps that is a sign of our destiny.
Your dream of progress in 10,000 years is futile. Humanity won't survive that long. Much better chances that humanity will turn this planet into another moon. In the best case humanity bombs itself back into the stone age soon so they can start evolving again.
Never knew you had such a pessimistic view of humanity, that explains a lot of your other worldly thinking. Man is probably the most adaptable species there is, although a lot can be said of the cockroach. The Toba eruption is thought to have reduces humans to between 1000-10,000 breeding pairs, but we came back nicely from that. The last ice age caused our brains to increase 300% in size just in order to figure out how to survive. We are a very, very young species compared to say the 250 million year old species of sharks, but I don't see us headed to extinction even in the unlikely event of an nuclear war. Have faith in mankind--it makes this life so much more livable and fun.
Have faith in mankind--it makes this life so much more livable and fun.
Now all you have to do is to prove that your faith is more reasonable than anyone else's and your individual life so much more livable and fun compared to eternity. Should be piece of cake.
Now all you have to do is to prove that your faith is more reasonable than anyone else's and your individual life so much more livable and fun compared to eternity. Should be piece of cake.
If you are a pessimist and think mankind is a joke, then of course you need faith in something else to keep you going. I prefer to be a team player and spread my optimism that humanity just keeps on getting better every day. We have our ups and downs but that is the nature of all life. The overall trend for the graph of humanity is upward, despite what pessimists may say. The peaks and valleys are just indications of our struggle to improve ourselves and our living conditions. You may take a peek at this short blog post I wrote at the end of last year on WordPress--if you want a little inspiration about humanity:
http://jseaton2311.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/2013-the-best-year-in-human-history/
My faith is more reasonable because it deals only with this real world and not something make believe. From there it is obvious to see that I am gaining much more from this life than believers by not being preoccupied about a possible second life and having to devote this life to worshiping some god who may or may not provide that for me--piece of cake. :knight: :cheers:
"Eternity"? When I consider eternity, I'm in a moment of bliss… That is, I'm not thinking of anything; I'm wholely absorbed in the moment. (My presumption is that everyone here knows what I'm referring to.) Time ceases to exist — like going back to the Big Bang!
But it doesn't last. (I'd be unemployable, if it did…) And it shouldn't: It has a purpose.
That's where I disagree with the Heaven Chasers.
They would do anything to secure their place there… I would do what I can, to make my place here better.
(I don't mean The World! I just mean my everyday life, those circumstances that affect those around me… That's what life is about, isn't it? :) )
"Eternity" is a wet dream… Hey, it happens. But who in your life is less important to you…?
The last ice age caused our brains to increase 300% in size just in order to figure out how to survive
should we increase Human brain size 100% more ?
Flipped Logic , Lobotomy (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=336.0) <--- Careful, this post may bite :eyes:
My faith is more reasonable because it deals only with this real world and not something make believe. From there it is obvious to see that I am gaining much more from this life than believers by not being preoccupied about a possible second life and having to devote this life to worshiping some god who may or may not provide that for me--piece of cake. :knight: :cheers:
Given what I have seen about your definition of real world (and frankly all other concepts you hold, scientific and religious), your optimism is a complete make believe. It's symptomatic how you divide people into two classes, optimists and pessimists, forgetting realists.
"Eternity"? When I consider eternity, I'm in a moment of bliss… That is, I'm not thinking of anything; I'm wholely absorbed in the moment. (My presumption is that everyone here knows what I'm referring to.) Time ceases to exist — like going back to the Big Bang!
But it doesn't last. (I'd be unemployable, if it did…) And it shouldn't: It has a purpose.
It can last throughout even while remaining employable. Requires practice. And requires dropping the booze* :)
That's where I disagree with the Heaven Chasers.
They would do anything to secure their place there… I would do what I can, to make my place here better.
If you only knew :) but it's obvious that you wouldn't know. I will tell you right now, and it's guaranteed that you forget it by your second next post.
The whole point of heaven is that
anything you do won't get you closer to it. You have to do the right thing, and only that.
There's this Buddhist guru called Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche. He did booze, heavily so, but he is a special case. He didn't do it to get addict's bliss, but because he had an earthly mission to fulfil. He had to drink and do some other worldly things "to keep it real" i.e. to be employable. Otherwise he would have had constant heavenly bliss and been lost to us. The situation is reversed in your case. You cannot make eternity and mundane life co-exist because of booze habit, while he had to do booze to make the earthly life feel concrete.
You cannot make eternity and mundane life co-exist because of booze habit, while he had to do booze to make the earthly life feel concrete.
Jean Cocteau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Cocteau) knows it better...
Everything one does in life, even love, occurs in an express train racing toward death. To smoke opium is to get out of the train while it is still moving. It is to concern oneself with something other than life or death.Open the Doors of perception...
Open the Doors of perception...
Wine is different from whisky :)
Given what I have seen about your definition of real world (and frankly all other concepts you hold, scientific and religious), your optimism is a complete make believe. It's symptomatic how you divide people into two classes, optimists and pessimists, forgetting realists.
Optimism and pessimism operate on a continuum, of which the midway point is realism. However, the realist sees things
only as they are, while the realistic optimists are prudently hopeful of favorable outcomes and they do as much as they can to obtain the desired results. Pessimists tend to think that bad situations are their fault or always befall them and that good situations are not caused by anything they have done or are a fluke and will not be repeated.
When it comes to optimism or pessimism, “hope for the best, prepare for the worst” is, more or less, my motto. While it is advantageous for me to be an optimist in the real-world, the attitude is subconscious and a pessimist cannot just 'will' himself to be an optimist. A change requires your inner wisdom to absorb a few important insights of the real world. Real-world is defined as the realm of practical or actual experience, as opposed to the abstract, idealized or supernatural realms.
As for your claim that optimism is make believe, I'm sure you realize that optimists suffer fewer real-world illnesses, recover faster and live longer than pessimists. Don't take me for a Pollyanna, I am simply a practical and realistic optimist of this world. :knight: :cheers:
Some 35 years ago I read Matlin and Stang's book
The Pollyanna Principle: Selectivity in Language, Memory, and Thought… I've not seen anything since that contradicts what it said.
Taking psychological science into account moots most of the "positions" here… :)
The whole point of heaven is […]
Is there
any way to fill that ellipsis that isn't extremely selfish?!
Taking psychological science into account moots most of the "positions" here… :)
The whole point of heaven is […]
Is there any way to fill that ellipsis that isn't extremely selfish?!
As per your own theory, you fill it in on the level of your own corruptedness. It's clear from here that your psychological fetish is selfishness and that's why you see it everywhere, even when it's not there.
The whole point of heaven is […]Is there any way to fill that ellipsis that isn't extremely selfish?!
Selfish is not always a dirty word and I can only guess that by 'extremely selfish' you mean narcissistic selfishness or being selfish to the detriment of others. Were I a believer, I think it would be prudent of me to be selfish enough to want to avoid the alternative of burning in hell, but I don't think the whole point of heaven is just to avoid hell. To the believer, there simply exists a heaven whether they want to go there or not and the whole point of heaven has not been completely revealed to them.
Ersi's case is a different story. Unfortunately, I don't have the time this morning to go into detail, however, I do think his 'wanting' there to be a heaven is for selfish reasons--but not horribly so. :knight: :cheers:
Were I a believer, I think it would be prudent of me to be selfish enough to want to avoid the alternative of burning in hell, but I don't think the whole point of heaven is just to avoid hell. To the believer, there simply exists a heaven whether they want to go there or not and the whole point of heaven has not been completely revealed to them.
What can be criticised is blind faith and unverified speculations. Atheists and theists are equally vulnerable to this criticism. For example your optimistic scientism perfectly qualifies as blind faith and the multiverse theory perfectly qualifies as an unverified speculation. The complete story is a bit more complex. Science is blind faith to JS, but to any proper scientist it's a matter of understanding, discovery, earning a living, etc.
Same with heaven to believers. Some believe in heaven because they are told so. This is dogmatic blind faith. Others come to understand what is truly meant by heaven and how it makes sense and cannot be otherwise. Still others come to a direct experience of heaven, and the experience has many levels, always subject to further depths. To those who have no clue about the experience it may look like blind faith, and if the believer has poor skills of self-expression, his talk may sound like unverified speculation, but for the sake of balance you should judge a scientist with poor skills of self-expression the same way.
Ersi's case is a different story. Unfortunately, I don't have the time this morning to go into detail, however, I do think his 'wanting' there to be a heaven is for selfish reasons--but not horribly so. :knight: :cheers:
Please go into detail :)
As for 'selfish', I take it to mean egoistic, profiting from others without gratitude or recompense, asserting oneself above others without reason, etc. But heaven comes to saintly beings, so '(extremely) selfish heaven' as Oakdale would have it is a contradiction in terms. Well, he holds a bunch of contradictions in terms. Time to get used to it.
What can be criticised is blind faith and unverified speculations.
A point on that for those with an overture of the spirit:
Faith it's necessarily blind, if not then it's not faith. Therefore if reason criticizes it then it's because it's not reason.
The imposition for a "reasonable faith", usually meaning a" faith that should be reasonable", it's a silliness aimed to castrate the fullness of the being and level people to materialist normalization and control.
If there was no faith, described as I did it - pure, absolute, blind faith, people would suicide themselves by the millions just like pathetic lemurs trapped by the inexorability of reason, a reason way beyond their comprehension.
Faith points them heaven, reason points them hell. Such duality creates them hope, hope that is worthwhile of being lived.
For example your optimistic scientism perfectly qualifies as blind faith and the multiverse theory perfectly qualifies as an unverified speculation.
I am optimistic that science & technology will provide the answers to many of the problems we face today and those we will face in the future. Science is a field of ideas without end and I rather like the way it has made my life more productive, exciting and comfortable--or do you rather enjoy rubbing sticks together to make fire? Yes, I am optimistic about an even better scientific future of my children, grandchildren and mankind--how else should I be? A radical religious terrorists?
You are disillusioned and fed up with this world for whatever reason and so you have intellectually created an escape for yourself that allows you to suffer through this life until the Alice in Wonderland world of yours begins. Nothing too wrong with that I suppose, but a mind such as yours is a terrible thing to waste on a simple escape mechanism. Some people use alcohol and/or drugs to escape and, in a sense, I see you mimicking that. I'll just keep my feet planted firmly and optimistically on this earth and enjoy the moment--my only moment (although I'm not beyond a margarita or five).
You have the idea that theories in science are just dreamed up at random in some mad scientist's head. But the fact is that theories have to fit perfectly with everything that science has already discovered and proven. It must then reasonably answer certain questions that the theory was devised to answer. It has to be rigidly correct in its mathematical formulations and until it can be proven experimentally, it must quite naturally remain a theory. This is a far cry from your blind faith thinking of how I view the workings of science. :knight: :cheers:
EDIT: When science stops answering the tough questions, stops making life better for everyone on this planet and stops providing hope for the future then I'll stop believing in science. Btw, what has god done for this world lately...or ever?
But the fact is that theories have to fit perfectly with everything that science has already discovered and proven. It must then reasonably answer certain questions that the theory was devised to answer. It has to be rigidly correct in its mathematical formulations and until it can be proven experimentally, it must naturally remain a theory.
How many times did you go through this process? I know: You simply trust the scientific literature that you read. You never even repeat the math, not to mention the experiments. You believe the reported results plus the interpretations blindly. This is the dogmatic kind of faith that I always had a problem with.
I always verify things for myself. It's easy to become overly suspicious growing up in a society built on lies, where news are gross propaganda, visibly at odds with easily verifiable facts. To get rid of paranoia and to identify trustworthy information, one must thoroughly work on the background framework based on which to determine what is plausible and what is not, learn to read between the lines. I occasionally write between the lines too :)
Modern science does not have any solid metaphysical foundation. Materialistic science has very loose and inconsistent definitions of fact and truth. It touts progress without any sensible definition of progress. Materialists don't even believe in math and this means there's no hope there's any logic in them. Whenever I talk about math with you, you always turn to physics, the absolutely wrong way to go. Modern physicists deny they have any background assumptions colouring their conclusions, even when they make most obvious demonstrable use of background assumptions. You are a similar blatantly self-contradicting example of the positivist perspective. At least I hope you will get those quantum mechanics gravity papers published and acknowledged by the next time the Nobel prize jury meets. It would be the first good thing you get out of physics, good according to your definition.
You can learn to identify background assumptions once you have identified your own background assumptions. Then you can do amazing things, such as understand the true meaning of propositions, even the meaning of the scriptures. The Bible though is the most difficult scripture to interpret. It's very hard job to figure out its symbolism and metaphysics. Obvious false interpretations abound concerning the Bible, but I suppose the purpose of this is that the Western people would not think too highly of themselves. Accusing believers of irrationality and hypocrisy when failing at the very basic understanding of the scripture that shaped the foundations of this civilization is a ridiculous self-contradiction by atheists indeed. This ensures that atheists and the religious community keep talking past each other and each one can remain largely themselves, to each other's annoyance.
Unless one can comprehend both sides and rise above the dispute. You will have convinced me that you understand the materialist science side when you get those papers written.
EDIT: When science stops answering the tough questions, stops making life better for everyone on this planet and stops providing hope for the future then I'll stop believing in science. Btw, what has god done for this world lately...or ever?
God sustains the universe at every point in time. How? This is the bit that went over your head when I told you the way Ghazali argued for it. Without this, we would not exist in the first place.
What is some tough question science has answered for you and in what way did it make life better for everyone?
@Belfrager
You of course think that the scripture is not meant to be understood, but to be believed. Whereas for me seeing is believing. The problem with the Bible is that it's hard to see its point. Eventually I have gotten around to seeing its point myself, but I find the point hardly communicable and the effort to understand it too hard to suggest to ordinary people to undergo. It's much easier to recommend scripture that says something like this:
"Scriptures are numerous, divergent in their message, conflicting in their conclusions, confusing and laborious. They have to be studied over a long period of time, but time destroys what it builds, leaving one running around in an endless circle, vainly endeavouring to put the fragmented personality and life into order. Loving and benevolent Suta! You are the master of all the scriptures and are therefore in the best position to help us. Give us the quintessence of these scriptures..."
@ Ersi: I see no reason why I must conduct my life by the same rigors you feel necessary in yours. Moreover, when a field of study has the winning track record that science has, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt in their reports and even more so, because I understand the very exact, careful and strict discipline that all scientific findings must go through.
But tell me then, for how long did you actually rub two sticks together to make fire until you could experimentally prove it was okay and safe to use a stove? Many modern gadgets use unproven theories of quantum mechanics, so I'm quite sure you don't have anything like a cell phone, computer or Blu-ray player. The fact is, you merrily use these marvels of science every day and then stab science in the back by night--what has science ever done to you?
Your anal retentive insistence on using a definition of the definition of the definition is endless, circular and in the end meaningless. The fact of the matter is that, yes, religion, scripture, God all had their day in the sun, but it's high time people grew up, shed their old religious skin and moved on to where science is leading us--the stars.
You call me an atheist which is not entirely true. I have mentioned that I can't completely discount god's existence because, unlike you, I'm not omniscient. Therefore, it is best that I be known to you as an agnostic-atheist and if there was any hope, whatsoever, of you being honest, you would say that you are a agnostic-theist. Agnosticism addresses knowledge--atheism addresses belief. The agnostic says, “I don't have a knowledge that God exists.” The atheist says, “I don't have a belief that God exists.” You can say both things at the same time. Some agnostics are atheistic and some are theistic. :knight: :cheers:
@ Ersi: I see no reason why I must conduct my life by the same rigors you feel necessary in yours. Moreover, ...
I see no reason why I must conduct my life by the same laxity as you do yours. Moreover, I didn't suggest any such thing in the first place. You are heavily projecting, which prevents you from seeing what I wrote and meant, and consequently talking past the topic, rendering the discussion pointless when it could be about something relevant.
Moreover, when a field of study has the winning track record that science has, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt in their reports and even more so, because I understand the very exact, careful and strict discipline that all scientific findings must go through.
I have seen you assert this several times over but never prove it. You know the difference between assertion and proof, don't you? If you do, demonstrate it. Thus far you have consistently demonstrated that "very exact, careful, and strict discipline" is something you have no idea about.
But tell me then, for how long did you actually rub two sticks together to make fire until you could experimentally prove it was okay and safe to use a stove? Many modern gadgets use unproven theories of quantum mechanics, so I'm quite sure you don't have anything like a cell phone, computer or Blu-ray player. The fact is, you merrily use these marvels of science every day and then stab science in the back by night--what has science ever done to you?
See, we are talking about totally different topics. Okay, you obviously don't see.
The fact of the matter is that, yes, religion, scripture, God all had their day in the sun, but it's high time people grew up, shed their old religious skin and moved on to where science is leading us--the stars.
You mean to the moon? When was the latest flight? I could say that science had its day in the sun and now it's high time for you to move on, but my point never was to suggest ways of living or beliefs to you.
Agnosticism addresses knowledge--atheism addresses belief.
Nice play with the definitions here. What you have been actually addressing, different from your definitions, is probabilities, doubts, denial, constant wrestling with God. You know very well what God is and how and where and why, you just don't like it and therefore you refuse to acknowledge it, but it inevitably ends up being the recurrent theme in whatever you talk about. You'd fit better in a whole new category: negative theist.
let's bring that Nirvanna fallacy in the next level .
4th and 5th Dimension :cheers:
Modern science does not have any solid metaphysical foundation. Materialistic science has very loose and inconsistent definitions of fact and truth.
Much to
ersi's chagrin, I would agree with these statements! Of course, where he sees failure and incompetence, I see intellectual honesty and honest effort…
An example: The basis of statistical reasoning can't be frequentism. Nor subjective Beyesianism. But objective Beyesianism makes sense…
Modern science is -much as was religion before it- a
sopa de pedra. Some people can't accept that!
Modern science does not have any solid metaphysical foundation. Materialistic science has very loose and inconsistent definitions of fact and truth.
Much to ersi's chagrin, I would agree with these statements!
/me 's chagrin :irked:
Of course, where he sees failure and incompetence, I see intellectual honesty and honest effort…
[...]
Modern science is -much as was religion before it- a sopa de pedra. Some people can't accept that!
You mean they are both on a par and it's okay to have no progress? How detestably pomo of you!
Actually I know what you mean. You just carelessly jump around the pot here and there without commitment, imagining you are contributing to the soup whereas in truth you only annoy the cooks. And you call it life as it's meant to be.
An example: The basis of statistical reasoning can't be frequentism. Nor subjective Beyesianism. But objective Beyesianism makes sense…
What on earth is "statistical reasoning"? If you mean probability theories, then statistics is the basis of one kind of probability, whereas the logical entailment based on the definitions of causality and implications is a whole different kind.
By saying "statistical reasoning" you seem to mean the first kind (statistical probability, i.e. the more it happens, the more true/real it is), whereas when you contrast "subjective and objective" and say "objective makes sense" then you must mean the logical kind of probability, because what on earth could "subjective statistics" even mean in the first place in order to make sense or not? What a mess you are.
Both theories have their distinct usage. Statistical theory of probability has its use to test how a theory or policy works out in everyday life, but in order to test it, you have to devise the theory in the first place. The devising is based on the logical probability, not on statistical.
The problem with the Bible is that it's hard to see its point.
There's no problem at all with the Bible.
The Old Testament simply forget it and the New Testament you simply put a priest explaining what it means to the faithful people in the Church.
Just a bit at the time and once a week it's enough, they'll get the point.
You must decide either you want to be part of those that listens or those who speaks, institutional religion being a multilevel kind of thing but where DIY has no place.
The theologian foundation for my words can be found at the very source, Jesus Christ words. He told Peter
go and make my Church. You get to God through the Words of the Bishop of Rome, there's no short cut.
Philosophy, no matter how much appealing it can be, it's not Religion and religion it's about To Serve not to discuss.
There are however gradients in serving, not everyone knees the same way... :)
There's no problem at all with the Bible.
The Old Testament simply forget it and the New Testament you simply put a priest explaining what it means to the faithful people in the Church.
Just a bit at the time and once a week it's enough, they'll get the point.
You must decide either you want to be part of those that listens or those who speaks, institutional religion being a multilevel kind of thing but where DIY has no place.
This is all fine and dandy when you have the priest and the church to do all the work for you, but what if you don't have them? You evidently have no idea how some power can take an aspect or a whole branch of society and cut it off abruptly so that it never recovers, like Soviets did with the church, and like Western governments are doing right now with the institution of marriage. In such a situation, people are on their own to make sense of things according to their individual ability. No priest or church or social worker will be there to help. Lucky if you still have your mother to DIY for you.
I have already understood that Old and New Testament propound different concepts of God and, different from fundie evangelicals, it's impossible to justify any rules or practices based on the law of Moses. Everything relevant to Christians is found in the New Testament. But there has been literally nobody to tell me this. I had to figure it out on my own. I figured out on my own that, different from the way that all the sects and denominations would have it, Jesus didn't condemn outsiders, unbaptised gentiles and pagans. Jesus condemned only one group: The leaders of his own religion. Thus Jesus taught self-criticism, not criticism. Which church and what priest will tell you this? Not one! You have to figure it out on your own.
The theologian foundation for my words can be found at the very source, Jesus Christ words. He told Peter go and make my Church. You get to God through the Words of the Bishop of Rome, there's no short cut.
This is totally open to interpretation. It can be seen as a general exhortation for everyone to emulate Peter's example and make their own church...
Philosophy, no matter how much appealing it can be, it's not Religion and religion it's about To Serve not to discuss.
There are however gradients in serving, not everyone knees the same way... :)
How about a religious philosophy, complete with the concepts of spirit, God, and eschatology coherently tied together so as to make sense of the purpose of service-mindedness and keep the focus on worship?
Eastern religions are not appealing only because they are philosophical, but because they are more internally varied than Catholicism. They have their fundies and they have their philosophical spiritual leaders devoid of any dogmatism. And the philosophies are not only to build models of ontology and epistemology just for the fun of it, but for practical purposes to make sense of meditation, prayer, worship, for spiritual motivation and for spiritual goal. With anything of these missing, of course it would not work. But with all these in place, it should be evident that all this is not merely a matter of discussion, but of practice.
I have already understood that Old and New Testament propound different concepts of God and, different from fundie evangelicals, it's impossible to justify any rules or practices based on the law of Moses. Everything relevant to Christians is found in the New Testament. But there has been literally nobody to tell me this.
I have to email the Pope complaining about that, where are all the Missionaries? Not only one to be sent to the Baltics? :)
Jesus condemned only one group: The leaders of his own religion.
He was Jew...
There's a second group however, the "sellers at the temple". That's the only time you see Jesus Christ actually using violence, shouting and kicking them away, that's extremely meaningful and shall not be ever forgotten.
Obviously He kicks away soul destroying materialism and consumerism and He admits as perfectly legiitim the usage of violence for that.
Since violence it's contradictory with His message, the episode has been interpreted as a certain condescension to Jesus's human side and weakness. Wrong interpretation and future times will show it.
This is totally open to interpretation. It can be seen as a general exhortation for everyone to emulate Peter's example and make their own church...
By the contrary, it's totally closed to any pretension of interpretation, to Peter and only Peter He said such words, Peter the first of Popes.
How about a religious philosophy, complete with the concepts of spirit, God, and eschatology coherently tied together so as to make sense of the purpose of service-mindedness and keep the focus on worship?
That's Catholicism, just expressed in different ways so different level of people can understand.
You evidently have no idea how some power can take an aspect or a whole branch of society and cut it off abruptly so that it never recovers, like Soviets did with the church, and like Western governments are doing right now with the institution of marriage. In such a situation, people are on their own to make sense of things according to their individual ability. No priest or church or social worker will be there to help. Lucky if you still have your mother to DIY for you.
Course I have idea about what it is.
That's why, when teaching to people that God can be known for true by means of reason solely, the Catechism also states that because not everybody is able to do it, and there are many times
Historical conditionings that prevents it, then Faith also...
Yes I'm lucky and I'm lucky because I belong.
But with all these in place, it should be evident that all this is not merely a matter of discussion, but of practice.
You're absolutely right.
How praxis can be so important it's a mystery to me but it is totally true.
As a wee laddie in the Sunday School in my local parish kirk, I discovered in a hall some beautiful coloured copies of paintings of Jesus in different situations. Having thought of him as meek and mild I was at first puzzled at the one on the cleansing of the Temple. However even at such an young age, I came to realise there was a place for righteous anger.
As a wee laddie in the Sunday School in my local parish kirk, I discovered in a hall some beautiful coloured copies of paintings of Jesus in different situations. Having thought of him as meek and mild I was at first puzzled at the one on the cleansing of the Temple. However even at such an young age, I came to realise there was a place for righteous anger.
Is he agreeing with me??
:irked: :devil: :lol:
You big fearty bypassing me directly. :D
Modern science does not have any solid metaphysical foundation. Materialistic science has very loose and inconsistent definitions of fact and truth.
Yeah-okay-fine, but at the end of the day it is science that gets the work done. It does it faster and more efficiently than we ever could before and that frees up more time for people to do the things they need or want to do for themselves and their families, i.e. it promotes happiness. Call science every idiotic thing that pops into your head, but it still gets the job done and has brought mankind out of the dark. Understanding how every little thing in the universe and on this planet works allows us to make progress in the most efficient and conscientiousness way we can for the betterment of all people. Science does not wait for fusty thinking people like you to debate what it should or shouldn't do and what definitions to work with. At it's core science is a field of discovery which is a natural freedom allowed to all of us--ever tried it as a kid? Science is the future and best hope for mankind and it doesn't take a genius to see that that is true, your intuition alone should tell you that. If you don't like the way way science conducts its business or structures itself, then come up with something reasonably better that won't bring science and progress to a screeching halt (there could be another Nobel in it for you). :knight: :cheers:
Modern science does not have any solid metaphysical foundation. Materialistic science has very loose and inconsistent definitions of fact and truth.
Yeah-okay-fine, but at the end of the day it is science that gets the work done. It does it faster and more efficiently than we ever could before and that frees up more time for people to do the things they need or want to do for themselves and their families, i.e. it promotes happiness.
What work? Done in what sense? Frees up more time? The actual experience is precisely the opposite. People are either working on multiple jobs at the same time, with no time for families or themselves, or they are unemployed, with no money for family or themselves.
Two things that need explaining here.
1. How do you always arrive at conclusions that run squarely against easily observable facts of life?
2. What is "science" as per you?
Just one more example how illogical you are:
At it's core science is a field of discovery which is a natural freedom allowed to all of us--ever tried it as a kid? Science is the future...
How do "tried it as a kid" and "the future" fit together? How does "science" fit in there rather than "life" or "eternity" or "Jehovah"? You are so full of propagandistic nonsense that there's no head or tails to it. For a few moments I managed to bring you to some rational tracks, but every time you revert, you get worse. Evidently rational thinking does no good to you.
What work? Done in what sense? Frees up more time? The actual experience is precisely the opposite. People are either working on multiple jobs at the same time, with no time for families or themselves, or they are unemployed, with no money for family or themselves.
Science also unequivocally shows that people need sufficient rest and cool-down time. Not that you need science for that, but it's just the classic it depends on what you do with it scenario. We have the technology. The rest is politics.
Science also unequivocally shows that people need sufficient rest and cool-down time. Not that you need science for that...
Of course you don't need science for that. Science can show it to you only if you have the spare time on vacation to read the book where you find the science that can show it to you. Except that you already got the vacation without any science in the first place.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-NgNvq5e_g[/video]
tell me more about no one need science in the first place when in vacation ?
without scientia aka knowledge , aint nobody know vacation areas, tourists spot , etc .
How do "tried it as a kid" and "the future" fit together? How does "science" fit in there rather than "life" or "eternity" or "Jehovah"? You are so full of propagandistic nonsense that there's no head or tails to it.
What propaganda? My entire life of earth has been one long rapid fire experience of new and exciting scientific discoveries or do you not recognize experience as meaningful grounds on which to form an opinion--probably not. Practically everything you touch is related to science in some way, so regardless of your opinion, it is indispensable to you.
If I had spent my life analyzing to death everything I saw, heard or read then I'm fairly certain I would not have enjoyed my life nearly as much as I have (so far), by doing it in less abyss-like depth. That is not to say that others couldn't get equal pleasure out of life by doing just that--it's simply not my cup of tea. More to the point however, if the entire world worked according to your standards of analyzation, we would still be furiously debating between candles and the light bulb.
You must explain to me though, how is it that you know for a fact that science is not being done in the most effective and efficient way possible despite the flaws you see. Have you tested your way and proven through experimentation that your way produces better results, and furthermore, do you now have the popular opinion of the majority of scientists on earth to back you up? Science doesn't work like your phantom-Nobel-prize-winning-quantum-gravity-theory theory, despite what the physicist who was politely humoring you might have said. :knight: :cheers:
...do you not recognize experience as meaningful grounds on which to form an opinion.
Sure I recognise it. It's just outlandish how you think everybody should have the same experience. It's like thinking that everybody should grow up in the same place and be raised by the same parents.
If I had spent my life analyzing to death everything I saw, heard or read then I'm fairly certain I would not have enjoyed my life nearly as much as I have...
Okay, so enjoyment is important to you, and analysis is unimportant. How do you manage to call your view science? Is science enjoyment? Where are you getting such stupidities? To me it's evident that it's lack of your analytical skills that does this.
You must explain to me though, how is it that you know for a fact that science is not being done in the most effective and efficient way possible despite the flaws you see.
I analysed the situation and that's how I see the flaws I see. You self-admittedly didn't analyse. The funny thing here is that my conclusions are scientific, based on analysis and open premises, whereas your conclusions are just incoherent emotional nonsense. You are giving science an undeservedly bad name.
It's hard to be more ridiculously self-contradictory than you already are, but I'm sure you can do better. Carry on.
I don't understand why science is being presented as some form of antagonistic thing relating religion.
Assuming that people wants to identify science with rational mind meaning logical deductive processes, then it's contrary it's the intuitive mind.
That's something worthy of being discussed - reason versus intuition, science and religion have nothing of contradictory.
That's right. Science and religion don't have to clash - unless somebody wants them to.
When theologians pretend to teach science, and when scientists pretend to teach religion, then the problem arises.
(P.S.: I really mean pretend.)
@Belfrager
For people who are used to think in dichotomies, emotion versus intellect handily translates into religion versus science, imagination versus reason, etc. It's very hard to get out of this trap. For example even you have it occasionally hard to accept that religion can be so much a thing of the mind, intellect, and reason, as it seems to be to me :) For you religion is properly more of a heart and intuition thing. I definitely agree on intuition, it's just that we very likely perceive intuition differently.
Overantagonising is a general problem. Antagonising tends to put opposites on a par, but opposites are not always symmetrical. For example pretty much everybody conceives of good and evil as opposite substances, instead of a gradation where good is the only substance and evil simply the lack of that substance. This continuum point of view is perfectly tenable at a closer look. Goodness accepts, builds, invites, and is welcomed. Evil rejects, destroys, shuns and is suspect. Therefore Evil cannot be a self-contained substance, because it always needs something else that is being rejected, destroyed, shunned, opposed to, etc. whereas Good can be conceived as union or harmony of everything, hence self-sufficient and inherently stable. Good and evil are conceptual opposites, but not symmetrical. It's a flaw to see them in an overly antagonising way so that they seem symmetrical opposites.
Every human has emotion, intellect, and intuition to some degrees and to see these things as opposites that exclude each other is a false dichotomy. Religion and science are also both psychologically present in everyone of us, and conceptually partly overlapping. It's a false dichotomy to see them as exclusive of each other.
But it gets really tricky and outright funny when someone overemotional is scientistic and talks about his position as if the only possible rational way of life where philosophy and religion cannot have any place. Here we have, in addition to false dichotomy, also false definitions. To label emotions "reason", and materialist philosophy or militant atheism "science" is an obvious case of mislabelling, and when we observe divisive false equivocations such as atheism=rationality=science=good and religion=blind emotionality=anti-science=evil, then we observe the propaganda mechanism doing its job.
I readily believe that JS's emotional attitude plays out as slick social competence in his daily life, but this won't change the fact that his typed expression stands no logical scrutiny. He's like an ID evangelist who learned the wrong material and now blindly spreads the gospel.
My experience with the ID thing is that there's no support for it on its own terms. Support for it can be conjectured only in the name of some imagined greater cause, other than itself, because it has zero logical, rational, scientific basis of its own. (Just like Frenzie managed to justify Sam Harris once upon a time: Sam may have no philosophical or logical merit, but since his Great Mission is to smear religions, he is still a Good Guy.)
There is no thread about ID in these forums (yet). :left: :insane: :no:
Science are not good or bad , it is a Dead thing .
it cant be Good or Bad .
only Human , that can be good or be bad .
anti-science are not Evil .
that are Clearly , Straw man combined with Black or white fallacy .
(Just like Frenzie managed to justify Sam Harris once upon a time: Sam may have no philosophical or logical merit, but since his Great Mission is to smear religions, he is still a Good Guy.)
Did this really just follow a piece of text attacking false dichotomies? Sam Harris is either Good™ or Bad™? :left:
Did this really just follow a piece of text attacking false dichotomies? Sam Harris is either Good™ or Bad™? :left:
Probably it doesn't always appear to be so, but for me people's beliefs, philosophical commitments, life stories, etc. are absolutely distinct from their mundane existence, behaviour of the moment, life situation at hand. In terms of world view, Sam Harris is a mind-control-advocating irrational anti-religious extremist militant fundie. In terms of his personal life, his professional and business relationships, etc. I have no comment. And no interest either. It's best for his own good if he were not too practically committed to his own world view, but rather an insincere propagandist, a hypocrite. Because someone seriously and continuously hoping to puppeteer humanity would be a pretty tough case in person.
Notice how I construed a context where hypocrisy appears good? When people with bad philosophy are hypocrites, i.e. not committed to their philosophy, it's relatively good because it means they are not as bad as their philosophy :)
For example even you have it occasionally hard to accept that religion can be so much a thing of the mind, intellect, and reason, as it seems to be to me :) For you religion is properly more of a heart and intuition thing.
Not at all. To me organized religion it's above everything a civilizational instrument and therefore some conclusions, that could make sense at an individual level, have no place at the collective sphere.
You identified well a separation but wrongly the terms - for the individual, freedom to reason; for the collective, the security of dogma.
As for the rest, I agree on the distinction between symmetrical and opposite but not sure that the good/evil question can be addressed that way. I usually approach it by the Freedom prism and relegate to second place the ontological problem of it's nature.
:sherlock:
definition of hypocrite = using the benefit of sciences but reject sciences .
You identified well a separation but wrongly the terms - for the individual, freedom to reason; for the collective, the security of dogma.
True, I overlooked this individual-collective dimension. I always do. That collective thing never worked for me. Heard about collective farms a.k.a. kolkhoz? It's like Animal Farm, only in reality, not in a book...
Probably it doesn't always appear to be so, but for me people's beliefs, philosophical commitments, life stories, etc. are absolutely distinct from their mundane existence, behaviour of the moment, life situation at hand. In terms of world view, Sam Harris is a mind-control-advocating irrational anti-religious extremist militant fundie.
Perhaps I disagree with your largely irrational assessment of Sam Harris? For instance, if we're all puppets then Harris is one too; it's rather illogical to conclude that he would be a puppeteer instead.
That being said, even if I mostly agreed with you I don't really see how it affects anything. I argued that he was correct about some part or most of the Bible being immoral or something along those lines; it was a while ago. That doesn't mean he's a "Good Guy". It means he's correct about something. Even Mohammed must've been right once or twice in the Qur'an.
Probably it doesn't always appear to be so, but for me people's beliefs, philosophical commitments, life stories, etc. are absolutely distinct from their mundane existence, behaviour of the moment, life situation at hand. In terms of world view, Sam Harris is a mind-control-advocating irrational anti-religious extremist militant fundie.
Perhaps I disagree with your largely irrational assessment of Sam Harris? For instance, if we're all puppets then Harris is one too; it's rather illogical to conclude that he would be a puppeteer instead.
But I was not assessing him. I was summarising his plans, ideals and ambitions, straightforwardly I think. Not so long ago I quoted his blog here directly on the mind-control bit.
Naturally, I have no reason to conclude that he is an actual puppeteer for our planet. Just pointing out that based on what he's said he seems to hope to become one.
That being said, even if I mostly agreed with you I don't really see how it affects anything. I argued that he was correct about some part or most of the Bible being immoral or something along those lines; it was a while ago. That doesn't mean he's a "Good Guy". It means he's correct about something. Even Mohammed must've been right once or twice in the Qur'an.
This is all okay, except that without a moral basis or standard you cannot coherently assess anything as moral or immoral. Still, nothing can stop you from doing it incoherently.
My favourite part of Qur'an is Sura 18, The Cave. Yours? (If it isn't too odd to ask an atheist's favourite parts of the Bible and Qur'an...)
This is all okay, except that without a moral basis or standard you cannot coherently assess anything as moral or immoral. Still, nothing can stop you from doing it incoherently.
At some point you have to accept some axiom. That's not incoherent.
My favourite part of Qur'an is Sura 18, The Cave. Yours? (If it isn't too odd to ask an atheist's favourite parts of the Bible and Qur'an...)
That's not an odd question at all. However, I quite disliked the Qur'an. I thought it was derivative, tedious and repulsive. One of the most repulsive parts was Mohammed's reaction to some Jews pointing out how he was messing up and corrupting their stories — something immediately obvious to any reader even vaguely familiar with the Tanakh.
My favorite parts of the Tanakh are probably in the Torah (some of Genesis, mostly Exodus) and (decent chunks of) Ketuvim.
I readily believe that JS's emotional attitude plays out as slick social competence in his daily life, but this won't change the fact that his typed expression stands no logical scrutiny. He's like an ID evangelist who learned the wrong material and now blindly spreads the gospel.
I have a personality that is easily likable because I somehow put all types of people at ease with me right from the get-go. People open up easily to me (for the most part), but I don't consider that as having any kind of charisma on my part. This is simply what I've been told by enough people to think it is a natural characteristic of mine which is surely the antithesis of slick. I really don't think I could do 'slick' because I've seen slick in others and I doubt if I could pull it off.
But enough of that, I had a mystical moment. At least I imagine that is what many people (certainly you), would call it and that is certainly better than calling it anything divine or religious.
I was meditating to the soft sprinkle of Japanese music and I imagined myself floating in the universe (nothing new). I looked around and saw galaxies slowly twisting and dancing around each other, I looked into the stars and saw them as nature's machines--churning out the life-giving ingredients of life, I looked into a dust cloud and saw the lightening-quick fundamental bits of all things working together as ants building a colony. Then, I had the sudden realization that the entire universe was itself a real living thing and it was at that moment that I felt and heard the universe heave a big sigh.
I had a tremendous sense of awe that broke the spell of my meditation, causing me to open my eyes and stare blankly into space. My first awake thought was that I was a part of this living universe, made of the exact same stuff, unable to be destroyed and in that sense, immortal--at least for the next trillion years or so (which is probably all the immortality I could stand anyway).
Was that mystical or was I slowly putting things together in a different light? I had no sense of anything divine, it was simply a stimulating insight--although not entirely unique in that I have felt tremendous awe before, as when I dove the coral reef (a living thing), of San Andres. I am certainly, not the first person to see the universe as a living thing of course, it just never struck me so deeply (that sigh). However, I'm afraid that I am too pragmatic to get too carried away with this, which is indubitably, certainly, truly what separates you from me the mostest. :knight: :cheers:
Sir ersi , lemme tell you something about that thingy .
A Great Lier can make their victims Feels Happier .
and Do everything for the one Who Deceive them .
You mean like Jim Jones and Charles Manson? :knight: :cheers:
indeed
However, I quite disliked the Qur'an. I thought it was derivative, tedious and repulsive. One of the most repulsive parts was Mohammed's reaction to some Jews pointing out how he was messing up and corrupting their stories — something immediately obvious to any reader even vaguely familiar with the Tanakh.
Derivative as in borrowing from the Tanakh? But this should not have come as a surprise, unpleasant or otherwise. Messing up and corrupting the Jewish stories? If you believe in heavily crooked revisory history of the Bible, as atheists normally do, then isn't the Tanakh itself already a corruption and derivation of e.g. the Babylonian mythology?
I find some derivative works extremely useful, such as Zohar compared to Tanakh. Knowledge of traditions of exegetic commentaries are valuable to understand not only how to interpret scriptures, but also how to identify scriptures, to tell them apart from non-scriptures. "Derivative" in that sense is therefore not a criterion. "Tedious and repulsive", indeed the writing should be emotionally and intellectually manageable, but then again it should be a special effort to familiarise oneself with its style. Without the effort, much of the meaning would go lost.
...I looked into the stars and saw them as nature's machines--churning out the life-giving ingredients of life, I looked into a dust cloud and saw the lightening-quick fundamental bits of all things working together as ants building a colony. Then, I had the sudden realization that the entire universe was itself a real living thing and it was at that moment that I felt and heard the universe heave a big sigh.
I had a tremendous sense of awe that broke the spell of my meditation, causing me to open my eyes and stare blankly into space. My first awake thought was that I was a part of this living universe, made of the exact same stuff, unable to be destroyed and in that sense, immortal--
Among the different reasons and purposes to meditate, attunement (in the broadest and finest sense) is supreme. Attunement or harmony between us and the universe is possible at all because we are all made of the same elements, all elements from the physical to the spiritual. This is mysticism 101. I don't think you missed this course. More likely you deliberately ignored what was said there.
Among other reasons to meditate there are expectation of visions, insights, sense of calming or rest, but these are selfish reasons and can be misleading if not employed for the broader and finer purpose of universal attunement.
Was that mystical or was I slowly putting things together in a different light? I had no sense of anything divine, it was simply a stimulating insight--
And what is the difference between a stimulating insight and divine? What should/would divine be, according to you?
Derivative as in borrowing from the Tanakh? But this should not have come as a surprise, unpleasant or otherwise. Messing up and corrupting the Jewish stories? If you believe in heavily crooked revisory history of the Bible, as atheists normally do, then isn't the Tanakh itself already a corruption and derivation of e.g. the Babylonian mythology?
It didn't bother me, beyond being somewhat tedious and extremely badly organized even within Surahs, until Mohammed was such an unforgivable ass about it. "You don't like my fanfic? Soldiers, kill them, kill all their relatives, kill all of their faith you can find in this city!" Or something along those lines. It's badly written repulsive derivative trash. Vergil is purposefully derivative of Homer, yet he is masterfully and respectfully derivative (even if I find him somewhat boring). Even while killing off all the Philistines for practically no reason whatsoever the Tanakh never even approaches the levels of rapaciousness of the Qur'an. It's the vilest work I ever read.
I find some derivative works extremely useful, such as Zohar compared to Tanakh.
A work that is derivative is not a derivative work. The Zohar is not a bad facsimile of the Tanakh. More to the point, I still find an obvious C&C clone like KKnD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KKnD) enjoyable, although perhaps that is a good facsimile.
isn't the Tanakh itself already a corruption and derivation of e.g. the Babylonian mythology?
That is actually relevant, but my answer is simply de gustibus non est disputandum. I also happen to find
Robinson Crusoe one of the most boring novels ever written, at least within the first 30 pages or so before I decided to stop wasting my time. The fact that much of the Tanakh is internally derivative doesn't bother me much either. I find the fact that Genesis confusedly mixes at least two different flood and creation stories fascinating rather than tedious. Yaweh is a repulsive character, yet the works themselves are not repulsive. The Qur'an emanates a special kind of insufferable glib superiority while proclaiming inanities. That, I imagine, is what you call the style. I happen to find it repugnant.
PS This is not an issue with any other mythological text I've ever read, and suffice it to say I've read loads from all over the world, so I don't think it's unfair to ask whether it's me or the Qur'an.
PPS One Thousand and One Nights is a million times more enjoyable even though it also keeps blathering on about merciful Allah.
The Qur'an emanates a special kind of insufferable glib superiority while proclaiming inanities. That, I imagine, is what you call the style. I happen to find it repugnant.
Right, style is a matter of taste. My view is that style is something you simply have to tolerate. Patiently suffering the inevitable just might lead you to the valuable kernel :)
In other news, Robert Grosseteste's De Luce (c. 1225) has been translated into English, and scientists are amazed at how a writing by a theologian, authored centuries before Newton, could propose something like gravity, and even more centuries before the Big Bang theory, could speak of the origin of the universe as if an explosion, and even more centuries before field and string theories, could describe the fundamentals of the universe in mathematical terms.
In turn, it makes me wonder how one gets to be a scientist without any basic reading of historical texts. We have internet at our fingertips, but those so-called scientists fail to look up every once in a while whose theories they are poorly mimicking. We would have been spared some reinventions of the wheel, or at least the reinvention would go faster.
There's nothing new under the sun. All scriptures say this in some form. How does one get to be a scientist without knowing this? Or is it required to forget tradition and common sense when entering the scientific circles? The usual saying goes that the Middle Ages were dark, but it very much looks like these days are much darker.
Right, style is a matter of taste. My view is that style is something you simply have to tolerate. Patiently suffering the inevitable just might lead you to the valuable kernel :)
Well, besides better understanding writing by e.g. Kader Abdolah and Salman Rushdie I'm not convinced there was much of one. That suffices for me, but some kind of abridged version (http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2008/12/abridged-koran.html) would probably do the trick just as well if not better.
In other news, Robert Grosseteste's De Luce (c. 1225) has been translated into English, and scientists are amazed at how a writing by a theologian, authored centuries before Newton, could propose something like gravity, and even more centuries before the Big Bang theory, could speak of the origin of the universe as if an explosion, and even more centuries before field and string theories, could describe the fundamentals of the universe in mathematical terms.
Perhaps they forget that Newton, too, was a theologian? But more basic, in the Middle Ages to have an education (and therefore the means to express such things mathematically) pretty much meant to have a clerical education.
The usual saying goes that the Middle Ages were dark, but it very much looks like these days are much darker.
I'd never actually heard the term "dark ages" before I learned English. Btw, I don't know what "scientists" you refer to, but it sounds like they have just about zero historical sense. Like that Archimedes already invented calculus (admittedly in a previously lost manuscript neither Newton nor Leibniz could have known about). But this is really more related to that other topic (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=464.0). What did the scientists, if any, actually say? :)
We live in troubled times.
I would never be brave enough to say anything negative about Islam or its holy book.
Seriously.
I'd never actually heard the term "dark ages" before I learned English.
Where I grew up, various fairly recent times were called dark too. And I don't hesitate to call our times dark.
Btw, I don't know what "scientists" you refer to, but it sounds like they have just about zero historical sense. --- What did the scientists, if any, actually say? :)
It's an article in Nature, titled A medieval multiverse (http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.14837!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/507161a.pdf)
It's possible to interpret it as something mildly enthusiastic with zero historical sense, or as some unenthusiastic overview of medieval mediocrities, dead boring for the author of the article, but veiled as a journey of thrilling discoveries - and the sense of history went lost in the process of conjuring up the veil.
Grosseteste's De Luce, available in English since the 1940s, opens by addressing a problem with classical atomism: why, if atoms are point-like, do materials have volume? Light is discussed as a medium for filling space. Grosseteste’s recognition that matter’s bulk and bulk stability requires subtle explanation was impressive. Even more intriguing was his use of mathematics to illuminate his physics.
A finite volume, he writes, emerges from an "infinite multiplication of light" acting on infinitesimal matter. He draws an analogy to the finite ratio of two infinite sums, claiming that (1+2+4+8+...)/(0.5+1+2+4+...) is equal to 2. He does not articulate carefully the idea of the limits one needs to make this rigorous, but we know what he means[...]
In an impressive final stroke of unification, he postulates that towards the centre of the cosmos, the remaining unperfected matter becomes so dense and the inwardly radiating lumen so weak, that no further perfection transitions are possible. He thus accounts for the Aristotelian distinction between the perfect heavens and the imperfect Earth and atmosphere.
To our knowledge, De Luce is the first worked example showing that a single set of physical laws might account for the very different structures of the heavens and Earth, hundreds of years before Newton’s 1687 appeal to gravity to unite the falling of objects on Earth with the orbiting of the Moon. [...]
The possible existence of more than one universe was indeed a live issue of the period, and a highly contentious one — appearing, for example, in the Papal edict of 1277 that banned a list of scientific teachings. But it was a debate that Grosseteste apparently chose to avoid.
So, mathematics of the basic substance called
light, yielding concepts of density, gravity, structure of heaven and earth, i.e. a complete cosmology, with hints of multiverse. A theory of everything. Ain't that awesome. Whereas for me, having read a bunch of enlightenment dudes, medievals and millennia-old writings, it's pretty hard to recall anything that did
not present a theory of everything in one form or another. There are even writings that present a host of cosmologies page after page, as if the relevant thought experiments were part of ordinary high school curriculum in old times. It's an insult to intelligence if this is forgotten by modern science writers.
We live in troubled times.
I would never be brave enough to say anything negative about Islam or its holy book.
Seriously.
We are still not big and diverse enough forum. We don't yet have our own resident Muslim. Not even a resident Buddhist, even though those are easier to obtain than Muslims, I think. ID-ists are probably silently lurking here already, but they would be merely annoying. Frenzie has read the Qur'an but he is not doing good apologetics of Islam.
Qur'an has done a good job creating a civilisation out of those desert nomads. Their civilisation was ahead of Europe for centuries and kept up ancient Greek and Latin traditions that went nearly exinct in Europe for a while. Islamic civilisation is still ahead in terms of hygiene :) Solid teachings of hygiene and a civilisation that holds people together tighter than Christianity does is not a small feat, but I'm not quite sure how much of this is directly attributable to the book.
Theory of Everything is awsome .
because, it is simply there is no Theory of everything yet . :yes:
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mememaker.net%2Fstatic%2Fimages%2Ftemplates%2F1606327.jpg&hash=6fef19fdca8f0ec4cb076f4def29547f" rel="cached" data-hash="6fef19fdca8f0ec4cb076f4def29547f" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.mememaker.net/static/images/templates/1606327.jpg)
[…] it makes me wonder how one gets to be a scientist without any basic reading of historical texts. We have internet at our fingertips, but those so-called scientists fail to look up every once in a while whose theories they are poorly mimicking. We would have been spared some reinventions of the wheel, or at least the reinvention would go faster.
There's nothing new under the sun. All scriptures say this in some form. How does one get to be a scientist without knowing this?
(underlining added)
In an eatery near you is a dishwasher who
blathers… Shouldn't our best and brightest converse with him, because he may say something profound — something that they wouldn't think of?
That ancient thinkers had scattered or coherent thoughts that presaged what the hard work of science has given us isn't surprising. What's surprising is that a modern educated man so easily succumbs to the "Ooh! Wow!" factor that snake-oil salesmen depend upon…
There is much that is new under the sun! But most people would rather think not (…both senses!) because they aren't comfortable with the style and level of argument refuting such would require.
Of course, ESP and telekinesis, ghosts and past lives, and mind-reading is -like- for sure, really, like, real. Ya know? :)
Ask your local dishwasher what emendations Hawking should make to his theory of black holes, to save it from the problem of information and the event horizon… Your conversation may be a great deal of fun! It may even give you some ideas.
But it won't do, as science.
It will do, as mysticism, though. That's your bag, isn't it? :)
———————————————————
But you can still read and enjoy this (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week207.html)…
Of course, ESP and telekinesis, ghosts and past lives, and mind-reading is -like- for sure, really, like, real. Ya know? :)
Are you comfortable with the style and level of argument required in refuting these? If yes, go ahead and do it. If not, you are just blathering as per usual.
Bad Eliza:
Given your conception of Truth, only grokking counts... You'd have to say, for instance, that Grosseteste didn't "discover" anything; at best, he tripped over something, and then continued on his merry way!
Or do you now credit brilliant invention? Have you been converted? :)
@Oakdale
You say, "There is much that is new under the sun! But most people would rather think not (…both senses!) because they aren't comfortable with the style and level of argument refuting such would require."
I.e. the claim "There is much new under the sun!" should be refuted, if it is to be disbelieved.
At the same time, the claim "There is nothing new under the sun" and "ESP and telekinesis, ghosts and past lives, and mind-reading" should be disbelieved without refutation. Do I need to point out obvious double standards?
And your latest post consists totally of your merry misconception of the process of communication of knowledge without me having said anything about it here, neither converting from what I've said in other threads nor confirming. If you want to make it a topic, be sane and coherent about it.
Edit: You quoted and underlined something I said earlier, but what you said about it was sheer blather and does not merit a response. Get a hold of yourself, will you?
I'm sorry: I thought I was talking to a person… My bad!
It's hard to be more ridiculously self-contradictory than you already are, but I'm sure you can do better.
I can admit that the supernatural is a logical possibility, but it is little more than that. The success of methodological naturalism and the complete failure of other systems (theistic, mystic or supernatural), to empirically or even reasonably explain anything, makes it logical to assume that naturalism is the reality of this universe. Nothing else in human experience and knowledge has come anywhere close to the ability of science to predict, understand and control the world around us. Science hasn't answered all the questions yet (certainly not yours), but since there has always been a very real and natural explanation for everything science has discovered so far, there is no reason to doubt science answering all questions pertaining to the nature of this reality.
Metaphysical/quasi-physical substance such as ideas, values, logic, information, mathematics and intellect can be reduced to a physical account in nature and science is working to explain exactly what that is, therefore, your claim that science needs a stronger metaphysical foundation is simply premature. However, when it comes to metaphysics, I'm sure you don't expect science to embrace the spiritual or supernatural as explanations because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful and result in scientific dead ends and god of the gaps theories. Moreover,
never has an empirical scientific discovery been deemed wrong and replaced by a more convincing mystical/supernatural explanation. :knight: :cheers:
In words of sage Kapila, devotion and knowledge are not contradictory. They are mutually supportive. The same way, I don't see nothing in science to exclude religion and nothing in religion to exclude science. Instead, science and religion provide proper perspective to each other.
With such false dichotomies, James, how do you reconcile your meditation experiences with sciences? It looks like you don't do it at all. You don't care about such reconciliations, because you don't even see the conflict, even though you dispute and argue as if conflicts were all over.
Sir, half truth is never good ..
i have seen enough shit from that thingy ..
just wait 'till they claim if Earth is the Axis of universe .
all i can say , Neo Dark ages .
Sciences will Always one step ahead, than religion .
Since Science will always invent Something New .
While Religions just waiting for the New Inventions, then they - Claim it .
In words of sage Kapila, devotion and knowledge are not contradictory. They are mutually supportive. The same way, I don't see nothing in science to exclude religion and nothing in religion to exclude science. Instead, science and religion provide proper perspective to each other.
With such false dichotomies, James, how do you reconcile your meditation experiences with sciences? It looks like you don't do it at all. You don't care about such reconciliations, because you don't even see the conflict, even though you dispute and argue as if conflicts were all over.
They certainly are
not mutually supportive. Religion can make room for science and will even make concessions to science, but science can never make room for any kind of religion because of its controversial and non-falsifiable supernatural nature. Science today, simply has no perspective on religion and never will have despite your wishes and dreams of a unification. Individuals can embrace certain aspects of both religion and science that are not mutually contradictory to them, but who would ever concede creation in contradiction to what they truly believe?
"You don't care about such reconciliations", au contraire, mon ami! I have thought much of this apparently mystical revelation and have concluded that it was not a veridical experience of God and therefore, not at all a hint of a supernatural realm. There is a scientific explanation which rules out, or makes unlikely, the supposition that God had anything special to do with the occurrence of this mystical experience. http://www.bidstrup.com/mystic.htm
Your predictable comeback will be that even though science has uncovered physical or psychological mechanisms which underlie mystical experiences, these do not exclude a divine cause which would underwrite peoples' claims of them being veridical perceptions of a supreme being. Which is all true and good, but as for myself, I simply don't feel the need or wish to waste the time, looking down a rabbit hole for an explanation of what I felt, when a perfectly logical, satisfactory and reality-based explanation is available to me. :knight: :cheers:
They certainly are not mutually supportive. Religion can make room for science and will even make concessions to science, but science can never make room for any kind of religion because of its controversial and non-falsifiable supernatural nature.
Here you are argumentative and antagonistic, not reconciling anything.
"You don't care about such reconciliations", au contraire, mon ami!
Here you are contradicting what you just previously said.
I have thought much of this apparently mystical revelation and have concluded that it was not a veridical experience of God and therefore, not at all a hint of a supernatural realm...
And here you just fall back to one side again and refuse to reconcile anything.
Your predictable comeback will be that even though science has uncovered physical or psychological mechanisms...
Science has not uncovered anything in this area. It was all uncovered already by the first literate mystics. Modern scientists are merely rewriting the story in vastly inferior reductive terms. Inferior in the scientific sense, mind you, because they miss at least half of the phenomenally describable reality.
Inferior in the scientific sense, mind you, because they miss at least half of the phenomenally describable reality.
Science explains, not describes. Science can explain green by its wavelength, but cannot explain your perception of it...quite yet. Science can (potentially at least), explain everything. Furthermore, its ways of trying to understand the universe by asking questions of it, do not leave any reality-based areas off-limits, including perception. Science's methods of curiosity, openness, inquiry, theory building, hypothesis testing and so on can be adapted and developed to explore and try to scientifically explain anything. :knight: :cheers:
Science explains, not describes. Science can explain green by its wavelength, but cannot explain your perception of it...quite yet.
Hence science doesn't explain. It describes, and at best pretends to explain :) (I am not actually smiling. I just put a smiley here because this is internet, but really your blatant ceaseless self-contradictions are no fun, never were.)
I guess Oakdale is right. Either you are slow or purposely acting dumb. "There seems to be no obstacle that will keep science from explaining everything, right down to why you perceive green the way you do." Is that in simple enough terms for you to wrap your little head around or do I need to break it down into smaller spoonfuls to feed you? I think you have run out of insults about science and you are thus reduced to just playing dumb (are you drinking?)! :knight: :cheers:
"There seems to be no obstacle that will keep science from explaining everything, right down to why you perceive green the way you do."
Let there be *seems*! Lo and behold, *seems* overpowers everything that *is*! Bow down to the power of *seems* you vermin!!!
Seriously, you would be more representative on the fundie side of the debate. I am beginning to think God sent you to earth to give atheism a bad name so that everybody would get embarrassed and convert.
There seems to be no end to this childish game of yours either. It's a human expression Eric, used by real people who understand it--there is an inference to this phrase that apparently you don't get. Don't waste my time while you waste your life pointing out such trivialities, if you have nothing meaningful to say in response, then just say nothing--you do that most of the time anyway.
There seems to be a gravitation attraction between any two objects that have mass, but actually science has not tested every combination of masses in the universe to verify this--is this the type of thing you are waiting for before believing anything scientific? I'm quite sure it is. :knight: :cheers:
Science can (potentially at least), explain everything.
This is,
James, not what science purports to do. It is, rather, the ideology of Scientism… Surely, you know this? :)
Science's methods of curiosity, openness, inquiry, theory building, hypothesis testing and so on can be adapted and developed to explore and try to scientifically explain anything.
So: That explains your absence from the "Scientists Say" thread! :) The percentage of
blather coming from "respectable" and credentialed scientists hurts your case… (And -at least it should!- your feelings. No?)
This is, James, not what science purports to do. It is, rather, the ideology of Scientism… Surely, you know this?
That 'Science can (potentially at least), explain everything', may not be the Hippocratic Oath of scientists, but it is a reasonable statement for anyone to make based on the performance of science in the last century and the accelerating rate of new discoveries. I'm sure that many scientists and students of science believe in the potential of science to explain all. It is actually a belief in the potential of mankind.
So: That explains your absence from the "Scientists Say" thread! :) The percentage of blather coming from "respectable" and credentialed scientists hurts your case… (And -at least it should!- your feelings. No?)
Scientists are as human as those from any profession and, as humans, they are prone to error, exaggeration, missteps, unprofessionalism and generally saying foolish things--so what's to talk about. You got a way to stop all the missteps and foolishness in the world? Apparently though, you think of science as a particularly esteemed and important profession to wish to hold scientists to superhuman standards--I never would have thunk it of you. :knight: :cheers:
"Superhuman standards?" That's not how I'd put it; maybe you believe honesty, integrity and sincerity of purpose are unattainable — for individuals. Still, the profession should require such. No?
I'd rather say that scientists should be held to the same standards as others… (Call it a form of "professionalism".)
It seems to me that saying "Science can (potentially, eventually) explain everything" goes too far! If you claim to disagree, you've probably disavowed questions you don't like — i.e., those for which Science is ill- or un-equipped…
"Superhuman standards?" That's not how I'd put it; maybe you believe honesty, integrity and sincerity of purpose are unattainable — for individuals. Still, the profession should require such. No?
I am neither trying to defend nor condemn what any scientist may say. It's just that sometimes, people with great responsibility are expected, or even made, to say something/anything about the state of certain affairs as they see it and often before it is perfectly clear to them or anyone else actually. Regardless of what these people say, there will always be times when they are wrong and there will also always be those who will condemn or misconstrue what was said. It's a no-win situation that some professionals, including many scientists, are sometimes put into. That is not to say that there are no irresponsible scientists, politicians, economists, religious leaders, police officials, news reporters, etc. But why just scientists? :knight: :cheers:
It's just that sometimes, people with great responsibility are expected
What the hell are you talking about? A combination priesthood and royalty, it sounds like; call it by its name: Megalomania.
That explains a lot! :)
But why just scientists?
Ahm — because someone insists "Science can explain everything!" (The "just" is your addition. But I can see why you'd put it there…)
What the hell are you talking about? A combination priesthood and royalty, it sounds like; call it by its name: Megalomania.
Hmmm, since I wasn't speaking specifically about scientists, it would seem that you believe there are no people who, by the nature of their occupation, are obligated to a greater social responsibility. That's cool, we can check out how well anarchy works.
Ahm — because someone insists "Science can explain everything!" (The "just" is your addition. But I can see why you'd put it there…)
How convenient for you that you left out the word "potentially", although I do prefer your suggestion of "eventually". Science doesn't know everything yet, but it does seems to be moving along pretty well on its own--
just be patient, we will colonize the universe soon enough. :knight: :cheers:
"A greater social responsibility" sounds like the sort of phrase used by reformers; and monsters... There are, however, codes of ethics and professional standards, which are both more particular and in addition to the common requirements.
Such are what I referred to, both here and in other threads.
@Oakdale
Funny how you see the concept "social responsibility" as monstrous, but have nothing to say about the cosmic colonial ambitions expressed in the same post. Mises-Rand-Hayek type sociology has evidently had the intended effect on you.
Funny how you see the concept "social responsibility" as monstrous,
Funny, how someone as intelligent as you (claim to be...) can mis-read a simple statement!
It's the presumption of self-proclaimed elites, "our betters" (or should that be
masters?), who'd decide for the rest of us what's right, and -for our own good, of course- implement their decisions, will-he, nil-he...
I'm sure you can think of a few examples of such that deserve to be called monstrous. No?
(If you can't, I'll gladly supply them. :) )
Funny how you see the concept "social responsibility" as monstrous,
[removed ad hom for readability]
I'm sure you can think of a few examples of such that deserve to be called monstrous. No?
(If you can't, I'll gladly supply them. :) )
QED
Now, feel free to supply the examples and make your intentions clear for everyone, not just me and you.
It's the presumption of self-proclaimed elites, "our betters" (or should that be masters?), who'd decide for the rest of us what's right, and -for our own good, of course- implement their decisions, will-he, nil-he...
Supposing that my reading comprehension is still good enough, the statement above was
not "ad hom". Quite the opposite: it was enlightening.
:irked: :zip:
You're right, Barulheira, that it's not directly the same ad hom as the sentence that occurred just before the quotation. However, it's not enlightening either. The most straightforward interpretation would be that it's a sweeping jump from the ad hom that occurred just before, tied with the queer view of the concept of social responsibility. The generalisation does not reveal anything enlightening, because in a sense it's accusing elites of what they are actually supposed to do - to motivate and underpin right behaviour.
The accusation is rather hilarious because Oakdale himself has all the worst marks of the attitude he accuses "elites" of. It's pretty obvious that he uses "elites" with all the same connotations - and the same level of hyprocrisy - as Laura Ingraham (http://www.amazon.com/Shut-Up-Sing-Hollywood-Subverting/dp/0895260816). But this would be an ad hom again :)
It's the presumption of self-proclaimed elites, "our betters" (or should that be masters?), who'd decide for the rest of us what's right, and -for our own good, of course- implement their decisions, will-he, nil-he...
Is no one more qualified (better), than you at math, physics, economics, religion or trash removal? All of these are important functions in our world and there simply
are some people in a better position to make informed comments to society on these and other subjects, than others. Not because of their wealth, heritage or IQ (elitism), but normally based on ability, experience, insight and positive public opinion. Not everyone is trying to take over the world Mr. Paranoid. :knight: :cheers:
The most straightforward interpretation would be that it's a sweeping jump from the ad hom that occurred just before
Only for individuals prone to see such attacks everywhere… :)
Now, feel free to supply the examples and make your intentions clear for everyone, not just me and you.
Well, just from the last century, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao come to mind.
Now, feel free to supply the examples and make your intentions clear for everyone, not just me and you.
Well, just from the last century, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao come to mind.
And these guys are related to social responsibility how? The concept, if they even used it, was by no means central to them. For Hitler, it was central to erase the injustice of the WWI and to make Germany a great nation. For others it was class struggle, and brave new communist world. Social responsibility was hardly there. I grew up force-fed Lenin's and Brezhnev's speeches, but I only noticed the concept tangentially emerging in Gorbachev's speeches.
Anyway, your point is clear. Social responsibility = evil. Colonisation of the universe = bleh. It's amply proven now that I didn't misread anything, because this is precisely how I read it at first. I don't remember who at the old My Opera occasionally admitted being the fan of Ann Coulter, but you fit the profile.
Anyway, your point is clear. Social responsibility = evil.
You must have some sort of System that assigns meaning in such a counter-intuitive way. Well, whatever it is, you're welcome to it… :)
If someone has Answers to Questions of social organization, say… Why is it too much to ask, that they present them, argue for them; and accept that their "convictions" don't justify coercion of others?
It's easy to be wrong enough to warrant blame, without compounding it by being grandiose, no? :)
If someone has Answers to Questions of social organization, say… Why is it too much to ask, that they present them, argue for them; and accept that their "convictions" don't justify coercion of others?
It's easy to be wrong enough to warrant blame, without compounding it by being grandiose, no? :)
You mean you actually have such questions? All I see is your own entrenched presuppositions shining through. Therefore I make this suggestion: Present yours first, then I will present mine.
Oh, I didn't say I had such answers or that I harbored such questions. I'm quite willing to live and let live!
Oh, I didn't say I had such answers or that I harbored such questions. I'm quite willing to live and let live!
Knowing you, this straightforwardly means: "I don't have the answers and therefore nobody else has them either. I am not interested in the questions and therefore those who demonstrate interest in them are only pretending."
For you, ersi, that's an almost perceptive reading! :) Close enough for Government Work…
But you should have added: "Attempting to impose answers I disagree with upon me might be a casus belli! Consider yourself forewarned…"
Social responsibility = evil. Colonisation of the universe = bleh.
Is there anything bad or evil about colonizing the universe? I know this is off on a bit of a tangent, but it will become our new manifest destiny. Nobody else, that we know of, is claiming the territory--and there is sooo much of it. :knight: :cheers:
Social responsibility = evil. Colonisation of the universe = bleh.
Is there anything bad or evil about colonizing the universe?
You are cool as long as you don't impose social responsibility on Oakdale. He is already quite grumpy about it.
I'm thinking that any intelligent life in the universe will resemble life on Earth, generally. If the building blocks of DNA are found in comets and meteors then it is likely scattered everywhere. Life on Earth may have started a scant 500 million years after the huge bombardment from heavenly bodies and when things then cooled down enough to allow for it. I wonder if all alien life goes through a period of god-belief like we have. I think it might depend on the environmental pressures placed on intelligent life on a planet by planet basis--we will see. :knight: :cheers:
I wonder if all alien life goes through a period of god-belief like we have. I think it might depend on the environmental pressures placed on intelligent life on a planet by planet basis--we will see. :knight: :cheers:
How does your faith in aliens and in science differ from someone else's faith in God?
started from this ----> religion
and now we are here ---> alien
Hail Alien ! :cheers:
btw how big or how small is the size of alien in our currently universe ?
is a Nano-sized Alien-organism are also categorized as Alien ? :coffee:
How does your faith in aliens and in science differ from someone else's faith in God?
I have faith that science will continue to help improve the human condition and find ways for our species to survive--despite ourselves. That will include eventually getting off this rock, if for no other reason than to avoid being burnt to a crisp by our own sun. I have no faith in aliens--I've never met one...you? The sheer mathematical certainty that there must be a multitude of planets conducive to intelligent life is what causes me to think that they exist. If there is a supernatural god then somehow he must have got very bored doing god things and decided to play with dolls, so he made us. :knight: :cheers:
is a Nano-sized Alien-organism are also categorized as Alien ?
I think so. How much nano sized anyway? that's a funny idea, they would see us as giants...
It's not pretty to call them organisms... it's not their fault being so small... :)
I think so. How much nano sized anyway? that's a funny idea, they would see us as giants...
Something like Micromégas? ;)
very very very small of course .. :coffee:
mikro = 1/million -- 10 -6
Nano = 1/billion -- 10 -9
very very very small of course .. :coffee:
mikro = 1/million -- 10 -6
Nano = 1/billion -- 10 -9
?? smaller than fleas? that's not a decent alien. You can crush them.
You can crush them
it will pretty hard to crush something smaller than germ / microorganism .
:D
Even if insignificant, those aliens would be creatures of God, almost our brothers.
That's the interesting part when considering the existence of extra terrestrial beings.
I have faith that science will continue to help improve the human condition and find ways for our species to survive--despite ourselves.
You mean that for science to work well, science should be done by someone else than ourselves. It should be done by aliens to improve human condition, right? This is an awesome faith you have there.
very very very small of course .. :coffee:
mikro = 1/million -- 10 -6
Nano = 1/billion -- 10 -9
It's funny how in the thirties, maybe up to the fifties, scientists thought aliens (Martians) are human-like. Later squirrel-like. Later flea-like, even virus-like. Now they are happy to find just a drop of water.
It's funny how in the thirties, maybe up to the fifties, scientists thought aliens (Martians) are human-like.
[citation needed]
It's funny how in the thirties, maybe up to the fifties, scientists thought aliens (Martians) are human-like. Later squirrel-like. Later flea-like, even virus-like. Now they are happy to find just a drop of water.
That's a very mysterious statement of yours... care to explicit it? not what scientists thinks, what you think about what scientist thinks.
It's funny how in the thirties, maybe up to the fifties, scientists thought aliens (Martians) are human-like. Later squirrel-like. Later flea-like, even virus-like. Now they are happy to find just a drop of water.
That's a very mysterious statement of yours... care to explicit it? not what scientists thinks, what you think about what scientist thinks.
It's not just my own observation about the development of scientific thought about alien life. Other commentators have also noticed the same trend.
Btw, here's the latest virus-like discovery of alien life http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140807145738.htm
To (de)mystify this further, I have completely different ideas about life forms on other planets, as I have a different idea about what constitutes life at all.
It's funny how in the thirties, maybe up to the fifties, scientists thought aliens (Martians) are human-like.
[citation needed]
The fact that scientists are not a homogeneous bunch gives rise to various impressions. You may think no serious scientist ever considers alien life as a real possibility, but actual scientists range from wilfully blind denialists to imaginative enthusiasts concerning life in space. The latter kind cooperate with science fiction writers and may themselves be science fiction writers, such as Arthur C. Clarke, a guy with a degree on math and physics and the author of early
non-fiction books titled The Exploration of Space and The Promise of Space.
From this swarm of actual scientists one may gather one's impressions. We both are blown away in different ways by the nonsense that science journals may publish, depending on our different definitions of nonsense.
To (de)mystify this further, I have completely different ideas about life forms on other planets, as I have a different idea about what constitutes life at all.
To me it's indifferent if scientists searches for alien life the size of microbes or the size of galaxies.
There's no alien life. We are alone, unique into the vastness of space. That's an usual characteristic of miracles, not being the result of mass production.
There's no alien life.
I share your sentiment. There's no alien life, because all life, no matter where it's found in whatever shape or form, will be familiar and recognizable. JS is looking the wrong way for the wrong signs.
The fact that scientists are not a homogeneous bunch gives rise to various impressions.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong and misleading. 'Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence'. The evidential foundation of science gets broader by the minute and is undeniable by rational/reasonable scientists and educated people alike. Those theories, conjectures and suppositions that are not yet in evidence are where scientists will diverge. There are hundreds of thousands of points of concurrence among scientists—I can’t think of one for philosophers ( :doh:). :knight: :cheers:
The fact that scientists are not a homogeneous bunch gives rise to various impressions.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong and misleading. 'Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence'.
First you have to understand what counts as evidence, then you can build on it. Provided that your understanding is correct.
I have been looking for the real-life example I once heard of a scientist who refused to revise his views despite the evidence.
The name is John Clauser. He was puzzled about quantum mechanics. He preferred Einsteinian physics and didn't buy quantum physics. One of the open problems in physics was Bell theorem, about quantum entanglement, and John Clauser devised (not alone of course) an experiment to test quantum entanglement. Clauser hoped that quantum entanglement would be disproven in the experiment. Instead, quantum entanglement was solidly proven. Clauser's experiment made him a bit famous, but he continues to doubt and denounce quantum mechanics.
I cannot find a web resource to back this story up. I saw it on TV, so it's almost as good as if read on the internet :)
My own relationship with physics has been exactly the other way around. I could not understand the ordinary Newtonian physics they teach at school. Only in the last year of high school there was a tiny touch of quantum mechanics on the last pages of the textbook and for the first time in my life I understood physics.
Only in the last year of high school there was a tiny touch of quantum mechanics on the last pages of the textbook and for the first time in my life I understood physics.
Too much people speaks about quantum physics too less people understands it.
I've seen the most incredible aberrations to be written in the name of quantum physics.
Until anyone proves me that Heisenberg was wrong and why, quantum physics has to submit to his principles and strictly to what he said, not some "interpretations" made by journalists.
Of course, this is totally unrelated with religion except that the way of the Lord is a permanent mystery to the human intellect.
Only in the last year of high school there was a tiny touch of quantum mechanics on the last pages of the textbook and for the first time in my life I understood physics.
Too much people speaks about quantum physics too less people understands it.
I've seen the most incredible aberrations to be written in the name of quantum physics.
Such as? What examples do you have?
Until anyone proves me that Heisenberg was wrong and why, quantum physics has to submit to his principles and strictly to what he said, not some "interpretations" made by journalists.
What do you think Heisenberg said? Do you mean the uncertainty principle or something else/more?
What do you think Heisenberg said? Do you mean the uncertainty principle or something else/more?
For example.
The reason Heisenberg said that is not possible to be aware where a particle is, to determinate simultaneously location and speed, was because to observing it the observer influences the phenomena. (by way of needing to project light - or any other form of energy on it.)
From such simple statement I've seen things written that goes until particles a) are at two different places simultaneously; or b) our mind determines where particles are;
Etc, etc.
Heisenberg never said anything like that.
You are talking common sense. This is totally out of place here. Only people like JS can know the real meaning of science and he uses it to witch-hunt ignorant religious wackos such as us into hell where we belong.
Yes... you're right. :lol:
You are talking common sense. This is totally out of place here. Only people like JS can know the real meaning of science and he uses it to witch-hunt ignorant religious wackos such as us into hell where we belong.
Yes... you're right. :lol:
Religious people like you are not wackos, you just can't imagine that reality is what it is. For you guys, somehow things cannot be the way your senses (including 'common'), dictate to you that they are. You guys are like Peter Pans who never want to grow up and face reality, and you seem to do it simply because reality is not good enough for you or it has treated you badly. You (and everyone else on earth), can imagine a better place and so the Peter Pans of the world think that if you can imagine it, then it must be true even though you have not one single shred of usable empirical evidence to put forth in favor of it (please don't bother me with your mumbo-jumbo logic again ersi, it's really quite tedious). Reality has one dimension, there are no offshoots of reality, reality gets neither deeper nor shallower--it is what it is and there is no more. You can understand more of it, experience more of it and enjoy more of it, but you can't willy-nilly change what it is. If you want to spend you life chasing rainbows (gods, mysticism, gremlins etc.), then you have missed the meaning of life simply because you never knew (
REAL-ized), what you had in the first place. :knight: :cheers:
there are two kind of realities .
1. Pleasure Principle
2. Reality Principle
that's how some people sometimes , cherry-picking ..
That's Normal.
Pleasure is certainly a part of the one reality we all live in, so I'm not sure what you are driving at here Sparta. :knight: :cheers:
Religion seems to be a necessity for humankind.
Take it away and we are lost.
I think this is the only possible explanation for Kardashianism.
Belfrager, It is fascinating that there are many people who would echo that stuff from jseaton2311. Many of the same happen to believe anything space scientists tell them without any proof. Time after time when a space scientist junkie has found he is on the wrong direction his theory (and what it normally is) changes to a new theory and so it goes on.
Forgive me (or ignore me…) if I'm intruding. But
The sheer mathematical certainty that there must be a multitude of planets conducive to intelligent life is what causes me to think that they exist.
What
precisely is this "sheer mathematical certainty" you speak of?
Some sort of metaphysical frequentism? :)
How much nano sized anyway? that's a funny idea, they would see us as giants...
How could they see "us" at all? Unless it's "macro-scopes all the way up!" :)
The reason Heisenberg said that is not possible to be aware where a particle is, to determinate simultaneously location and speed, was because to observing it the observer influences the phenomena. (by way of needing to project light - or any other form of energy on it.)
Not quite: The actual mathematics of the theory preclude the simultaneous
measurement of such "properties" (no matter how they're defined or observed…). The common misconception, that it's the means of measurement that's responsible for the Hobson's Choice — well, math is hard! Some other things aren't, so much!
(Perhaps we should consider Dobbin's Choice? :) But I'd surmise -by looking out for himself- Hobson did more than Dobbins could… Which, in this context, is to say: Epistemology precedes science; and subsumes it. And, yes,
ersi and
Belfrager —and no,
James; you're wrong— that means metaphysics has to be taken account of, if you want much more from science: But I'm likely alone in thinking that's where things are going; and, certainly, out on a ledge — in thinking that that's where they should go!
Given that epistemology is primary, a re-interpretation of science as a "how do we know what we think, seem to know and must believe" discipline (what we think we know…for short) — becomes an area where nobody knows why…
Why
anything!
Why not
nothing? :)
Pleasure is certainly a part of the one reality we all live in, so I'm not sure what you are driving at here Sparta. :knight: :cheers:
not everyone can accept realities , even that was valid and legitimate .
and more like to accept imaginary realities that please them .
The parliament of Finland voted pro gay marriage. The archbishop of the church is positive about it. On the same weekend, over 13 000 members left the church in protest (in a country of 5.5 million) http://yle.fi/uutiset/kirkosta_eroaminen_kiihtyi_sunnuntaina_-_viikonloppuna_erosi_13_184_jasenta/7660768
Google's best translation:
Gender neutral marriage law around the surging discussion activates during the weekend once again resigned from the church. During the weekend, the Church, resigned from a total of 13 184 members.
In particular, Archbishop Kari Mäkinen liberals comments in support of gender-neutral marriage were part of the church within the suivaantumaan. Eroakirkosta.fi site, according to a gender-neutral marriage law because of different had given, inter alia, the following feedback:
- I do not pay gay church no longer a penny of money. I join a course back as soon ku Kari Mäkinen, or different from, and the dedication of the church refuses to gays.
- The Church has abandoned their Lord and the Bible the word. Today, it showed me the Archbishop Mäkinen wicked Comment of the Church of the need to change the perception of marriage.
- The Church of the line against the Bible. Most of the bishops and priests do not stick to the Word of God, but to learn to change public opinion with.
- Eroni reasons are Bishop Kari Mäkinen speeches and gender-neutral marriage law !!
- The Church of decision-makers, remember Sodom and comora. The church belongs to act according to the teachings of the Bible. When do we have to tolerate the animal involved and pedophiles ???
The Church of the difference in the gender-neutral marriage law supporters, in turn, justified the retirement age as follows:
- In fact, I resigned yesterday in the Church as a result of all the Christian Democrats (Päivi Räsänen once again set the standard) voted against gender-neutral marriage. In fact, I do not feel gay or not such, but I think it is incredibly short-sighted and, frankly, intellectually less-than trying to isolate a certain group of people as an institution, which is created and operated by the people.
Campaign for Equality, equal marriage, belittling, all of the people all have their own taipumukseksensa, the rules do not dictate.
- Women Priests discrimination. Same-sex couples discrimination. The Church of the management function is to both these issues have been consistent tiresome and slow. Tolerance? Forgiveness? Understanding of life?
On Friday, the Church, resigned from the site of the 2 612 members, Saturday and Sunday, 5 144 5 428.
Google's best translation:
- The Church of decision-makers, remember Sodom and comora.
Shouldn't it translate: - The Church of decision-makers, remember Sodom and Camorra? :right:
Translations won't help who cannot read at all. Sodom (and whatever the other town's name) wasn't doomed because of homosexuality, rather because of violence.
Relating homosexuality with "animal involved and pedophiles" confirms that they don't know what they are talking about.
Marriage, here, is a civil matter, not a religious one. Churches don't have a word to say about it - but they are free to disagree according to their doctrines.
So far.
Google's best translation:
Be happy with it. Estonian google-translates far worse than Finnish. Finnish is actually understandable.
Anyway, here's a summary of the story. The heading: Resignation from the church accelerated on Sunday - 13.184 members left on weekend.
"According to the website Eroakirkosta.fi [resignfromthechurch] both the liberal and the more strict interpreters of the Bible are leaving now. Remarks by the Archbishop Kari Mäkinen supportive of the law of gender-neutral marriage prompted an increase in the rate of resignation of those who believe marriage is between a man and a woman."
Some comments by those opposing the law:
"I'm not paying the church a penny any more. I will of course join back as soon as Mäkinen resigns or the church refuses to wed gays."
"The church has given up its Lord and the word of the Bible. This was demonstrated by the godless remark by Archbishop Mäkinen on the necessity for the church to change the way marriage is understood."
"The church line is against the Bible. Most of the bishops and priests don't stay with the Word of God, they change as the general opinion changes."
"I leave because of Mäkinen's talks and because of the law of gender-neutral marriage!"
"Decision-makers in the church, remember Sodom and Gomorrah. The church has to obey the doctrine of the Bible. Will we soon have to tolerate those who mess with animals and pedophiles?"
Some comments by the resigned liberal members, those who favour gender-neutral policies:
"I resigned the church yesterday because all Christian Democrats (Päivi Räsänen foremost) voted against the law of gender-neutral marriage. I don't know homosexuals nor am I myself one, but in my opinion it's incredibly short-sighted or even retarded to isolate a group of people from a man-created institution."
"Belittling of equal marriage, everybody is human, everybody with their own tendencies, there can be no rule about it."
"Discrimination against female priests. Discrimination against couples of same sex. Actions of the church leadership have been consistently sluggish and slow on both issues. Tolerance? Forgiveness? Comprehension of life?"
Translations won't help who cannot read at all. Sodom (and whatever the other town's name) wasn't doomed because of homosexuality, rather because of violence.
Actually, if you can read, it was because of violent insistence on homosexuality without any regard to arguments to the contrary. It was not because of a sin singled out, but because sins had piled upon sins.
Relating homosexuality with "animal involved and pedophiles" confirms that they don't know what they are talking about.
Those who normalise one sin, normalise a host of them. And when they say they are not normalising sins, then they don't know what they are talking about. They don't even recognise sin as a meaningful concept. Those who don't recognise sin as a meaningful concept, they are also unable to recognise crime and punishment as meaningful concepts. Those who don't recognise crime and punishment as meaningful concepts should not have any say in legal matters, because law is all about what's permissible and what's not.
Marriage, here, is a civil matter, not a religious one. Churches don't have a word to say about it - but they are free to disagree according to their doctrines.
The State performs registration of marriage. The Church performs sanctification of marriage. Without the church you will only have the registration, not marriage in the complete sense. Western statistics confirm this: More children are born outside registered marriages than inside.
When states are godless and people are churchless, nobody even bothers with the pointless registration. Then what point is there for gays to demand the "right" for registration, when nobody else sees any "right" or purpose in it?
When a church weds gays, then marriage has ceased to be a sacrament in that church. Similarly, in Western countries the registration of marriage has ceased to be a privilege of any sort. It does not confer any rights - if it did, everybody would want to get married, but statistics say hardly anyone cares. Therefore it's not an issue of "equal rights", because it's not an issue of any sort of rights whatsoever. It's also definitely not a dignity issue, because people with dignity do not publicise their sexual orientation. Gay rightists are fussing about nothing for no other reason than to publicise and normalise their sin.
It was not because of a sin singled out, but because sins had piled upon sins.
Right.
Similarly, in Western countries the registration of marriage has ceased to be a privilege of any sort. It does not confer any rights - if it did, everybody would want to get married, but statistics say hardly anyone cares.
Let me get this straight: the fact that people don't get married just for the privileges is a
bad thing? (Yes, there are privileges galore, and no, I did not get married for them.)
I got married because the judge told me I had to.
Similarly, in Western countries the registration of marriage has ceased to be a privilege of any sort. It does not confer any rights - if it did, everybody would want to get married, but statistics say hardly anyone cares.
Let me get this straight: the fact that people don't get married just for the privileges is a bad thing?
The fact that people don't care is a bad thing. And when same-sex marriage laws get pushed through, the common-sense definition of marriage goes down the drain and we have no reason to care at all anymore. Care about marriage, loyalty, duty to the offspring, meaningfulness of legal definitions - absolutely no reason.
(Yes, there are privileges galore, and no, I did not get married for them.)
Yes, I know some of the things they call privileges in marriage. But, like most people, you didn't get married because of them. There were other factors that mattered more. When other factors matter more, then the privileges are not worth the name. Privileges not worth the name are not really privileges. At best they are so-called privileges.
Yes, I know some of the things they call privileges in marriage. But, like most people, you didn't get married because of them. There were other factors that mattered more. When other factors matter more, then the privileges are not worth the name. Privileges not worth the name are not really privileges. At best they are so-called privileges.
Without these "privileges not worth the name" I wouldn't even be able to live with my wife. Your conception of marriage as a benefit package does far more to hurt the alleged sanctity of marriage than anything any homosexual could ever come up with.
Without these "privileges not worth the name" I wouldn't even be able to live with my wife.
Really? You have police there separating unmarried people who live together?
Your conception of marriage as a benefit package does far more to hurt the alleged sanctity of marriage than anything any homosexual could ever come up with.
How grossly you misunderstand me. Well, not me, but the topic of morality. Well, not the topic of morality, but the way the GBLT camp serves it. You are misunderstanding those whom you are defending.
Because, you see, I was
criticising the view of marriage as some kind of benefit package, which is precisely the way the GBLT camp happens to serve it. They say that they are being left out of some privileges, and that they need "equal rights". I was arguing that there are no rights involved, i.e. marriage is
not a benefit package. Marriage is not a benefit package because the general population is not behaving as if it were a benefit package. If it were some sort of benefit package, people would hanker for it. But the only slice of population hankering for it is the GBLT camp, a minuscule irrelevant minority, who actually have no sensible use for marriage anyway. They are the only ones who view it as a benefit package that they need as if it were some kind of human right.
Somehow this got lost in translation between you and them. I seriously didn't expect that you were unfamiliar with their point of view.
Really? You have police there separating unmarried people who live together?
They're quite proud of it, too. A great number of foreigners were repatriated last year.
Somehow this got lost in translation between you and them. I seriously didn't expect that you were unfamiliar with their point of view.
I don't believe that is their point of view. But I'm glad you don't hold it either.
Somehow this got lost in translation between you and them. I seriously didn't expect that you were unfamiliar with their point of view.
I don't believe that is their point of view. But I'm glad you don't hold it either.
It's not a matter of belief. Simply a matter of reading what they are saying. The quotes are there.
If there's a particular representative of the GBLT camp who you believe is the true representative, feel free to cite that one.
It's not a matter of belief. Simply a matter of reading what they are saying. The quotes are there.
If there's a particular representative of the GBLT camp who you believe is the true representative, feel free to cite that one.
It sounds like you're looking for a homosexual Booker T. Washington. If they exist I figure you're probably at least a few decades too late.
It's not a matter of belief. Simply a matter of reading what they are saying. The quotes are there.
If there's a particular representative of the GBLT camp who you believe is the true representative, feel free to cite that one.
It sounds like you're looking for a homosexual Booker T. Washington. If they exist I figure you're probably at least a few decades too late.
I see, you are doing it on purpose :) Actually it was you who was looking for a homosexual Booker T. Washington when you said "I don't believe that is their point of view," meaning that you believe something else to be their point of view. The only thing now is to be open about what you believe their point of view to be, the same way as I have been open about it.
By the way, a perfect candidate for a homosexual Booker T. Washington is James Baldwin. He lived last century, was most active half a century ago. I encountered his writings in the end of 80's. All this fulfils your "a few decades" criterion. Yes, I am that informed on the topic. One of the main arguments of pro-gay activists is to say that their opponents are uninformed. This is both an insult and patently false, i.e. it's really not an argument.
I see, you are doing it on purpose :) Actually it was you who was looking for a homosexual Booker T. Washington when you said "I don't believe that is their point of view," meaning that you believe something else to be their point of view. The only thing now is to be open about what you believe their point of view to be, the same way as I have been open about it.
Their point of view is by and large the same as yours or mine and will diverge primarily to the extent that Dutch and Estonian perspectives on marriage differ. Dutch gay people have had pretty much all or possibly all the boons of marriage for decades through the combination of living together contracts and civil unions, yet they still wanted marriage. I, and almost everyone I know, would still want marriage even if we had all of the boons attached already because it is a symbol of our love, commitment and loyalty to our partner and potential children. It strengthens our relationship, but we also think it's okay if someone else thinks it's just silly symbolism. (Although secretly we might wonder if that isn't just taking the fun out of life.)
PS Washington is an accommodationist pur sang, cf. what was later dubbed the Atlanta compromise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_compromise). That is the criterion.
Their point of view is by and large the same as yours or mine and will diverge primarily to the extent that Dutch and Estonian perspectives on marriage differ.
Interesting. Where do Dutch and Estonian perspectives on marriage differ? Why do they? How can they?
Meanwhile, anyone who thinks that marriage between some other than husband and wife makes sense does not have the same view as I. Anyone who thinks that legalising same-sex marriages has no substantial impact on the status of marriage as such does not have the same view as I. Anyone who thinks that legalising same-sex marriages is necessary for gays, beneficial for the society in a broader sense, or justifiable in terms of "equal rights" or any rights at all does not have the same view as I.
Marriage is between husband and wife. The purpose is to found a family, to procure offspring and raise the offspring to adulthood. A marriage law without a mention of husband and wife - or with reference to someone else than husband and wife - is as senseless as a family law without a mention of parents or education law without teachers.
Marriage has a certain scope, its natural domain, and cannot be extended beyond that, just like you cannot extend the right of free speech to dogs or issue gun licences to children. If you disagree, then you are mistaken about us having the same point of view.
Of course we don't have the same point of view; that goes without saying. ;)
Religion seems to be a necessity for humankind.
Take it away and we are lost.
I think this is the only possible explanation for Kardashianism.
We love Papal delegate Kardashian!
But this one just in on the wonders of religious deviants is a bit of a stunner. Buddhists are advertised as a benign lot, so how did this guy get a Buddhist license?
Myanmar's government is investigating a speech by a Buddhist monk in which he called a UN rapporteur a "whore".
South Korean rapporteur Yanghee Lee was in Myanmar last week to highlight the plight of its Muslim minority.
But at a protest against the visit, monk Ashin Wirathu told Ms Lee she should have sex with Muslim Rohingya minority if she liked them so much.
The monk is a Buddhist nationalist who spent almost a decade in jail for inciting anti-Muslim violence.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30911124?OCID=twitterasia (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30911124?OCID=twitterasia)
But this one just in on the wonders of religious deviants is a bit of a stunner. Buddhists are advertised as a benign lot, so how did this guy get a Buddhist license?
He got a Buddhist license the same way as people get a Catholic license in Italy - by birth. And then he upgraded it by becoming a monk, which in a Buddhist country means the equivalent of a priest or bishop etc. A career cleric.
Buddhism is as rich as Catholicism. Otherwise it would not be able to serve as state religion in any country. On the surface, I am not able to distinguish Tibetan Buddhism from Latin American Catholicism. Like Catholics, Buddhists have a clerical hierarchy, monasteries, libraries, evangelism, pilgrims, miracles, holy statues, prayer beads, etc. The only difference compared to Catholics seems to be that Buddhist scriptures are thicker and more fun to read. Except when you are a Theravadin, then you will have to read it in Pali and that's not funny.
holy statues
are fatter.
Right, Buddha looks fairly healthy in statues. Sometimes he is depicted fat, which is supposed to be an Asian ideal of happiness. In contrast, Catholic statues are remarkably tortured.
Tacky graven images and as bad as so-called holy relics (groan).
as people get a Catholic license in Italy - by birth
You don't get a Catholic "license" by birth, you turn Catholic by baptism.
That's strictly speaking of course, you turn effectively Catholic by mind and heart, that's enough.
The only difference compared to Catholics
The "only" difference?
There's an entire world of difference between.
There is however a parallelism between Catholic mystics and Oriental faith.
Tired of seeing western young people directing to the Himalayas or to some Buddhist monastery just because of their ignorance about the traditional Catholic way of approaching mysticism (I agree that's a bit the Church's fault, not presenting such way more often) a group of Monks wrote several books with great success.
I let you the information about in case you are interested.
Centering prayer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centering_prayer) is a popular method of contemplative prayer or Christian meditation, placing a strong emphasis on interior silence.
Though most authors trace its roots to the contemplative prayer of the Desert Fathers of early Christian monasticism, to the Lectio Divina tradition of Benedictine monasticism, and to works like The Cloud of Unknowing and the writings of St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross, its origins as part of the "Centering Prayer" movement in modern Catholicism and Christianity can be traced to several books published by three Trappist monks of St. Joseph's Abbey in Spencer, Massachusetts in the 1970s: Fr. William Meninger, Fr. M. Basil Pennington and Abbot Thomas Keating.[1]
You'll see a gigantic difference between Catholic and Buddhist's way. Buddhists seeks emptiness, detachment, Catholics seeks inner space to be fulfilled, direct contact.
Catholic statues are remarkably tortured.
Do you know any art masterpiece representing a fat happy Buddha? I don't.
And you are forgetting all the Catholic statues destroyed, vandalized and profaned by the protestants. Maye those were smiling images that irritated the protestants, who knows... :)
Edit: The reason you see tortured, suffering images so often it's because there's no more sacred statuary made these days.
Old statues corresponds to the old theology of Suffering, not to the actual theology of Redemption.
Do you know any art masterpiece representing a fat happy Buddha? I don't.
I don't know either, but this statue in Vietnam is totally masterpiece according to the locals.
(https://photos.travelblog.org/Photos/22345/244039/f/1948016-Laughing-Buddha-2-1.jpg)
You'll see a gigantic difference between Catholic and Buddhist's way. Buddhists seeks emptiness, detachment, Catholics seeks inner space to be fulfilled, direct contact.
I come from a family of Catholics and was one once, and I'm married to one. Talking about what Catholics seek is meaningless blather. If you tell me what you seek, that's another matter because I'll accept that as a personal statement. You have little knowledge of what distant Catholics think about, religiously or otherwise.
I come from a family of Catholics and was one once, and I'm married to one. Talking about what Catholics seek is meaningless blather. If you tell me what you seek, that's another matter because I'll accept that as a personal statement. You have little knowledge of what distant Catholics think about, religiously or otherwise.
I was speaking about the mystic way as you should know if you had actually read my post.
The Trappist monks I referred to are all of them Americans. That must qualify them as "distant" Catholics.
Do you know what "Catholic" word means? Universal. There are no "distant" Catholics, just distant Saxons.
Well now in principle I don't have a problem with the word 'Catholic' and I knew from being young that the word does mean universal so nothing new there. In my Presbyterian background i Protestantism (hooray!), we had aservice involvement using the words 'Catholic church' as being different from R. Catholic.
Years ago I had a supervisor in my job who was an RC and she asked me why in chats I never just said "Catholic" and explained why which was something new to her. Later when she was being bounced about by an atheist who had joined the department she fell back on this pride of the Reformation Prot for help and being a reasonable chap, rescued her. 8)
Religion has survived for more than 100,000 years and it exists in every culture today. It may actually have been selective in nature going all the way back to when humans lived and worked together in small bands or groups. Those bands which held a common belief in something, such as an idol or higher power, worked together, thrived and went on to reproduce hardier people more plentifully.
Religion may also simply be a byproduct of the way the human mind works, stemming from our cognitive tendencies to seek order from apparent chaos. Our early primitive and ignorant minds could't explain anything in our new environment. From weather, to natural disasters, to birth and to death--it was all confusion to a mind which for the first time on Earth was trying to reason and make sense of things. The simplest and quickest way to make sense of all this chaos (and survive), was to simply attribute it to an unknown entity more powerful than ourselves and then in deference to that power (or seemingly to save our ass), bow down to that power.
If we’re on the right track with this byproduct idea--and the findings are getting stronger--then in today's scientific world, religion is more than just a bit pathological for the unbiased (uninfluenced), and roundly educated human mind to consider. I wouldn't say religion is a wholly malignant social force, however, it does encourage irrational thinking and primitive ritualistic behavior (not to mention terrorizing behavior); rather, I see religion today on the same par as the human appendix--once necessary--but no longer essential and causing more harm than is good for us. :knight: :cheers:
Marriage is between husband and wife.
Hardly. Marriage is of the state and more a commitment of partners to one another than for mating. Mating is a basic human instinct and requires no formal commitment.
Mating is a basic human instinct and requires no formal commitment.
I wouldn't try using that as a pickup line...lmao!! :knight: :cheers:
I wouldn't try using that as a pickup line.
I'd have no need. Such a line isn't needed.
:knight: :cheers:
What does this mean?
Cultured, yet amusing. :knight: :cheers:
Ma'am? I'm with the fire department. We got an emergency call and you're entirely too hot to be in here. Those jeans are without a doubt a fire hazard. I'm gonna have to ask you to come with me and take those off. :knight: :cheers:
i Protestantism (hooray!)
There's the ipad, the ipod and now the iprot.
Rjhowie's mysticism, following the Way of the Apple.
Ma'am? I'm with the fire department. We got an emergency call and you're entirely too hot to be in here. Those jeans are without a doubt a fire hazard. I'm gonna have to ask you to come with me and take those off. :knight: :cheers:
:lol: :lol:
Once again a thread has drifted away from the subject.
There seems to be a swelling tide of religious intolerance, hence...
http://www.worldmag.com/2014/05/u_s_government_worldwide_religious_intolerance_growing (http://www.worldmag.com/2014/05/u_s_government_worldwide_religious_intolerance_growing)
...and...
http://www.voanews.com/content/report--religious-intolerance-grows-worldwide-97585924/120911.html (http://www.voanews.com/content/report--religious-intolerance-grows-worldwide-97585924/120911.html)
...and...
http://www.breakingnewsenglish.com/1305/130522-religious_freedom.html (http://www.breakingnewsenglish.com/1305/130522-religious_freedom.html)
My guess is that it can be found everywhere. Although it's not new, it is alarming.
You might want to scan a recent Pew report, which is available here...
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/01/14/religious-hostilities-reach-six-year-high/ (http://www.pewforum.org/2014/01/14/religious-hostilities-reach-six-year-high/)
I will have to i say there is far more inherent mysticism in your Roman corner than the simplicity of Protestantism. Prayer beads copied from ocal pagan religions, bishops with poket hats an idea got from Babylon, sacrificing Christ on "altars" , statues that cru others that are kissed, and so on. By jingo that is just the introductions!
I will have to i say there is far more inherent mysticism in your Roman corner than the simplicity of Protestantism. Prayer beads copied from ocal pagan religions, bishops with poket hats an idea got from Babylon, sacrificing Christ on "altars" , statues that cru others that are kissed, and so on. By jingo that is just the introductions!
My Roman corner?!? I have no Roman corner.
Frankly, sir, it's all a bucket of muck, Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism, Taoism, animism, and Aboriginal Dreamtime.
Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead? Walked on water? Turned water into Irn Bru?
You need to get out of that chair more jimbro. Religion with heavy rituals is a put off hence the simple and to the point Protestant Reformation. Years ago many of the old Communist Party here were originally RC's which was an interesting tell tale. Interestingly too many of your mindset who dream of things like space and all that goes with it in fact most of the time are following theories but of course that is different! Slag off what you like but being a stalwart Glasgow Presbyterian I will wipe it off and sip my (diet) Irn Bru while you languish away. Mind you coming from a place where religion is like a show and so aw-----e (groan) make allowances for you.:P
Years ago many of the old Communist Party here were originally RC's which was an interesting tell tale.
That's a lie. Never, ever, a Catholic is a communist. Protestants and Jews are who invented communism. Then, atheists took over from the idiots who created it.
Cappice, man in skirts?
You have jumped too son Belfrager. Read what I said AGAIN please. I did not say Communists who were RC's but they had come from that background so I didn't lie. One of them was for a time the leader of the Miners Union here in Scotland when I was young. Thankfully he and his party are long gone!
My comment jimbro touches on the Roman corner as you came from it too like the Communists here did!
I did not say Communists who were RC's but they had come from that background so I didn't lie.
Someday you'll explain me what means "not to be a Catholic but had come from Catholic background". What's that Catholic background that produces Communist like a factory production?
Saint John Paul II destroyed the Communist empire, you can thank him.
Now I do not want a panic in Portugal and a fainting thing for you. I do not say all Reds here were originally RC but a number had been due to the heaviness on them when younger. I regard the word 'Catholic' as something i am akin to being as you well know is 'universal' and Prot principle accepts that I don't regard my self as someone with the prefix 'Roman.' Now that is different!
:jester:
Yeah you laugh and shows your basic ignorance and oafishness. The well established churches do subscribe to my statement above and shows your total ignorance. The national church in Scotland has a service which refers to it being the 'Holy Catholic Church. They simply state the difference that is all. You cannot contribute and maybe your predecessors down under were convicts and left a mark. Hhm, will be reasonable and take that into consideration. :up:
:jester:
:yes:
Speaking of :jester:. And the new Pope. And the bull$**t that is religion generally. (https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileyfaze.tk%2Fslides%2Fdevil022.gif&hash=025391b133340fe7123076609427a198" rel="cached" data-hash="025391b133340fe7123076609427a198" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://smileyfaze.tk/slides/devil022.gif)
http://news.yahoo.com/video/exorcism-rise-credited-part-pope-070419805.html (http://news.yahoo.com/video/exorcism-rise-credited-part-pope-070419805.html)
And the new Pope.
The new, the old and all the others pisses on you. Just to let you know, it seems you're not aware of such simple fact. :)
Ok, they piss more on rjhowie but you don't want to compete with him, do you?...
Holy water?
Holy water?
Nope, simple urine. If you want it holy, I suppose that can be arranged but it will cost you some money my son. :)
Well the Pope tried to do it on Martin Luther and it backfired on him so he won't try it with me.
Ok, they piss more on rjhowie but you don't want to compete with him, do you?...
Piss is good for you if processed properly.
From Space.com (http://Space.com)
Astronauts took a swig of recycled urine water to toast their successful testing of the wastewater recycling system on the International Space Station.
U.S. astronaut Michael Barratt called drinking the recycled water the stuff of science fiction, and cracked several jokes during the inauguration of the system known as ECLSS.
"We have these highly attractive labels on our water bags that essentially say 'brought to you by ECLSS,' and 'drink when real water is over 200 miles away,'" Barratt said.
Ok, they piss more on rjhowie but you don't want to compete with him, do you?...
Piss is good for you if processed properly.
From Space.com (http://Space.com)
Astronauts took a swig of recycled urine water to toast their successful testing of the wastewater recycling system on the International Space Station.
U.S. astronaut Michael Barratt called drinking the recycled water the stuff of science fiction, and cracked several jokes during the inauguration of the system known as ECLSS.
"We have these highly attractive labels on our water bags that essentially say 'brought to you by ECLSS,' and 'drink when real water is over 200 miles away,'" Barratt said.
I say, Jim old chap, I didn't say that. I don't even know what it means.
Ok, they piss more on rjhowie but you don't want to compete with him, do you?...
Piss is good for you if processed properly.
From Space.com (http://Space.com)
Astronauts took a swig of recycled urine water to toast their successful testing of the wastewater recycling system on the International Space Station.
U.S. astronaut Michael Barratt called drinking the recycled water the stuff of science fiction, and cracked several jokes during the inauguration of the system known as ECLSS.
"We have these highly attractive labels on our water bags that essentially say 'brought to you by ECLSS,' and 'drink when real water is over 200 miles away,'" Barratt said.
I say, Jim old chap, I said that, but don't tell anybody.
Absolutely!
Well the Pope tried to do it on Martin Luther and it backfired on him so he won't try it with me.
Really? :lol:
Good to you to have a nigger as a moral authority.
Cannibalism will be the next step for you protestant.
I'm staying away from this thread for a while.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sherv.net%2Fcm%2Femo%2Ffunny%2F1%2Fscared-smiley-face.gif&hash=d240e75c5db8045c72704de8d77d0a36" rel="cached" data-hash="d240e75c5db8045c72704de8d77d0a36" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/funny/1/scared-smiley-face.gif)
Is it any wonder, that most sensible people left the "Old World"? :)
Protestants and Catholics killing each other… Sounds ominously familiar. Oh, yeah: Sunni and Shia!
Sometimes, stupidity has to be fled. Fighting it -on its home ground- is not always a sensible option.
Now you really must be diverging into the satirical about people from the old World. Just look at your own internal history which is one of utter madness, hypocrisy, mind control, bigotry and worse. The KKK remember had 2 million people before WW2, it's corruption involved police, political representatives, etc. Then there is the Mafia lot another crowd who proved the system to be as corrupt as hell. Racism was endemic and still is. Poverty is widespread and in tens of millions, corporates run the political system. Even your Revolutionaries led from the monied uppers in society. So please do try and not ignore the hypocrisies before getting so falsely proud.
It is getting to be summer so do try and get out for a long walk. :D
You're a
hoot,
Howie!
Just look at your own internal history which is one of utter madness, hypocrisy, mind control, bigotry and worse.
Worse? Oh, my! :)
Will they give you your own "named person" (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/23/scottish-children-government-appointed-guardians) instead of relying on a mere Public Guardian? Second-childhood should count, don't you think?
Protestants and Catholics killing each other… Sounds ominously familiar. Oh, yeah: Sunni and Shia!
There are theists even worst than atheists, those who thinks that there's no need to take part.
I'll answer you with Machiavel's words, always take part because if you don't, those that are going to win will never forget that you weren't at their side and those that are going to lose will never forget that you never defend them.
Get courage and be a Man. Whatever side you chose, for the best and the worst. :)
That's why I respect rjhowie.
always take part because if you don't, those that are going to win will never forget that you weren't at their side and those that are going to lose will never forget that you never defend them
Do
you make a habit of choosing a side when brawling children have at each other? Specially when those children aren't yours?
When squabbles are too silly for words they're best left to the passionate participants.
I believe I have courage enough to defend
my beliefs (and whatever else is mine!).
As for the Sunni and Shia, the best result -from my point of view- would be for them both to lose, to facilitate an Islamic Reformation… But I'm not sure such is even possible. So, I'd be happy enough with the former result…
Reformation...
Unfortunately, religions follow an evolutive path. They diversify, dwell together for a long time, eventually some variations will dominate, and the weaker variations will barely become extinct. Almost all variations survive one way or another.
Mine involves animal sacrifice and libations.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS6bB8mYFLpFB_jTcqYYr9yBxnot0hDwE7hJgWyrZNP8GRvXVdHFw)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jesusandmo.net%2Fstrips%2F2015-05-13.png&hash=28ca16126e279ae330d100e97cda9cb8" rel="cached" data-hash="28ca16126e279ae330d100e97cda9cb8" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2015-05-13.png)
(Applies to the authors of scientific studies on cognitive biases too, incidentally.)
Mine, too.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F--rCnAHtZ8ms%2FTaM4Mz0-mXI%2FAAAAAAAAMbE%2FQHKQJ7EyIHI%2Fs1600%2Fpro-life-hypocrisy.jpg&hash=8b5cf0b223b0b4294f944f6c2d638e5e" rel="cached" data-hash="8b5cf0b223b0b4294f944f6c2d638e5e" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--rCnAHtZ8ms/TaM4Mz0-mXI/AAAAAAAAMbE/QHKQJ7EyIHI/s1600/pro-life-hypocrisy.jpg)
Do you make a habit of choosing a side when brawling children have at each other?
What makes Muslims
children and you to be the
adult? Because that's exactly what this is about. At the next sentence you're already wanting Islam to have a reformation, did they ever asked for your opinion?
Or are you just practicing American Foreign Policy, intervening where you are not desired and causing much worst than good all over the place? You don't want to run for politics, do you Oakdale? :)
. ..did they ever asked for your opinion? . . .
Ah, but where would we be of no-one have an opinion unless they were asked for one, or where would we be if you're only people who could give opinions were those who were "expert" or intimately involved?
There's many a revelation that comes from people with ignorance. This forum, I dare say, is a shining example.
There are plenty of expert bullshiters here. I'm the rare exception to that fact. If I say something, you can take it for truth.
In the remark to the image I posted last in this thread, I said that the authors of scientific studies are subject to cognitive biases too. Specifically, they are subject to the cognitive bias that scientific studies say something irrefutable and irrevertible about reality. In the midst of contradictory conclusions drawn from different scientific experiments and observations, scientists are amazingly incapable of drawing the conclusion that contradictory perspectives are an inherent feature of this world.
The most worrying (to me) aspect of religion is that its contents can be completely fabricated yet considered completely valid by its adherents. There are demonstrably fraudulent religions, such as Mormonism and Scientology, whose adherents suddenly cannot put one and one together when confronted with concrete evidence of frauds perpetrated by the founders of the religions. This can happen whenever truth is not the primary concern, but something else, such as possessing some sense of community or of security or of power or of being special.
This of course applies to atheists too. (materialist/physicalist/naturalist) Atheists stress down-to-earth factuality and logical rigour to promote critical thinking. This works very well for them when criticising any point of view, except when it comes to criticising their own point of view. For example, mind-reading is supposed to not exist, because the mind as a non-physical entity cannot exist, because everything is physical and that's it. However, logically this means that thoughts, memories, dreams, imagination etc. are physically in the brain and neuroscientists, when they study the brain, should be able to directly see those things, i.e. neuroscientists should be mind-readers. Somehow logic, which serves atheists so well otherwise, is lost to them on this point.
The lesson I draw from this is that self-criticism should always be a more acute concern than criticism. And truth should never be compromised. Never as in never.
(Notice how "Never say never" has "never" in it. Twice even.)
The most worrying (to me) aspect of religion is that its contents can be completely fabricated yet considered completely valid by its adherents.
To a pure idealist (at the philosophical sense, meaning the opposite of a materialist) everything is completely "fabricated" meaning there's no material support whatsoever that would be able to give to something some form of support in ontological terms.
Anyway, labeling different religions under the umbrella of "religion", as if all religions were at the same level, it's a reminiscence of materialism. Religion is not to be analyzed at the microscope to find it's characteristics, religion is a way of life.
Even more "anyway", I would like you to convince me that "truth" as any value. People don't need truth, they need something that points them directions to follow.
People find directions at many strange things, because people are lost. Lost as they were never before from the beginning of mankind. It's a sign of the times we live.
To a pure idealist (at the philosophical sense, meaning the opposite of a materialist) everything is completely "fabricated" meaning there's no material support whatsoever that would be able to give to something some form of support in ontological terms.
Well, indeed, to a pure idealist there's no material support to truth and meaning. This is because matter is not even supposed to serve as such support. To a pure idealist, matter itself needs support. Coherence or accord of ideas and harmony of the spirit is the support.
Anyway, labeling different religions under the umbrella of "religion", as if all religions were at the same level, it's a reminiscence of materialism. Religion is not to be analyzed at the microscope to find it's characteristics, religion is a way of life.
Not sure how I implied all religions were at the same level. I explicitly said some are demonstrably fraudulent; they make material claims and are falsifiable on material basis. And the weird thing is that even so they can serve as religions (as a way of life - we both have the same definition of religion as it should be), they can promote sincerity, devotion, peace and sense of purpose.
Even more "anyway", I would like you to convince me that "truth" as any value. People don't need truth, they need something that points them directions to follow.
People find directions at many strange things, because people are lost. Lost as they were never before from the beginning of mankind. It's a sign of the times we live.
I would argue that truth
is that which points to directions to follow. But this means I essentially agree, so I won't argue.
Not sure how I implied all religions were at the same level.
You didn't. I just pushed a little bit. :)
Never pray to the law of gravity.
Regarding that comment on you and the truth jimbro I was sipping my Irn Bru (diet version) and thought you ould make a Pope.
In the remark to the image I posted last in this thread, I said that the authors of scientific studies are subject to cognitive biases too. Specifically, they are subject to the cognitive bias that scientific studies say something irrefutable and irrevertible about reality. In the midst of contradictory conclusions drawn from different scientific experiments and observations, scientists are amazingly incapable of drawing the conclusion that contradictory perspectives are an inherent feature of this world.
You use your mastery of language and the word to confuse people ersi. You are trying to convince yourself of something that is not there and so you are merely deluding yourself...you are certainly not the first on this forum to do that (myself included). However, I can look back at some of the things I say and be convinced by others that I am off base--you cannot do likewise or else you lose it all (in your mind). You can go on like this until you die dear friend, and if that makes you content then who I am to challenge you. But, I would be remiss to not say what I think of your thinking.
Scientists love to shoot science down before it ever gets started because it can give you a valuable reputation--let economics govern what science says and it will all come out in the wash. 100,000 scientists will not let 1 genius scientists get away with diddly squat if his experimentation and proof is the least bit faulty and I think you know that, you just like to take pot shots at science without knowing what it is or how it regulates itself. You don't have a good grasp on what science does or how it works ersi, and you are not qualified to criticize science--few people are that are not other scientists.
I believe that science knows that it is the single most important endeavor on planet Earth and that they have to do it as best as is humanly possible for the survival of the species and the planet itself. We can bicker and bitch and politic and threaten and pray and destroy till the damn proverbial cows come home, but science has to rise above it all or we are doomed. It is the only pureness of purpose on the planet. :knight: :cheers:
You are trying to convince yourself of something that is not there and so you are merely deluding yourself...
How do you know? As far as I can tell, I never tried to convince myself of anything. I simply figured things out, so the questions would stop bothering me.
I believe that science knows...
Ah, you "believe". This is the difference between us. You are a man of faith. I never was.
How do you know? As far as I can tell, I never tried to convince myself of anything. I simply figured things out, so the questions would stop bothering me.
You convince yourself of something microsecond after microsecond--so I am not talking about coercion or delusion sir. You have not been exactly sure about god from the beginning, but somehow you have convinced yourself with your own brand of logic.
This is not a bad thing ersi and i won't try to convince you otherwise from this point forward (and that is a lie). The belief in deities has muddled the minds of men for long enough. It is time for humans to grow up, put on their game-face and consider that science is the answer to anything anyone can ask. Forget the impressions you received from your youthful and polluted (mindwise) environment (if you can--and I think you can). Moreover, don't look to god to soothe yourself from any suffering...soothe your own suffering through meditation.
Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2015-05-19, 03:30:31 (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=33.msg39983#msg39983)I believe that science knows...
Ah, you "believe". This is the difference between us. You are a man of faith. I never was.
Taking things out of context is so beneath you Eric.
It is time for humans to grow up, put on their game-face and consider that science is the answer to anything anyone can ask.
It's been considered. Only the dolts have accepted that…
This of course applies to atheists too. (materialist/physicalist/naturalist) Atheists stress down-to-earth factuality and logical rigour to promote critical thinking. This works very well for them when criticising any point of view, except when it comes to criticising their own point of view. For example, mind-reading is supposed to not exist, because the mind as a non-physical entity cannot exist, because everything is physical and that's it. However, logically this means that thoughts, memories, dreams, imagination etc. are physically in the brain and neuroscientists, when they study the brain, should be able to directly see those things, i.e. neuroscientists should be mind-readers. Somehow logic, which serves atheists so well otherwise, is lost to them on this point.
Your false equivocation of telepathy and thought identification through neuroimaging says nothing of interest about atheists one way or the other. You're also reading my mind through these very words, yet mind reading almost certainly doesn't exist. Such a glaring contradiction in that last sentence…
The lesson I draw from this is that self-criticism should always be a more acute concern than criticism. And truth should never be compromised. Never as in never.
Aka the outsider test. What a scam. ;)
The lesson I draw from this is that self-criticism should always be a more acute concern than criticism. And truth should never be compromised. Never as in never.
Aka the outsider test. What a scam. ;)
Of course you know I examined the outsider test with precisely this in mind: Does it do the work of self-criticism or not? I found it lacking for the reasons given.
Edit: I was trying to consider properly my response to the rest of your post too, but to no avail:
Your false equivocation of telepathy and thought identification through neuroimaging says nothing of interest...
My false equivocation? I explicitly attributed the equivocation to neuroscientists. You are not disputing that they have this view, instead you - falsely - assume it's my view. So, nothing of interest here indeed... unless you reject the equivocation and thus, logically, also reject phrenological presuppositions by which neuroscientists operate, leaving nothing with which to object to my (actual) view.
My false equivocation? I explicitly attributed the equivocation to neuroscientists. You are not disputing that they have this view, instead you - falsely - assume it's my view.
Who's doing the obvious (and purposeful?) misinterpreting of the ambiguity in the term "mind reading" here? I rather doubt it's any neuroscientists — assuming they've used the term at all. The rest of what you wrote is pure gobbledygook. You're the one who's equivocating…
Who's doing the obvious (and purposeful?) misinterpreting of the ambiguity in the term "mind reading" here? I rather doubt it's any neuroscientists — assuming they've used the term at all. The rest of what you wrote is pure gobbledygook. You're the one who's equivocating…
E.g. Sam Harris is supposed to be a neuroscientist. (Didn't see this coming, did you?) I agree, he
is "pure gobbledygook" as you say. It's not my doing, but based on some real neuroscientists I have taken a closer look at.
Anyway, to make it completely fair, pick a specific neuroscientist of your own preference, and I will look if any different interpretation of these issues can be obtained. Make your pick relevant - someone who studies brains and has opinions on the nature of perception/consciousness.
Even without having read anything the man wrote on the matter, I can say with utmost confidence that Sam Harris does not equivocate telepathy and neuroimaging. If he said mind reading doesn't exist he obviously wouldn't have meant that neuroimaging doesn't exist. My only worry is whether I somehow failed to apply the principle of charity in deciding that you consistently fail to apply it to Sam Harris.
The Neural Correlates of Religious and Nonreligious Belief
We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure signal changes in the brains of thirty subjects—fifteen committed Christians and fifteen nonbelievers—as they evaluated the truth and falsity of religious and nonreligious propositions. For both groups, and in both categories of stimuli, belief (judgments of “true” vs judgments of “false”) was associated with greater signal in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, an area important for self-representation [3], [4], [5], [6], emotional associations [7], reward [8], [9], [10], and goal-driven behavior [11].
This is precisely what I mean by phrenological presuppositions and this is what they do. They scan people's brains to determine whether they are religious or not. And, whatever you mean by charity, you should know by now how far Harris has taken this idea.
Now's the turn of some other neuroscientist.
Edit: And a point of clarification - we are not talking about telepathy. Instead, I said "mind-reading", and there's a technical difference.
Telepathy is transference of thoughts, e.g. I want you to think/feel this or that, so I generate the corresponding idea in myself and transfer it to you. Whereas mind-reading is me seeing directly into your mind, reading your thoughts, ideas, memories, not implanting something extraneous. It's a pretty important difference, like the difference between reading and writing.
By phrenological presuppositions I mean that neuroscientists think they can detect some contents of memory/ideas in specific parts of the brain regardless if the subject knows it or not - a.k.a. mind-reading. Now, this is not scientifically confirmed (and, on my own presuppositions, never will be), but neuroscientists operate under these presuppositions anyway. Without these presuppositions, a title like "The Neural Correlates of Religious and Nonreligious Belief" would be impossible.
Now find me a neuroscientist who is free of these presuppositions.
This is precisely what I mean by phrenological presuppositions and this is what they do. They scan people's brains to determine whether they are religious or not. And, whatever you mean by charity, you should know by now how far Harris has taken this idea.
I know that I see no similarity to your earlier description.
Edit: And a point of clarification - we are not talking about telepathy. Instead, I said "mind-reading", and there's a technical difference.
Telepathy is transference of thoughts, e.g. I want you to think/feel this or that, so I generate the corresponding idea in myself and transfer it to you. Whereas mind-reading is me seeing directly into your mind, reading your thoughts, ideas, memories, not implanting something extraneous. It's a pretty important difference, like the difference between reading and writing.
I'm not sure I agree with that definition, but it's not important. When I said telepathy I simply meant something not involving (known) physics. Then again, telepathy could in principle easily exist within the confines of naturalism. We have plenty of types of radiation available.
By phrenological presuppositions I mean that neuroscientists think they can detect some contents of memory/ideas in specific parts of the brain regardless if the subject knows it or not - a.k.a. mind-reading. Now, this is not scientifically confirmed (and, on my own presuppositions, never will be), but neuroscientists operate under these presuppositions anyway. Without these presuppositions, a title like "The Neural Correlates of Religious and Nonreligious Belief" would be impossible.
What do you mean by "regardless if the subject knows it or not"? You think the brain functions in a completely different way outside of fMRIs?
I know that I see no similarity to your earlier description.
My earlier statement was this: "...logically this means that thoughts, memories, dreams, imagination etc. are physically in the brain and neuroscientists, when they study the brain, should be able to directly see those things, i.e. neuroscientists should be mind-readers."
And now I say this: "They scan people's brains to determine whether they are religious or not."
What is unsimilar?
I'm not sure I agree with that definition, but it's not important. When I said telepathy I simply meant something not involving (known) physics. Then again, telepathy could in principle easily exist within the confines of naturalism. We have plenty of types of radiation available.
Well, this simply shows how little you care about things of the mind. Surely you would laugh me away if I mixed up physical reading and writing, but this is precisely how mind-reading and telepathy differ, and you are insisting we should mix them up. I say that the work of neuroscientists, given their presuppositions, implies mind-reading, and I say mind-reading precisely because this is what I mean, not telepathy.
What do you mean by "regardless if the subject knows it or not"? You think the brain functions in a completely different way outside of fMRIs?
Oh. When I was writing it, I hesitated for a moment if I should have included that bit. Now you picked it up, the least relevant phrase. How would you answer if it didn't exist? Because, for the time being,
my assumptions don't matter here. The assumptions of the neuroscientists matter.
(I'm not taking it back. It's just that it's not too relevant here. Obviously, what "regardless if the subject knows it or not" means is just what it says. For example, you have done something, say placed some screws somewhere, then you forgot where you placed them. Since you placed them, there should be a memory of it somewhere, in the brain or in the hand, yet you don't remember. Then at some moment you suddenly remember again. On physicalist assumptions, the memory should have been physically inside the subject all along, yet the subject is unaware of it for a time. Now forget all about this and try answering. And find me the kind of neuroscientist that I asked for, too.)
Surely you would laugh me away if I mixed up physical reading and writing, but this is precisely how mind-reading and telepathy differ, and you are insisting we should mix them up. I say that the work of neuroscientists, given their presuppositions, implies mind-reading, and I say mind-reading precisely because this is what I mean, not telepathy.
Telepathy would be hearing/speaking — without a known physical medium supporting such. Mind-reading would be hearing, without the other speaking — similarly.
fMRI studies of the sort Harris performs elide the essential
statistical manipulations made, to get to the political or sociological or psychological point that drives the questionnaires. These are what these studies' conclusions depend upon; just your average opinion polls, dressed up in unsupportable
scientistic window dressing…
The technique has some promise for diagnostic medicine. If it isn't totally discredited by what
ersi correctly terms a form of
phrenology.
So: If Harris'
pseudoscience doesn't work, does Chomsky's various conspiracy theories? :)
We're back to square one, I believe. (What do you "observe,"
ersi? :) )
Surely you would laugh me away if I mixed up physical reading and writing, but this is precisely how mind-reading and telepathy differ, and you are insisting we should mix them up. I say that the work of neuroscientists, given their presuppositions, implies mind-reading, and I say mind-reading precisely because this is what I mean, not telepathy.
Telepathy would be hearing/speaking — without a known physical medium supporting such. Mind-reading would be hearing, without the other speaking — similarly.
Sorry to quibble with your definitions, but you are losing all the important nuances here, reductionist as you are.
Telepathy is like writing. What is important is the one who writes. The paper is not so important, even though the writing obviously ends up on something like paper. Please pay attention and take the point of view of the writer. In telepathy, one thinks of stuff to suggest and then one suggests it to another. It's like hypnosis but with the important distinction that there's
sympathy, mutually willing rapport, not just one-way rapport like in hypnosis. In telepathy, both/all of the participants are writers for each other.
And now forget all about telepathy, because this is not what I was talking about.
Mind-reading is more like seeing (really, reading), not hearing. Here it's rather important where one reads from and how. In reading, the
book and its message are important.
So: If Harris' pseudoscience doesn't work, does Chomsky's various conspiracy theories? :)
There are conspiracy theories and there are conspiracy facts. To prove that Chomsky is just theorising, refute his facts. Should be easy peasy for you, at least in theory :)
Telepathy is like writing. What is important is the one who writes.
Our disagreement here stems from our different languages; not our understanding, I think. In English (and especially English science fiction for more than three quarters of a century) the term "telepathy" involves mutual communication — by no mode known to our science… If you have a different literature, sobeit. But I can't think of any reason you'd think
your provincial understanding should be taken as standard, beyond egotism…
Talk to more people,
ersi. Your facility with English is exceptional! But your predilection for uninformed argument is a sore spot in your psyche that will turn cankerous if you don't take care!
You can maintain your argument if you also say that speaking is the same as telepathy… And hearing is only the paper, so to speak! :) Don't -I beg you- be such an ass!
Telepathy is like writing. What is important is the one who writes.
Our disagreement here stems from our different languages; not our understanding, I think. In English (and especially English science fiction for more than three quarters of a century) the term "telepathy" involves mutual communication — by no mode known to our science…
And when you say telepathy is communication ("by no mode known to our science") and you add nothing else, you are losing how it differs from hypnosis and from mind-reading.
These distinctions are not "provincial". They are central to the matter at hand!
To prove that Chomsky is just theorising, refute his facts.
Our system of justice is new to this "guilty until proven innocent" style of Justice… You'll forgive me if I'm somewhat behind the curve…
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof…" is a maxim you might have heard before? Chomsky's facts are his emotional reactions to
everything he doesn't like… (Excepting his sources of income.) I'd not consider a refutation of his arguments — because he doesn't make any: He lists people and institutions that he doesn't like. He's entitled to not like them.
You're entitled to follow him blindly.
But you're not entitled to claim he's made any argument against anything other than "You're not Noam Chomsky1"
You are not Noam Chomsky, are you? :)
And when you say telepathy is communication ("by no mode known to our science") and you add nothing else, you are losing how it differs from hypnosis and from mind-reading.
These distinctions are not "provincial". They are central to the matter at hand!
Again, I think it's a language problem: Hypnosis is manipulation of a (possibly) sub-conscious… Mind-reading is (if it's real) is "hearing" the thoughts of others, unbeknownst to them?
The matter at hand is -for the nonce- Sam Harris'
scientism: He seldom talks about the statistical
massage his
fMRIs go through before anyone ever sees them…
[I'm one of the few who'd look and learn… But who cares? :) ]You don't like to consider the requirements and implications of statistical reasoning, I well know… But you
do know that statistical argument cannot yield proof of
causality?
Our system of justice is new to this "guilty until proven innocent" style of Justice… You'll forgive me if I'm somewhat behind the curve…
And how did you catch bin Laden and lock all those people away in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and wherever? Edit: How was Saddam Hussein proven guilty before the invasion? Who's being naive here?
Hypnosis is manipulation of a (possibly) sub-conscious…
Close enough.
Mind-reading is (if it's real) is "hearing" the thoughts of others, unbeknownst to them?
"Hearing" or "seeing" the thoughts, ideas, emotions, memories, etc. of another - by the "mind's eye" of the seer. I hope Frenzie is paying attention.
The matter at hand is -for the nonce- Sam Harris' scientism: He seldom talks about the statistical massage his fMRIs go through before anyone ever sees them…
[I'm one of the few who'd look and learn… But who cares? :) ]
In his work titled "The Neural Correlates of Religious and Nonreligious Belief" (see the link a few posts above) he is directly attempting to read a specific m
essage of mental content from people's brainscans.
Edit: The matter at hand is mind-reading on phrenological presuppositions which, I maintain, is a direct result of materialism/physicalism. Of course mainstream neuroscientists (not so sure specifically about Harris) would never admit to be reading minds, but given the definition of mind-reading and given the specific practices and presuppositions of neuroscientists - and putting them together like we put one and one together - the implication is solid and direct.
You don't like to consider the requirements and implications of statistical reasoning, I well know… But you do know that statistical argument cannot yield proof of causality?
This one's close enough to a yawn :zzz:
This one's close enough to a yawn :zzz:
I'm not sure you understand how prevalent this atrocious abrogation of simple logic is countenanced, my friend!
Were it by high-schoolers or college students, I wouldn't mind so much. But Harris is a PHD in "neuroscience"… (Have you noticed, that attaching "-science" to something makes it scientific? :) )
There are neuroscientists: Neurologists and such. But there is as yet no neuro-science. And those who ignore the statistical nature of
fMRI and jump to conclusions that see none of the statistical pitfalls… Well, they don't have my respect; their other wordy works will not take much of my time.
But wasn't it enough, that he rejected free will? (There is, then, no morality…)
———————————————————————————————
You surprised me by posting above your own words… But never mind: You want to know how Saddam was found guilty? How those consigned to Guantanamo were confined? You can't: You can only immolate yourself; you seem to have no other connection with the world…
I hope you don't do that. Be patient, Grasshopper! :)
Would you learn?
My earlier statement was this: "...logically this means that thoughts, memories, dreams, imagination etc. are physically in the brain and neuroscientists, when they study the brain, should be able to directly see those things, i.e. neuroscientists should be mind-readers."
And now I say this: "They scan people's brains to determine whether they are religious or not."
What is unsimilar?
The all-important context is missing.
For example, mind-reading is supposed to not exist, because the mind as a non-physical entity cannot exist, because everything is physical and that's it. However, logically this means that thoughts, memories, dreams, imagination etc. are physically in the brain and neuroscientists, when they study the brain, should be able to directly see those things, i.e. neuroscientists should be mind-readers. Somehow logic, which serves atheists so well otherwise, is lost to them on this point.
Again, you're equivocating two meanings of the term mind reading and seem to think that somehow makes a point. It does not.
Well, this simply shows how little you care about things of the mind. Surely you would laugh me away if I mixed up physical reading and writing, but this is precisely how mind-reading and telepathy differ, and you are insisting we should mix them up. I say that the work of neuroscientists, given their presuppositions, implies mind-reading, and I say mind-reading precisely because this is what I mean, not telepathy.
That is not how I'm familiar with the term. One can telepathically send (speak/write) and telepathically receive (hear/read). The whole is known as telepathy.
"Hearing" or "seeing" the thoughts, ideas, emotions, memories, etc. of other - by the "mind's eye" of the seer. I hope Frenzie is paying attention.
And typically it is said that this "hearing" or "seeing" occurs through the unconscious telepathic transmission of such thoughts, think micro expressions. In any case, the salient point is that it's non-physical.
Again, you're equivocating two meanings of the term mind reading and seem to think that somehow makes a point. It does not.
Says the guy who also says:
That is not how I'm familiar with the term. One can telepathically send (speak/write) and telepathically receive (hear/read). The whole is known as telepathy.
Seriously, you are equivocating on mind-reading and telepathy. This is not about how you are familiar with the terms. This is about the fact that you are
not familiar with the terms and this is why I have to explain them to you. If you were not such an egregious equivocator yourself, you would see a point in what I've been saying.
"Hearing" or "seeing" the thoughts, ideas, emotions, memories, etc. of other - by the "mind's eye" of the seer. I hope Frenzie is paying attention.
And typically it is said that this "hearing" or "seeing" occurs through the unconscious telepathic transmission of such thoughts, think micro expressions. In any case, the salient point is that it's non-physical.
No. The salient point is that what's being read is
really what the other one thinks, as distinguished from what he says he thinks or thinks he thinks.
You are equivocating on two important points and this ruins everything.
But wasn't it enough, that he rejected free will? (There is, then, no morality…)
Given no free will, there remains morality a la Sam Harris. (Don't let this take up much of your valuable time.)
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww[/video]
Given no free will, there remains morality a la Sam Harris. (Don't let this take up much of your valuable time.)
You didn't manage to actually post the link… [OK: Now you did.] But that's OK; I won't spend my time listening to Sam Harris! :)
Scientism is not something that interests me… (He doesn't even understand the statistics before his hypotheses… Why would I listen to him?)
The salient point is that what's being read is really what the other one thinks, as distinguished from what he says he thinks or thinks he thinks.
That was the point of the science fiction I'd read 50 years ago… That lying was no longer possible, that any prevarication was precluded… Mind meets mind, and there are no barriers! That is the kind of psi-fiction I grew up with. (Your society,
ersi, wouldn't even admit the possibility… But I think
Frensie's would…) Why do you make it a philosophical debate?
I really do wonder…
The salient point is that what's being read is really what the other one thinks, as distinguished from what he says he thinks or thinks he thinks.
You're very new to Science Fiction, aren't you?
I suspect the Soviet influence is responsible. But there's much Soviet science fiction that is
very good… (It was smuggled out.)
Read some Alfred Bester stories… He'll open your mind!
The salient point is that what's being read is really what the other one thinks, as distinguished from what he says he thinks or thinks he thinks.
That was the point of the science fiction I'd read 50 years ago… That lying was no longer possible, that any prevarication was precluded… Mind meets mind, and there are no barriers! That is the kind of psi-fiction I grew up with. (Your society, ersi, wouldn't even admit the possibility… But I think Frensie's would…) Why do you make it a philosophical debate?
I really do wonder…
Simple: It's not an abstract debate to me, but concrete, from personal experience. And I'm familiar with the science fiction too, even though it's not my fav genre. I've mentioned Lem's
Solaris, for instance.
Anyway, Wikipedia to the rescue in the debate between me and Frenzie:
Mind reading may refer to:
- Telepathy, the transfer of information between individuals by means other than the five senses
- The illusion of telepathy in the performing art of mentalism
- Thought identification, the use of neuroimaging techniques to read human minds
- In cognitive-behavioral therapy, mind-reading is considered a common cognitive distortion or cognitive error that usually contributes to irrational thinking. The concept runs counter to evolutionary psychology.
I can see now why you called it a language problem, Oakdale. Telepathy is categorised here as a kind of mind-reading. (English keeps getting worse as I get more familiar with it. And I don't mean
my English.) Anyway, I have been clear all along that I emphatically am
not referring to telepathy and let's respect that, shall we.
I am referring to the third thing, thought identification. And, to my (big!) surprise, it's given neuroscientific legitimacy by Wikipedia. I accused the physicalist kind of mind-reading of
phrenology, yet Wikipedia apparently sees no problem with this.
Behind the link to thought identification, the first sentence reads without any ambiguity, "Thought identification refers to the empirically verified use of technology to, in some sense, read people's minds." See this, Frenzie? It's empirical! (What's the world coming to...)
Edit: So, I take away two lessons from Wikipedia:
- There's a distinction between telepathy and thought identification. I meant thought identification all along. Wikipedia even gives neuroscientific legitimacy to thought identification, so this is not a point to dispute. Further, let's remember that I accuse the mind-reading neuroscientific presuppositions, assumptions, presumptions, and practices of the phrenologist fallacies.
- Wikipedia rejects Frenzie's salient point and stands by my salient point (the phrase in bold above). Let's call my salient point "the lie/truth-detector function" in mind-reading. It's inseparable from what I mean by mind-reading.
Admittedly, Oakdale has been right when he said there was a language problem. Everything that's been clarified now, I took it all to be integral to mind-reading. Mind-reading is a specific concept to me and includes everything precisely the way that has been clarified now. I mistakenly assumed it's all plain obvious to everybody, but alas, it seems that to everybody else it's some vague nonsense not to be bothered with in detail.
Hopefully the clarifications stick, because my original point was really not about the definition of mind-reading. It was about what kind of mind-readers neuroscientists must logically be, if the physicalist/materialist thesis is taken to be true. In fact, Wikipedia is here saying unabashedly that neuroscience
is ("in some sense") mind-reading, so we are not talking about a vague assumption or a logical inference any more, but about a peer-reviewed admission.
Seriously, you are equivocating on mind-reading and telepathy. This is not about how you are familiar with the terms. This is about the fact that you are not familiar with the terms and this is why I have to explain them to you.
I understand Frenzie's comment, telepathy it's widely understood as a possible (if it exists...) form of communication , therefore it has someone acting as an emitter and someone acting as a receiver so message can be transmitted between the two.
Both people have a fundamental role at telepathy, both must be at the same "wavelength" while mind-reading is seen as an intrusive form of "entering" someone's mind regardless the person's will. Hardly mind-reading can be considered a form or a particular case of telepathy. I think it's more correct to separate them, maybe they can be seen as distant cousins but never as brothers.
Now, the juicy part, phrenology. Long time I see no one referring to phrenology (I think most people don't have any idea what is it about).
Phrenology was very developed by the end of the nineteen century, namely by Germans, as a "scientific" way of identifying individual and, specially, racial characteristics based on the external shape of the skull.
By subjecting non physical properties and characteristics to a physical dimension -the shape of the head, it remembers indeed the pretense neuro science's "advances" today about reducing the soul and spirit to a matter of electrical circuits.
Hey, I just noticed, re-reading this stuff:
Your false equivocation of telepathy and thought identification through neuroimaging says nothing of interest...
(Emphasis mine.) Frenzie used the correct term in the very beginning! But I was not familiar with it and got puzzled about his accusation. Anyway, in the end, it was not me who did the equivocation. Wikipedia plainly says that neuroscientific thought identification
is mind-reading - and this is what I had meant all along.
And, Belfrager, the juicy part is that Frenzie - evidently familiar with the term earlier and knowing what it's about - fails to see (or at least fails to acknowledge) the connection to phrenology along with its embarrassing implications. This is quite a discovery :)
But no worries, even Wikipedia sees no problem with this, so it's safe to say the era of NWO has definitely begun. People's minds have already been properly adjusted to suit the tides.
And, Belfrager, the juicy part is that Frenzie - evidently familiar with the term earlier and knowing what it's about - fails to see (or at least fails to acknowledge) the connection to phrenology along with its embarrassing implications. This is quite a discovery :)
Telepathy and thought identification both remain firmly within the realm of science fiction. It's rather modern neuroscience that quite obviously shares some assumptions with phrenology. Assumptions which are proved every day through successful brain surgeries that weren't possible as recently as a decade ago, I might add.
It's rather modern neuroscience that quite obviously shares some assumptions with phrenology. Assumptions which are proved every day through successful brain surgeries that weren't possible as recently as a decade ago, I might add.
And how do you relate to those assumptions? Guilty or no contest?
And, Belfrager, the juicy part is that Frenzie - evidently familiar with the term earlier and knowing what it's about - fails to see (or at least fails to acknowledge) the connection to phrenology along with its embarrassing implications. This is quite a discovery :)
Maybe a discovery for you, Frenzie fails to see many things but he also see many others.
Not someone that I would chose for amusing myself.
Let's be calm.
Maybe a discovery for you, Frenzie fails to see many things but he also see many others.
Not someone that I would chose for amusing myself.
It's easy to see for oneself what one sees, but very hard to see what one does not see. When one suddenly sees what one hitherto did not see, this is a discovery. I did not earlier see properly that which Frenzie does not see, because he's otherwise a very bright guy who sees a lot, so it's really really hard to find out the things he does not see.
Discoveries are serious stuff. I don't see the connection to amusement here. (Hmm, looks like I found again something I don't see.)
Here's another thing I just discovered and did not see before:
Preaching to the Converted
I’ve never understood the appeal of preaching to the converted. What’s the point? Why bother bashing believers in ghosts, homeopathy and Allah or non-believers in global warming, childhood vaccines and evolution in ways that cannot persuade but only annoy those who don’t pre-agree with you?
So, here's a guy who thinks that you should preach only to those who pre-agree with you, because others can only be annoyed by it and that's not nice. He thinks that "preaching to the converted" means preaching to those converted to something else than oneself is preaching about. This is how he means he "never understood the appeal of preaching to the converted".
This is an example of a language problem with someone who is native to the language. Plus an attitude problem - avoidance of dissenting ideas. Maybe this is amusing to you, but to me discoveries like this are serious stuff.
And how do you relate to those assumptions? Guilty or no contest?
I wouldn't call the connection between the brain and the faculties of the mind an assumption, especially in a post-Broca world. Like I said, the astounding success of modern brain surgeries (like the removal of brain tumors) depends on it. Whatever assumptions an individual like Sam Harris might have beyond that probably isn't neuroscience, but metaphysics. Don't get me wrong, many neuroscientists write books about their metaphysics — but the ones I've read make it pretty clear they're philosophizing, not broadcasting neuroscientific fact. Do keep in mind the divide between American and European style. Americans (presumably including Harris) tend to state things with less nuance, especially in titles and summaries. (Or maybe it's American editors? Either way.) From our perspective that often sounds outrageous and the middle of the text usually paints a very different picture. Although when I say "our" I suppose I have no idea if and to what extent that includes eastern Europe.
So, here's a guy who thinks that you should preach only to those who pre-agree with you, because others can only be annoyed by it and that's not nice. He thinks that "preaching to the converted" means preaching to those converted to something else than oneself is preaching about. This is how he means he "never understood the appeal of preaching to the converted".
I can't read it (paywall), but besides disagreeing wholeheartedly with the premise that sounds like an oddly contradictory opinion piece. Isn't he preaching to those converted to preaching?
I wouldn't call the connection between the brain and the faculties of the mind an assumption, especially in a post-Broca world.
What would you call it then? You would call it a fact, right? Don't be shy :)
Like I said, the astounding success of modern brain surgeries (like the removal of brain tumors) depends on it.
Depends on what? On the assumption or on the fact?
To me it looks like you presume that when you call it "astounding success" (without caring too much about the standard by which you are calling it success), you take it as a given that it is a definite fact too. Whereas in my opinion, yes, brain surgeries work, but then sometimes they don't. Basically, the surgeons don't know about anything else that could work better, and this is why we depend on those surgeries.
(Don't get me wrong. I have been subjected to neurosurgery myself because I had to be fixed up after a dead serious car crash, and the surgery turned out successful, so I have deepest respect for the expertise of these people. It's just that I don't build my metaphysics on
accidents. I build it on
principles.)
Here's my view of the relationship of the mind and the brain. It's like with any other sense and sensory organ. For example vision (which is the sense) and the eye (which is the organ). The sense and the organ are distinct, must be because the loss of the organ is not loss of the sense.
For example, blind people see dreams. This is particularly indisputable when they lost their sight late in life, but even some of those who are born blind see dreams - as in have definitely visual experience. On physicalist assumptions (according to which the organ
is the sense or at least that the organ - both physically and metaphysically - precedes the sense), this should not be possible
at all, yet it is. So, blind people don't have the organ of vision, yet they have the sense of vision.
A direct corollary to this
fact is that the sense of vision is not located in the eye. And I take this to be an overall principle: No sense is physically located in the corresponding organ. Each sense is distinct from the organ. When applied consistently, it follows that also so-called mental processes are definitely
not brain processes. To equate the mind with the brain is the phrenologist fallacy.
According to the phrenologist presuppositions, the loss of the organ should be an irrecoverable loss of the corresponding sense. Damaged people have been intensely examined to determine to which extent this assumption applies. The results show inconsistency. The majority of the cases seem to support the phrenologist presuppositions, but then there are some "miracles" (neurosurgeons use this word every now and then, because really no other word applies better) where the functions of the lost organs or parts of the organs are overtaken by other parts of the organism. Now, let's emphasise again that this should absolutely not be possible on phrenologist presuppositions, because according to them the organ
is the sense, i.e. the sense is physically in that very organ, and therefore the loss of the organ should mean irrecoverable loss of the sense. The problem here is that there are counterexamples to this even in case of rather severe brain injuries.
Now, what accounts for the so-called miracles? Is it the strength of the organ? Cannot be when the organ was lost. I say that miracles like this depend on the strength of the individual mind - the mind being the centralmost
sense which makes up the human being,
not the organ (a.k.a brain).
The senses are not physical or physiological. They are psychological or psychic. Logic pertains to the mind, to the intellect. Physical facts don't trump logic. Logic always trumps physical facts. Physical facts reveal accidents only, wheras logic reveals principles, such as causality, correspondence, identity, similarity, opposites, etc. Facts don't organise themselves. Logic organises facts. Sure enough, physical facts or delusions may drown a weak mind, but a strong mind can work miracles - and does.
Americans (presumably including Harris) tend to state things with less nuance, especially in titles and summaries. (Or maybe it's American editors? Either way.)
Come on, you have seen his speeches. He is doing it to himself. And he is very likely specifically seeking out editors who reinforce what he already is.
From our perspective that often sounds outrageous and the middle of the text usually paints a very different picture. Although when I say "our" I suppose I have no idea if and to what extent that includes eastern Europe.
While typing out my little view of the relationship of the mind and the brain, I googled for some cases where physicians say "miracle". I can confirm that they say it here too in a similar way as reported in Western media.
I can't read it (paywall), but besides disagreeing wholeheartedly with the premise that sounds like an oddly contradictory opinion piece.
Neither can I get past the paywall. But the visible bit was so telling that I don't even want to see more.
Facts don't organise themselves. Logic organises facts. Sure enough, physical facts or delusions may drown a weak mind, but a strong mind can work miracles - and does.
Weak and strong (minds)... as a result of Logic. I don't agree, I think it's reductionist because it takes in no consideration Will. Will it's no part of Logic, it has it's own mechanisms and probably nature (which are hard, very hard to identify) and it's certainly a most (the most?) important part of mind.
Then, there's emotions. Emotions can eliminate facts, play with facts and even create facts much more than logic.
We're entering unstable terrains. :)
Facts don't organise themselves. Logic organises facts. Sure enough, physical facts or delusions may drown a weak mind, but a strong mind can work miracles - and does.
Weak and strong (minds)... as a result of Logic. I don't agree, I think it's reductionist because it takes in no consideration Will. Will it's no part of Logic, it has it's own mechanisms and probably nature (which are hard, very hard to identify) and it's certainly a most (the most?) important part of mind.
Then, there's emotions. Emotions can eliminate facts, play with facts and even create facts much more than logic.
We're entering unstable terrains. :)
All true. I don't disagree with anything you say. Strong will and strong emotions are often called strong mind and strong personality. Rightly so, because they lead to corresponding victories.
However, these victories are of temporary value only, because will and emotion aspire precisely victory, power over something else, like waves that attempt to conquer land. Whereas logic (intellect) aspires permanent values, everlasting balance. The mode of perfected intellect is steady light.
When a shadow arises, light will notice flickering and will aspire steadiness again. Just that.
As the good book says (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=John_1#5), "Teh lite iz pwns teh darks, but teh darks iz liek "Wtf.""
Here's my view of the relationship of the mind and the brain. It's like with any other sense and sensory organ. For example vision (which is the sense) and the eye (which is the organ). The sense and the organ are distinct, must be because the loss of the organ is not loss of the sense.
Tell that to someone born blind. No eyes, no sense of vision.
This just in from CNN...sort of.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea6w3zp-dYY[/video]
Those damned English atheists!
This just in from CNN...sort of.
I had to check if that Bibleman is a real thing. It is :o http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0222529/
Scary, isn't it?
The same start alec self aggrandisement thinking is rather selective. They go out to attack Christianity and show how free they are to do it. However they are as open-minded as a certified idiot. They don't exercise their wonderful liberal smugness regarding religion when it comes to Islam do they? And why - because they know they would be harried, lives threatened and all hell let loose.
The same start alec self aggrandisement thinking is rather selective. They go out to attack Christianity and show how free they are to do it. However they are as open-minded as a certified idiot. They don't exercise their wonderful liberal smugness regarding religion when it comes to Islam do they? And why - because they know they would be harried, lives threatened and all hell let loose.
Pretty good reasons in my book - you think Christians should do the same - they already have. :knight: :cheers:
Good news from Saudi Arabia! Women are now allowed to drive.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fmybirdie.ca%2Ffiles%2Fwomen-are-now-allowed-to-drive-in-saudi-arabia.jpg&hash=fc7cba42564b68aa4f11208e90afe837" rel="cached" data-hash="fc7cba42564b68aa4f11208e90afe837" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://mybirdie.ca/files/women-are-now-allowed-to-drive-in-saudi-arabia.jpg)
I propose to create a Great Wall in the Atlantic so Americans can't pass.
Krake, give us the money please.
give us the money please.
Which reminds me of something important to Portugal. The next time Portugal sinks into a monetary cesspool, it might benefit from ISIL practices.
Isil is the richest terrorist organisation in history.
Over the past six months, since the group began sweeping across eastern Syria and into Iraq, experts estimate that its leaders have gained access to £1.2 billion in cash – more than the most recent recorded annual military expenditure of Ireland.
"Isil is not out in the economic boondocks of Afghanistan or hidden in deserts and caves," said Paul Sullivan, a Middle East specialist at Georgetown University in Washington. "Isil is developing in a vital oil, gas and trade area of the world. It can grab as it expands."
Their greatest financial triumph came when they captured the Iraqi town of Mosul in June and looted the city's banks. Reports at the time suggested the group's fighters may have made off with £240 million, though the Iraqi government later said the heist did not occur.
Which reminds me of something important to Portugal.
You're not important to us and even less your memories. You simply don't exist.
You are behind Somalians in what regards to our attention. Get back in the queue to the place you belong, there's a thousand of others in front of you. Thank you :)
thankk you, rjfrager.
“Allaah has CURSED the woman who does tattoos and the one who has them done, the woman who plucks eyebrows and the one who has it done, and the one who files her teeth for the purpose of beauty, altering the creation of Allaah.”
Damned the one who does all that by oneself!
Or anything else. Breathe not by yourself. Depend on the mighty awesomesauce of Allah!
Now if we can only encourage more of this:
A suicide bomber blew himself up just steps away from the ancient Egyptian temple of Karnak in Luxor, a southern city visited by millions of tourists every year, security and health officials said. No tourists were killed or hurt in the late morning attack.
Now is Ramadan.
Muslims don't eat during the day for an entire month. What surprises me the most is they also don't drink.
Not even water.
There's no way to convince Christians to do something alike. Not even close.
The Orthodox observe various degrees of fasting. Not as serious as Muslims or Easterners, but occasionally close enough.
Muslims don't eat during the day for an entire month. What surprises me the most is they also don't drink.
Not even water.
Back in '04 my housemates got this idea to challenge each other to a fast. I agreed. Yet somehow when they found out I'd drunk water they claimed I broke the pact. I'm not a freaking Muslim, now am I? Unless otherwise specified fasting means abstaining from food, not abstaining from water.
I was taught that fasting means abstaining from something with a purpose, by free will. You may choose to fast one whole day, or only the breakfast. You may choose to fast avoiding meat for some time. You may even choose to fast avoiding TV.
That's my preferred one.
Abstaining with a purpose is a pleonasm, like a wet river or running with speed. :P I can't speak for Portuguese, but fasting means abstaining from food and potentially water, or at least to limit them. Fasting practices might combine fasting with other forms of abstinence, but other forms of abstinence by themselves aren't fasting.
Fasting practices might combine fasting with other forms of abstinence, but other forms of abstinence by themselves aren't fasting.
Yep.
A Catholic fasting it's not eating meat at Fridays, only fish. Also during Easter.
Not too many people keep on doing it.
I never eat crow on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday.
:jester:
I only fast if there is a big deluge of rain on one of my Order's big parades and I am too tired and wet to be bothered to have much. :hat:
You're religious on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays… :) Sundays, you're watching soccer!
I enjoy football when Glasgow rangers beats Glasgow Celtic.
Mind you I did celebrate the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne (12th July) when Belfrager's pal King James got belted by a Protestant champion.
Swedish church is so hungry for souls that they invited a gathering of Pokemon Go players http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=96&artikel=6482303
Swedish church is so hungry for souls that they invited a gathering of Pokemon Go players
They should invited instead a Dogshitmon Go...
At least such idiots would be useful to clean the streets.
Swedish church is so hungry for souls that they invited a gathering of Pokemon Go players
They should invited instead a Dogshitmon Go...
At least such idiots would be useful to clean the streets.
Hmm, is Matthew 22:39 just being thrown out the window here?
"Love your neighbors...", idiots included.
Well I like the reading although if someone hid the Pope I might be passingly hypocritical for a wee while.
Hmm, is Matthew 22:39 just being thrown out the window here?
Jesus Christ once said there's no patience for such ignorants. Being son of God, God made him to be crucified.
Glad I'm not The son of God.
By the way, Jesus Christ has also kicked out the sellers of the Temple. Nowadays known as "protestants".
Ain't modern consumerist, idiotic, protestant theology so much against Jesus Christ?? And yet such creatures dares to speak in his behalf.
By the way, Jesus Christ has also kicked out the sellers of the Temple. Nowadays known as "protestants".
Is not modern Portugal a "seller at the Temple…"? People that won't or can't support themselves, so they ask alms. Yet they're too proud to admit it, so they claim that they're entitled — because they were once the top dog?
Woof!
Haha. Now how utterly funny that a resident and strong traditional Papist comes up with that comical thing about Jesus throwing the would-be Protestants out of th Temple, eh?!
On a more practical note of the in bashing Protestants for being anti-Christ? Now what Church is more error stricken and false than Rome!It has all sorts of head shaking rituals, practices that are far from basic Christian. The history of the Vatican has been one of various things such as corruption either hidden or historically well known and as corrupt as hell. Princes of the Church and making the Church part political and religious. The poky hats came from Babylon a capital of Paganism nonsense and the beads for prayers used by pagan religions before Christianity . Some of those same Pagans had a Queen of Heaven and so it goes on across the world with the ambassadors of the Vatican across the world. Would also think that Romanism was always good at wanting to dominate poor or uneducated places. so will freely and honestly give you that one. In the 1300's it stopped priests from being married another load of cobblers and instead ever since that century widespread sexual corruption with mistresses and their offspring. Mind you they also had popes into it as an example. Still going on too by the way. All the heavy ritualism i mention the demagogy and part paganism brought in in earlier times is as close to the simplicity of the man from Galilee as me being a secret yank.
Woo-hoo he Church of Rome would have a deep problem it Jesus arrived today as he would be flummoxed by what is done in his name. :blush: :-[
ps. Thanks for the opportunity dear Belfrager
i[f] Jesus arrived today as he would be flummoxed by what is done in his name
And appalled by those who claim to exegete…
You would be a very worrying state.
ps. Thanks for the opportunity dear Belfrager
You need no opportunity to be defending the indefensible, you always do.
Pope Francis is the 266th Pope in consecutive succession since Peter. Peter the one who Jesus Christ said go and make my Church.
There's no doubts about who represents who.
Peter the one who Jesus Christ said go and make my Church.
He did. (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2)
What Jesus did not indicate was the semi-pagan, highly ritualistic, dictatorial premise that Romanism was built on. It took over the church and no-one allowed any other stance. Because Rome had been the capital of the political empire it bashed the heads of Christian churches everywhere else using the city's history as a weapon. Pope after Pope claimed all sorts of titles, were as corrupt as hell with mistresses, illegitimate children and control freakery. Nothing about the Roman stuff is part of the simplicity of Jesus Christ and became a religious dictatorship. Rome used the basis of the old Roman Empire to push it's influence and with such took over the wider Christian attitude and heaven help you if you opened your mouth. And by the way there is NO evidence even Peter was ever in Rome. When the priest Martin Luther went to Rome he was deeply shocked at the inbuilt corruption of the Church, it's leaders and misuse of not only power but morality and everything negative. So dear Belfrager you can take note that the situation on the Church of Rome caused the Reformation. The matter of paying for Indulgences was only the tip of the religious iceberg.
I do not have anything against individual Romanists but I certainly do on their Church, it's errors and false doctrines. Princes of the Church another ridiculous pontification. Italy at one time was actually a group of individual Kingdoms until unified and the former papal States were a totally undemocratic place, corrupt as much as could be, secret police and torture inbuilt. In the 20th century the RC Church worked closely with Benito Mussolini, in the old Yugoslavia during WW2 when the Germans took over they had an RC priest as commander of a camp full of Orthodox people and large numbers forced to become RC's and equally large numbers massacred. Far more than Serbs were labelled with in more recent times. The legions of Nazis in 1945 getting Papal passports for South America. In the South Vietnam terrible early time a Buddhist country had a regime who's leaders were guess what religion?!
Jesus never acted like a future Pope and the early churches were simple, straightforward and free from the later Popish tyranny.
I rest my case! :knight:
Did you know that Jesus didn't walk on water? Nope! He walked on custard!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN2D5y-AxIY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN2D5y-AxIY)
Well that is one step away from the colour of orange so fine.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl9XNGy2VHw[/video]
Since I don't answer to pagan, money lovers heretic northern protestants, there's nothing to answer at the above posts.
Meanwhile, Pope Francis has made Saints those that received the visit and were touched at their hearts by Our Lady of Fatima. One million people were there.
Even Muslims made the sacrifice to go in their knees to pray and thanks to Our Lady.
Dogs barks and the caravan passes.
Unfortunately a hijacking of pure Christianity with all that papal stuff.
Some of us like good Prots weeded the garden....!
A fantastic visit from Pope Francis to Fátima.
Not a visit of State, a visit as an humble pilgrim.
Since John Paul II to Francis, all of them knees to Our Lady of Fátima.
Surprised you took so long to note that show. Typical meandering on faith. Pity you missed the Reformation!
Is it any wonder the Caths and the Prots fought wars for centuries? They're both insane!
Meanwhile, Pope Francis has made Saints those that received the visit and were touched at their hearts by Our Lady of Fatima. One million people were there.
So one million people have been made saints in less than no time?
A saint-inflation, so to speak. :rolleyes:
You Oakdale have been fighting wars sine 1945 and may I also remind you that the main RC-Prot thing was essentially the 16 and 17th centuries.
And a wee bit of passing info about you lot over there! In the early days of Texas the place was essentially Mexican and Mexico allowed you Yankee boys to settle there on conditions and if you converted to being Papist and know what? They did!
A saint-inflation, so to speak
Since Breton Woods we need not to have a gold counter part for Saints. :)
So, like Americans, we print them the most we can.
The word 'saint' has been misused.
A saint-inflation, so to speak. :rolleyes:
Obviously it's a saintflation. A saint inflation, how quaint. :P
You Oakdale have been fighting wars sine 1945 and may I also remind you that the main RC-Prot thing was essentially the 16 and 17th centuries.
Ah! But you didn't stop there, did you? (Ireland had different ideas until quite recently…)
The "Great War"? The Suez kerfluffle? (What, btw, happened in India?) Indeed, religion has been sometimes a bane… So has the Protestant money grubbing — which you elide, being a poor Scot!
You'd never murder people for money! Unless the Crown pays you to do so… But not you, personally: You'd rather hike through the woods, eh? :)
Let me ask ye, bonnie
Howie: Is Patrick a saint, by your lights? Or Moore?
Thomas Aquinas? Augustine? Paul?
Either take the stand that there are no such thing or admit various sects can elect who they want to that station. Or go back to war…which is the natural state, for even almost Europeans.
It's a big round number of years since the Reformation this year. Not seeing much celebration, except some odd attempts to swipe the old differences under the rug, so it's safe to determine that people have forgotten what the Reformation was all about.
For one, Luther said that churches should not be overloaded with distracting art. Even this simple well-founded point has been forgotten (http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=109&artikel=6699911).
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic-cdn.sr.se%2Fsida%2Fimages%2F478%2Fdecfcd78-53b7-4535-8d30-f3bb29095613.jpg&hash=0d8e6bec6f4685a16474fd7272e52591" rel="cached" data-hash="0d8e6bec6f4685a16474fd7272e52591" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://static-cdn.sr.se/sida/images/478/decfcd78-53b7-4535-8d30-f3bb29095613.jpg)
A saint-inflation, so to speak. :rolleyes:
Obviously it's a saintflation. A saint inflation, how quaint. :P
Perhaps another case of saint inflation. Or saintflation.
source (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Smg7MS9y78UJ:http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/941265-pope-francis-declares-mother-teresa-a-saint/%2Bsaintflation&num=100&safe=off&client=kmeleon&hl=en&biw=956&bih=443&noj=1&gbv=1&site=webhp&ct=clnk)
:)
Does anyone knows the diference between a Blessed and a Saint? Sainthood can only be declared if in a presence of a proven miracle.
Some canonical processes took hundred of years, others are a bit faster, miracles are not an exact science... :)
Firstly a passing comment on the routine guff from OakdaleFTL.
You desperate house monk go on about long ago when your country bums about how great it is in modern times and the would-be progressive and principled actions. Well how come you have been militarily active since as I said, 1945?
Anyway I would say to you Belfrager that your ideas on who decides on sainthood and such is not my corner whatsoever. Yours is based on a connived historical religiosity that is Rome's. A Godly person of standing is the basis for being suitably labelled not a man in Rome who claims all sorts of religious titles and rituals as well. As much Christian as I am English! :whistle:
Anyway I would say to you Belfrager that your ideas on who decides on sainthood and such is not my corner whatsoever.
Course not. Nobody asked your opinion.
You've destroyed so much that you'll never be perdoned. You'll pay for what you've done as sure as two plus two to be four.
You're a sinner as all the others (and all of us) but I'm not too harsh on that. Your very destiny will punish you for your herectic acts and there's no assurance that my destiny will reward me for mine. Or vice versa.
Pomposity there dear chap a if I have no right to contradict your corner which is a one that is a morphing of basic Christianity. just nodded to my picture on my contributions which shows that great Protestant champion, William of Orange! :knight:
And Trump went to knee to the Pope.
All of them go.
I didn't see any kneeling in front of the white coat man. If I met your boss I would be polite and shake hands and a smile then give him a framed picture of "King Billy." :D
While the first lady and daughter play the ridiculous wearing a "mantilla", Pope Francis shows well his "joy" for receiving such creatures...
How would the white coat man get on with me?!
How would the white coat man get on with me?!
If you really want to know, you'd need to apply for an audience first. :lol:
W-h-a-t?! It should really be the other way round! :yes:
Souvenir from the Vatican (http://fun.drno.de/pics/trump/papstbesuch.jpg)
What is it? A funeral?
Someone must have died. Trump is the only one smiling there...
A load of dated nonsense and especially for women having to wear black.
They were wearing black with a mantilla because someone told them about the White Privilege and obviously didn't explained them in what consists.
The White privilege - the right to wear white in front of the Pope at very special occasions, always with the Pope celebrating a Mass and not obviously being the case in a diplomatic visit such as the American President.
The privilege it's reserved for Catholic Princesses and Queens. Currently only seven have such right:
Princesa Charlene do Monaco
Rainha Letizia da Espanha
Rainha emérita Sofia da Espanha
Rainha Matilde da Bélgica
Rainha Paola da Bélgica
Grã-duquesa Maria Teresa do Luxemburgo
Princesa Marina de Nápoles
Therefore the Americans imagined they should go in black aspiring to play Catholic Nobility rules.
Does anyone imagines Angela Merkel wearing black with a mantilla for meeting the Pope? She wears the colour she wants (and the Vatican protocol allows).
They were wearing black with a mantilla because someone told them about the White Privilege and obviously didn't explained them in what consists.
Women wearing a
mantilla during a private audience with the pope is still part of the protocol, no matter if one chooses to obey or not the protocol.
Does anyone imagines Angela Merkel wearing black with a mantilla for meeting the Pope?
A combination of
mantilla and trouser suit would look very strange. :lol:
I wonder if the pope was excited enough to meet me would he faint if i was in my best dark suit, bowler hat, white gloves and regalia?? :cheers: (that's diet Irn bru by the way)
If the white hat man asks to meet me (lucky man he would be) then I might invite Belfrager so he doesn't feel out of the picture but I won't extend to him feeling out of place by not divulging handshakes or signs. 8)
If the white hat man asks to meet me (lucky man he would be) then I might invite Belfrager
You do that... so we can recreate a beautiful auto de fé... :devil:
It's very simple, you deny your heresy and wou'll burn alive; you confess and you'll burn already dead.
I suppose that you'll have no doubts about what to do.
I would shout "No Surrender" as my predecessors shouted when your lot tried to destroy us centuries ago! Your present boss may be a seeming reasonable bloke but there are one h of a list over history that were criminals, profligates, womanisers, kid producers, corrupters. Goodness when it it was nce alleged that a woman pretended to be a man then a priest and Pope she had a baby but was done in by a crowd! Recall seeing a programme on the Vatican and had a chair with a hole in it so they could verify after that chortling time that the leader was a man! :lol:
You must take your medecin rjhowie.
"medecin"? duh....
Unfortunately poor man your religious corner is in a mess. Widespread corruption especially in the clergy. immorality amongst the clergy is your own faults because once priests were married then along came a Pope who stopped that in the 14th century was it. Then they were married to the church. Considering all the corrupt Popes a pointless and immoral act and it is still going on today. In some places like in the US there have been dioceses going bankrupt trying to deal with paying out. it is not a case of an odd unfortunate situation but a world wide thing going on for centuries but in modern times no longer an opportunity to be able to hid it or do damn nothing! it was a situation self-created and clergy should have been allowed to marry rather than get damn frustrated.
Now here is something you might not have known. Where clergy from the (Anglican) Church of England left when woman clergy and Bishops came in what did the Roman Catholic Church do? These clergy were allowed to keep their wives! How damn two-faced is that hypocrisy? :down:
These clergy were allowed to keep their wives!
I like to see rjhowie asking for the intransigence of the Caholic Church Laws... :)
Where such people married by the Catholic Church? course not, so they're not married. Anyway I'm not sure if they are considered Priests, meaning being authorized by the Church to give the Sacraments.
Now speaking about important things, Pope Fancis made significant changes about accelerating the process for declaring a marriage nullity.
Declaring a marriage nullity it's not the same as to nullify a marriage. Religious marriages can't ever be nullified.
By declaring it's nullity, it's meant that the marriage never happen because it didn't satisfied all the required conditions. An example would be a very young boy and girl that got married basically because the girl got pregnant, not because they were fully aware of the meaning, rights and duties or consequences of their religious marriage.
Those processes took decades to be concluded and were very difficult to achieve (except if your name is Caroline of Monaco :) ). Now the all process it's much faster and agile.
I agree with Pope Francis in this matter (as in many others).
I am afraid you are WRONG Belfrager on those Anglican clergymen. Several years ago on the ferry from Scotland to Northern Ireland I got into a good chat with an English clergyman over a cup of tea as I had noted he was wearing a dog collar. He was quite categorical that the Roman Catholic Church now had him as a priest in charge of a church as he was one of those several who were miffed at female clergy then later Bishops. He also sat with his wife! Can understand you being so far away would not be aware of such things but there you are.
an English clergyman over a cup of tea as I had noted he was wearing a dog collar. He was quite categorical that the Roman Catholic Church now had him as a priest in charge of a church as he was one of those several who were miffed at female clergy then later Bishops. He also sat with his wife!
You can never trust English clergyman or anyother Englishman.
Well you better let old white cloak man and the Vatican know that as they agreed to it!
Of course, they are the little monkeys to do experiments...
Your little monkeys...
Ah ha....body-swerving the actual truth poor man!.
on the first Saturday of July I will be up at the front of a parade in my city with 181 Orange Orderlodges and 56 bands behind us to mark the Battle of the Boyne so will give you a thought and pity you won't be there for me to wave my bowler hat at you and a smile! There will be another 3 representing the east, west and central parts of my wee country so just think what you are missing boy. :D
on the first Saturday of July I will be up at the front of a parade in my city with 181 Orange Orderlodges and 56 bands behind us
Is that supposed to impress anyone? rats over rats.
Whoohoo! I think that if you were here on holiday Belfrager and stood watching it you would enjoy the colour and music. When in my late teens and I worked in a city office HQ we had to be in on Saturdays from 9am to 12.30pm. It was before I was initiated into the Order and we used to skip out to watch the big Glasgow one. The city Grand Master would ride on a white horse in his chain of office and in a top hat! And you know what? The RC girls would come out too and enjoy it as well! :lol:
you would enjoy the colour and music.
I prefer the naked women at Moulin Rouge. Or Lido. Or any other lousy cabaret surely much better than any protestant insuportable parade.
Aw what a pity. I would have waved and called over to you even if left you floundering wondering how to respond. :lol:
Pope Frankie may get corrected.
Over 60 scholars correct Pope Francis for ‘propagating heresies’
The Filial Correction, in the form of a 25-page letter, bears the signatures of sixty-two Catholic academics, researchers, and scholars in various fields from twenty countries. They assert that Pope Francis has supported heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the Eucharist that are causing a host of “heresies and other errors” to spread throughout the Catholic Church.
The letter bemoans the loosening of the Catholic standard of the sanctity of marriage, specifically permission for remarried people to receive sacraments as granted by Pope's apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia a year ago.
And also this,
A second cause of the crisis is the apparent influence of the ideas of Martin Luther on Pope Francis. The letter shows how Luther, the founder of Protestantism, had ideas on marriage, divorce, forgiveness, and divine law which correspond to those which the pope has promoted by word, deed and omission. It also notes the explicit and unprecedented praise given by Pope Francis to the German heresiarch.
The Pope is overly Lutheran on this happy anniversary of the Reformation :D
Well the Roman Catholic Church is generally slow in everything and deep into ritualism more than straight and simple Christianity. That it has taken it 500 years to be agog at the great Martin Luther is not surprising! I hope to attend a service shortly to mark Luther's great move as part of the 500th year.
As he once said .... "God help me I can do no other." :happy:
The Pope is Jesuit but that's too subtle for any of you, no one of you knows anything about Ignacio de Loyola spirituality. Or any other thing relating Catholicism.
I agree with some criticism regarding some of the Pope positions but traditionalists can't ever criticize the Pope, isn't it? That's why they are traditionalists, for recognizing the Pope's doctrinal authority.
This is what happens when we have two living Popes. It's obvious that the Congregation for the Purity of Faith must act and it must act ruthlessly. A purge must be done.
The Pope is Jesuit but that's too subtle for any of you...
The job of the Jesuits is to defeat the Reformation by means of Counterreformation. This is not overly subtle. It's easy to see how the Pope's plan is to trap the unsuspecting Lutherans by some false praise of Luther even to the point that the Pope gets some internal criticism. Modern Lutherans have forgotten Reformation and they are easily deceived.
However, no amount of Jesuitism can explain the other point of internal criticism - permitting adulterers to participate in sacraments. On this point, the Pope has made almost as clear a move to redefine Catholic Christian marriage as has happened to natural marriage in the West.
Just as Jesus said: never forgive! :knight:
It's easy to see how the Pope's plan is to trap the unsuspecting Lutherans by some false praise of Luther even to the point that the Pope gets some internal criticism. Modern Lutherans have forgotten Reformation and they are easily deceived.
Too subtle for you as I said. No one, even less the Pope, gives a shit about Lutherans or any other protestants.
The first thing would be to know what it is the "internal criticism". You can't learn about it anywhere but inside.
You don't learn about it in Wikipedia or in the media.
You're not inside.
Refrear yourself of using protestant terms as "adulterers" when speaking about the Catholic Church. We don't burn "adulterers".
The Papist tradition is a corruption or fiddling of Christianity with all the pomp, circumstance, rituals and so on. Luther was right when he stuck his list on a church door and when he got to Rome he seen the abject corruption of the thing. More importantly too was that he realised that all the pomp, ritual dogma stuff and control thinking could not be any further away from the simple Christianity of Jesus and the growth from the apostles. John Knox who was another priest like Martin Luther realised he and others had been brained into something that was so far away from basic Christianity he sparked the Reformation here in Scotland.
As for the Pope making nice noises at Luther is head shaking as Rome is still the same lot as they were back in that great man's revolutionising times. :(
No one, even less the Pope, gives a shit about Lutherans or any other protestants.
Actually they do, a lot. Prior to the anniversary of the Reformation, the Pope has been very busy to get all sorts of Protestants to agree to the Joint Declaration on Justification, so that hardly anyone would properly celebrate the Reformation. Have you noticed any celebrations? The Pope succeeded. He cares a lot.
The first thing would be to know what it is the "internal criticism". You can't learn about it anywhere but inside.
You don't learn about it in Wikipedia or in the media.
You're not inside.
This is why I quoted strictly Catholic sources and the actual criticism itself, available here (http://www.correctiofilialis.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Correctio-filialis_English_1.pdf), no other media.
Actually they do, a lot. Prior to the anniversary of the Reformation, the Pope has been very busy to get all sorts of Protestants to agree to the Joint Declaration on Justification, so that hardly anyone would properly celebrate the Reformation. Have you noticed any celebrations? The Pope succeeded. He cares a lot.
The Pope succeeded because there's nothing to celebrate relating the reformation.The Pope has been very busy doing real important things, you are looking for a non existent insignificance Ersi. Only protestants may believe they are enough important to be discussed.
The real important thing relating the criticism by some factions of the Church is to realize that Catholicism is an hierarchical, centralized religion, with its own adequate institutions to solve and decide doctrinal discussions.
The Pope has been too much soft. I'm curious to see until when he will allow this to keep happening.
It's a curious problem, conservative factions are using progressive techniques based on conservative arguments defying a progressive Pope that has reluctance on using against them conservative techniques.
Well, maybe I'm not being clear..
Well ersi I am very teed off that my corner the Church of Scotland has done hee-haw about marking the greatness of the reformation and it's attempt to get back to simple Christianity and away from all the dogma stuff and part Christian-part foreign ideas of Rome. Indeed I will be writing into my parish church which I a member of and at the next congregation AGM raising a word there too!
The Pope has been too much soft. I'm curious to see until when he will allow this to keep happening.
It's a curious problem, conservative factions are using progressive techniques based on conservative arguments defying a progressive Pope that has reluctance on using against them conservative techniques.
Well, maybe I'm not being clear..
Vaguely sounds like you wish Benedict were still the Pope.
Vaguely sounds like you wish Benedict were still the Pope.
At any rate not Joseph Ratzinger, an Anglo-Saxon. :o You still don't know Belfrager, do you?
Maybe Benedict IX though. :)
Doesn't matter who the Pope is and that such a thing and claims exist is negative.
Amoris laetitia regards the problem of divorced people not being allowed to the sacraments of the Holy Church.
I agree with the Pope's approach. Francis has remind us of the basics and the basics are Love, Forgiveness and Redemption, not punishment.
The conservative faction of the Church seems to forget that Jesus Christ chose for making His Church a man that had renegade Him for three times.
@Krake, I have Benedict XVI in high regard (but for the abdication). From times to times something good comes from the Anglo-Saxons. Rare, extremely rare, but it happens occasionally. (Is it a miracle? :) )
Well Peter was no Pope even if he ever set foot in Rome (doubtful). Christianity was founded on a simple basis and got corrupted by all the additions and fancy stuff added to it.
Says the apostate! Your feeble mind is good enough to to reckon the the meaning of the word of God? You can't even speak and spell your own language…
I see the amusing side of that OakdaleFTL as you are an American......
Well Peter was no Pope
Wrong.
Do march at your silly parades, refrain yourself to enter into important things.
No I am not wrong dear Popish associate. Neither is there anything factual that he stepped foot in Rome! :up:
Sweden Makes Jesus Gender Neutral (https://sputniknews.com/europe/201712291060399190-sweden-gender-neutral-jesus/)
In a recent Christmas advertisement produced by the Church of Sweden, Jesus no longer possesses the antiquated gender pronoun "he". Rather, "hen", a gender neutral innovation introduced to the Swedish language...
Comments? Opinions? Ideas? What next?
Utterly daft alteration and part of the modern day propaganda posing as liberal concern. The Swedish Lutheran is part of the club of several churches coming out with his spiritual guff. here in my city the Episcopal cathedral had a senior clergyman recently advocating a special prayer for the Duchess of Cambridge's boy to become a queer and thus helping that lot. Thankfully that religious corner is not that great in Scotland. That lot have also been more leaning towards queerdom than the Church of England over the Border!
Angels like Jesus have no corporeal form and they are neither male nor female. Referring to them as masculine is merely a convienience (or imposition) of grammar.
If, however, they are part of a Jesus sect that thinks post-Mark gospels aren't later political fanfics then it's par for the course illogic heaped upon wishful thinking.
Angels like Jesus have no corporeal form and they are neither male nor female. Referring to them as masculine is merely a convienience (or imposition) of grammar.
Let's suppose so. But then what is "hen" and how is it any better or different? As a recent concoction with no real-life referent, "hen" is a delusion and impediment of grammar. (English equivalent appears to be ze (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_pronoun).)
If, however, they are part of a Jesus sect that thinks post-Mark gospels aren't later political fanfics then it's par for the course illogic heaped upon wishful thinking.
It's Church of Sweden you are talking about. From your point of you, they were illogical wishful thinkers to begin with and now they are just adding to it. From my point of view, they are destroying the last thing that could have allowed them to stand a little longer.
Sad to watch how Church of Sweden, where the majority of the population still belongs to it, is desperate to be hip in the false hope of making itself relevant for the society at large, while a bit more to the east, where just a fraction of the people belong to the churches, the churches are far more conservative and thus demonstrate more backbone and consequently also more relevance.
It is sad the direction re the national church in Sweden. If you are referring to the Russian orthodox to the "east" it has been growing considerably since the great collapse of the USSR days. Choices given back multiple extension and return of senior clergy positions and so on. It plays it's part and encouraged to do so. It is very ritualistic and maybe even more than Romanism (although statue worship stuff is not allowed - just icons). In the Western part of the Russian Federation it is much grown and is re-emerging elsewhere so it would be wrong just to think things are practically much as in the terrible Soviet days. It is well in the public eye and is represented too in things loike presidential swearing in days and the army has Orthodox chaplains. So change days!
It is sad the direction re the national church in Sweden. If you are referring to the Russian orthodox to the "east"...
No, I am referring to something more comparable: Lutheran Churches in Finland and the Baltic countries, as the Church of Sweden is also Lutheran. Lutheran churches in different countries seem to be all over the place on gender issues, and for example they accept female priests now everywhere, but the definition of marriage has remained compatible with natural law in the Eastern spectrum.
Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox are different animals compared to Protestantism. The top leadership in RC and OE hardly ever accept innovations, but some organisations affiliated with them come up with new ideas all the time. Whereas in Protestantism the leadership seems to be easily swayed by the spirit of times, overriding a significant internal conservative faction.
Let's suppose so. But then what is "hen" and how is it any better or different? As a recent concoction with no real-life referent, "hen" is a delusion and impediment of grammar. (English equivalent appears to be ze (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_pronoun).)
It's Church of Sweden you are talking about. From your point of you, they were illogical wishful thinkers to begin with and now they are just adding to it. From my point of view, they are destroying the last thing that could have allowed them to stand a little longer.
Sad to watch how Church of Sweden, where the majority of the population still belongs to it, is desperate to be hip in the false hope of making itself relevant for the society at large, while a bit more to the east, where just a fraction of the people belong to the churches, the churches are far more conservative and thus demonstrate more backbone and consequently also more relevance.
It is the Diocese of Västerås (seat pop. 120k). Not that I think the head office would mind, mind you, but it is of local/minor interest. The writer has put her argument (https://www.svenskakyrkan.se/vasteras/nyheter/jesus---hen) up here
Det viktiga med det lilla barnet som föds i krubban är inte könet, det viktiga är att vi i det barnet ser Guds närvaro och Världens hopp.
What's important with the small child born in the crib isn't the gender, but that we in that child see the presence of God and the hope of the World.
Christology and the relevance of the nativity scene to Christianity is of passing interest to me, but for the more engaging topic a non-gendered personal pronoun is hardly "the
delusion and impediment of grammar". Assumedly Proto-Indo-European didn't have a gendered pronoun, though assumedly Proto-Germanic had and most modern European languages have. Languages can manage pretty well with either alternative.
It is certainly more convenient than writing e.g. "s/he", and I kind of prefer that option to singular "they", but will it be a fixture of language? Pronouns rarely change, but they do occasionally.
The Church of Sweden is huge because until the year 2000 this was the state church of Sweden, everyone were a member unless they, or their parents before them, had actively left the church. So while 60% of the population belongs to it, it only means that they haven't bothered to do anything about the membership, not that they are Christians. The actual active number of church members is far, far lower.
It is the Diocese of Västerås (seat pop. 120k). Not that I think the head office would mind, mind you, but it is of local/minor interest. The writer has put her argument (https://www.svenskakyrkan.se/vasteras/nyheter/jesus---hen) up here
Yes, along with false apology,
Om någon blivit sårad av vår formulering, så var det inte avsikten. Avsikten var att öppna för ett samtal...
Didn't mean to hurt? It's false because it's followed by "the intention was to open discussion" i.e. to stir up a deliberate controversy.
Christology and the relevance of the nativity scene to Christianity is of passing interest to me...
It's not even a matter of Christology, but of basic decency. Representatives of that church do not know how to be decent.
If you just want to greet, then you do it in traditional terms. Otherwise it's not a greeting, but at best a joke, at worst an insult - and you know it! If you want to stir up a Christological controversy, assemble a circle of appropriate experts whose job it is to take it on.
...a non-gendered personal pronoun is hardly "the delusion and impediment of grammar". Assumedly Proto-Indo-European didn't have a gendered pronoun, though assumedly Proto-Germanic had and most modern European languages have. Languages can manage pretty well with either alternative.
As far as I know, all European languages that have the silly grammatical gender, also employ a neutral pronoun among them - it, das, det... To invent a
fourth gender only makes it worse. If the grammatical gender poses problems, then abolish it, instead of exacerbating it.
Anyway, all linguistic inventions have to be cautious. They have to make sense both soci(olinguistic)ally and (onto)logically, not just ride on some current fad.
Yes you are in a way right ersi and my Protestantism has got itself carried away with too liberal a direction. The Church of Rome is stronger on the issues raised but it is also as corrupt as hell in hard facts of life on sexual stuff. The RC corner could take lessons from the orthodox.
The top leadership in RC and OE hardly ever accept innovations,
The top leadership in RC is the Pope. I suppose that even in Letónia you've heard about Francis. Not the first to innovate.
Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox are different animals compared to Protestantism. The top leadership in RC and OE hardly ever accept innovations, but some organisations affiliated with them come up with new ideas all the time. Whereas in Protestantism the leadership seems to be easily swayed by the spirit of times, overriding a significant internal conservative faction.
Very wrong way trying to compare protestants with Catholics and Orthodoxes. Like comparing fake Chinese production with Rolls Royce.
Very elegant to call them "easily swayed by the spirit of times". They deserve to be called much worst.
The Church of Rome has tried things with the Russian Orthodox but get nowhere. For all their ritualistic side the Orthodox has a less bloody and painful history than Rome. In Russia the Old believers were shunned when the Orthodox changes some of their practices and apart from small persecution were eventually allowed to plod on and still do. When you compare what happened to early reformers with Rome what a vastly different deathly history!
I would agree with our Portuguese friend that the present pope is into some reforming and boy has he got a mountain (!). There was another modern Pope who did try that. He was the one before that wee imp, Pope John Paul. The Pope just prior to him died after a couple of months . He was into the changing mind and his secretary a Cardinal was a member of the rogue Italian Masonic Lodge that was as corrupt as hell. When the nun came in at morning time she found the Pope sitting dead in his bed and that cardinal was called. He removed the glasses, cup and papers. The nun later asked if there would be an autopsy and told "no." When John Paul later as Pope visited the USA he met the Cardinal of Chicago (who had been suspended by the recently passed away Pope). John Paul had immediately suspended that senior man and was give a presentation box with money as a donation.
The pope who died so soon after election was a man in the mood for change and he was shocked at what he discovered about moral and political/economic corruption. RC's should not have been in the Freemasons yet that pal secretary was. The same rogue lodge had a member discovered hanging under Blackfriar bridge in London and masonic symbols laid beside him. As for the Vatican bank that was another dodgy corner shocking that poor lost man in the Vatican. The Pope who died as said was no doubt in the same mood as the present incumbent. Even the Masonic lot did not want that lodge.
Now I know that there are plenty of decent people in the RC Church and I do not deny them rights whilst there is so much still going on inside it that is head-shaking. As much as I disagree with it's principles I go along with them having the same rights as I have. Decent people and so on while I praise the great Scots Reformer John Knox! There you are!
1. AFAIK, according to all mainstream Christian churches' doctrine, Jesus is not an angel. He is resurrected and he ascended to heavens with(in) his body. It's supposed to be a glorified body. Otherwise he could not enter locked rooms, or survive the lack of oxygen in outer space. No information whether his dong ascended with him, although he surely had one before having been crucified.
2. Since some years ago, Lutherans in Brazil insist on calling everybody by two genders as a norm, such as: "welcome and welcomess, people and peopless, everybodiers and everybodiesses!" (It sounds crazy even in Portuguese, and it's hard to explain it in English. Portuguese does not have a neutral gender particle.)
AFAIK, according to all mainstream Christian churches' doctrine, Jesus is not an angel.
Evidently. I probably failed at implying that they might be unintentionally revealing Paul's original intentions that were so unclear in Corinthians, presumably because they were only accessible for those properly initiated into the mystery cult. Of course Corinthians goes either way. Corporeal or incorporeal? Earth or Heavens? Who can tell. I'm almost as confused as the Corinthians about what the original Christians may have thought. ;)
In any case, calling Jesus an "it" clearly implies something about Jesus himself, does it not? The more interesting option being that he was supernatural, as the original Christians may have thought. Or more boring, a Christian atheist's point of view that he's symbolic.
Since some years ago, Lutherans in Brazil insist on calling everybody by two genders as a norm, such as: "welcome and welcomess, people and peopless, everybodiers and everybodiesses!" (It sounds crazy even in Portuguese, and it's hard to explain it in English. Portuguese does not have a neutral gender particle.)
Could you write the phrase in Portuguese? Are the Lutherans afraid to offend transsexuals by saying something like "ladies and gentlemen"?
What those Lutherans are doing is a groan and shows what happens when you go too far into the so-called word liberalism and what it does in practice.
In any case, calling Jesus an "it" clearly implies something about Jesus himself, does it not?
It clearly implies something about those who call him that way. Would you call angel Gabriel "it"?
Since some years ago, Lutherans in Brazil insist on calling everybody by two genders as a norm, such as: "welcome and welcomess, people and peopless, everybodiers and everybodiesses!" (It sounds crazy even in Portuguese, and it's hard to explain it in English. Portuguese does not have a neutral gender particle.)
Are you saying Portuguese does not even have the equivalent of French "on"? In that case, I assume, Portuguese must drop pronouns a lot, at least Spanish does. This is yet another way to keep things neutral.
In Estonian, omitting the third person singular pronoun (i.e. omitting the subject altogether) is a modern (no earlier than the 80's, I think) way of creating an impersonal sentence. Oh, and naturally there is
just one third person singular pronoun, without any implication of gender, grammatical or otherwise. Why anyone would make up two or three or even four like "hen" or "ze" is beyond me.
It clearly implies something about those who call him that way. Would you call angel Gabriel "it"?
I would use masculine pronouns unless I were consciously trying not to for some reason. But that doesn't change the fact that he's neither male nor female, whether in biology or gender.
I would use masculine pronouns unless I were consciously trying not to for some reason.
This is what normal people do. And there has to be a good reason not to, such as gay mafia threatening their life.
Yes, grammatical gender is glitchy vis-a-vis objective reality (particularly with regard to inanimate things) and it may occasionally appear that a gender gets neglected, but it's a grammar thing - otherwise you are neglecting grammar!
Inventing a fourth gender to fix a problem that is not there (or, from another POV, is too bad already) is not a normal thing to do. Edit: There are other more drastic developments in languages, such as effectively the loss of plural nouns in (spoken) French. The same seems to be happening in Spanish as we speak: I keep noticing how Spanish and Latin American singers drop the s-sound whenever it should occur in the end of the syllable.
But that doesn't change the fact that he's neither male nor female, whether in biology or gender.
There's biology, there's definition of gender from several angles, and there's also theology. The last has very much to do with the definition of Gabriel (or of angels, rather).
There are other more drastic developments in languages, such as effectively the loss of plural nouns in (spoken) French. The same seems to be happening in Spanish as we speak: I keep noticing how Spanish and Latin American singers drop the s-sound whenever it should occur in the end of the syllable.
With the redundant plurality markers in those languages I suppose it stands to reason that something's got to give. In Dutch and English we only have de/the without any special plural determiner like les/los. Of course since that's my background I'm inclined to think it'd be a whole lot easier to simplify that shenanigans than to get rid of the -s. :P
There's biology, there's definition of gender from several angles, and there's also theology. The last has very much to do with the definition of Gabriel (or of angels, rather).
Sure, but pretty much only the latter-day types disagree on the basic nature of angels in this matter afaik. According to the regular Abrahamic religions angels are created spiritual beings quite distinct from humans without gender, and neither Christian nor Islamic developments from Judaism question that. Parenthetically, Islam has its spiritual but gendered jinn in addition to angels.
With the redundant plurality markers in those languages I suppose it stands to reason that something's got to give.
The important point is that it's the same invariant s everywhere that serves as a plural marker and now it's the s-sound giving way, regardless of what it's marking, if anything.
For example, Old French feste(s) became modern fête(s). Not only did the plural marker s disappear (in speech), but also the word-internal syllable-final s. The same universal reduction of s's in syllable-final positions is going on in Spanish right now. Portuguese likely does not qualify for this development.
Could you write the phrase in Portuguese? Are the Lutherans afraid to offend transsexuals by saying something like "ladies and gentlemen"?
"Be welcome, everybody"
used to be:
"Sejam todos bem vindos"
but now they say:
"Sejam bem vindos e bem vindas, todos e todas".
It's crazy.
In Portuguese, every noun has a gender. Woman is female, man is male. Interesting enough, vagina is female, clitoris is male. Person is female, human being is male. Country is male, land is female. One exception is for geographic proper nouns. Some of them are genderless, and so you cannot use an article before them. Brazil is male (o Brasil). Germany is female (a Alemanha). Portugal is genderless (o Portugal? a Portugal? No...) Lisbon, Berlin, New York are genderless. Rio is male. Once you want to qualify a genderless location, you have to put a gender to its adjective. I'm not sure on how it works. I suppose, if you want to say "Portugal is beautiful", the adjective will be male or female depending on whether you are referring to the country or to the land... usually male.
For example, Old French feste(s) became modern fête(s). Not only did the plural marker s disappear (in speech), but also the word-internal syllable-final s. The same universal reduction of s's in syllable-final positions is going on in Spanish right now. Portuguese likely does not qualify for this development.
In Brazil something similar has been happening for a long time, but since the government or president Lula, it has widespread like a plague. When the article or pronoun is plural, the noun used to be plural, but now, not only the final "s" has been dropped, but the plural altogether.
"the women" = "as mulheres" > "as mulher"
"two trucks" = "dois caminhões" > "dois caminhão"
Though it sounds just disgusting.
You're doubtless aware, but of course that aforementioned les is also pronounced /le/.
The English squirrel is also unrecognizable as the modern French écureuil. (Something like sciurus → scurellus → escuirel → écureuil.)
For French people all of that ê stuff is probably a complete nightmare, but it definitely makes things easier for me. All of those loanwords like Nl feest/En fest are much easier to recognize that way.
but also the word-internal syllable-final s.
I'm not sure if that the -s should be singled out. The final vowel disappeared in all cases except syllables ending in -a (turned into ə), which also disappeared completely in Modern French.
Internal syllables were dropped wholesale (insulata > île)
Several intervocalic consonants (maturus > mûr, augustus > août)
lactem > lacte > lait > le
vocem > voce > voiz > vwa
pontem > ponte > pont > põ
Lexical markings have (annoyingly to me) long since shifted completely from end to beginning.
I wasn't aware this was also happening in Spanish. :)
In Portuguese, every noun has a gender. Woman is female, man is male. Interesting enough, vagina is female, clitoris is male. Person is female, human being is male. Country is male, land is female. One exception is for geographic proper nouns. Some of them are genderless, and so you cannot use an article before them. Brazil is male (o Brasil). Germany is female (a Alemanha). Portugal is genderless (o Portugal? a Portugal? No...) Lisbon, Berlin, New York are genderless. Rio is male. Once you want to qualify a genderless location, you have to put a gender to its adjective. I'm not sure on how it works. I suppose, if you want to say "Portugal is beautiful", the adjective will be male or female depending on whether you are referring to the country or to the land... usually male.
In Dutch and German, a girl is neuter. Suck on that. :P
Vagina is feminine, so is clitoris.
I believe most countries are neuter, if only by association, and Dutch has no "its". So in Dutch you'd say "it Brazil of the 19th century and his whatever" (the Brazil of the 19th century and its…)
The girl example above is a rare example of deviating from grammar in this matter, however. Logically it would be "it girl and his toy" but we actually say "it girl and her toy" by a different, ungrammatical logic.
To make things difficult for me, many words that are masculine in the Netherlands are feminine in Belgium. So I'd say "the pigeon and his breadcrumb" unless I explicitly knew it was a female animal. A Belgian does the reverse.
You're doubtless aware, but of course that aforementioned les is also pronounced /le/.
You mean as in les fêtes [le fɛt]? The result of the loss of s's (which happened to serve as plural markers) is that the vowels of the article will have to bear the burden of serving as plural markers [la fɛt] versus [le fɛt]. Spanish may end up with the same result (the article shows the plural, not the noun) or a new marker may crop up.
"the women" = "as mulheres" > "as mulher"
"two trucks" = "dois caminhões" > "dois caminhão"
Though it sounds just disgusting.
So it's the number or article indicating the plural, not the noun. Looks like you are already living with it.
In Indo-European languages the subclass animate (people and animals)/inanimate (other living/non-living things) may have come first, before the appearance of gender. That was a real-life distinction unlike the genders, though hardly a useful one that incurs information. That of course goes for genders as well, so English could drop them with no ill effect.
Grammatical gender-assignment was hap-hazard for inanimates. The hypothesis that Germans thought differently about their feminine bridges than the French on their masculine doesn't seem to have worked out. The Norwegian word for woman, kvinne (related to English queen and Greek gyne) is masculine, but Norwegian was halted in the process from three genders to the two genders Danish and Swedish got (common and neuter), so kvinne is common more than masculine.
From grammatical gender to pronouns, he is derived from this (*hi-), she from the (seo). I would give a word like hen (han/hon) something like a 20% chance of long-term survival.
I would give a word like hen (han/hon) something like a 20% chance of long-term survival.
That's too much. I think if the invented form were something like "hön" or "hån" then it would have 15-20% chance of survival, because that's funny at least.
Land and rijk are neuter, so Duitsland is neuter by definition, as is Frankrijk. But so are places like China or Portugal, and I can't think of any counter-examples.
A night's sleep has provided me with a counterexample. It's
de Oekraïne, although I couldn't tell you if it's feminine or masculine. When in doubt the answer is usually that it "should" be feminine. The dictionary says it can be both.
A night's sleep has provided me with a counterexample. It's de Oekraïne, although I couldn't tell you if it's feminine or masculine.
Apparently the feminine or masculine is not explicit in the article or in the name, so where is it? What difference does it make whether you call it feminine or masculine? Would it make a difference when you add adjectives? Do participles in Dutch have some sort of gender distinctions/markers?
What difference does it make whether you call it feminine or masculine?
The difference lies in the referential pronouns. "Ukraine is a country in Eastern Europe and
her president is Petro Poroshenko." This is what makes French so confusing from our perspective, because they say "the woman and
his étui à lunettes." (Because étui is masculin, even though his refers back to feminine woman.)
Dutch is similar to English, except Dutch has the neuter determiner
het (usually [ət] or just t), missing in English, and English has the neuter pronoun
its, missing in Dutch. And of course the actual genders are different than in English, which has a distinction between objects (neuter) and live things (either way). But in Old English, it was very similar to Dutch, with gender being perfectly opaque.
PS Wo-
man (or rather wifman) is a masculine word in Old English, so in English it should arguably indeed be the woman and his étui, but that aside.
The difference lies in the referential pronouns. "Ukraine is a country in Eastern Europe and her president is Petro Poroshenko." This is what makes French so confusing from our perspective, because they say "the woman and his étui à lunettes."
It's because French does not have a
his (as a genitive of
he) in the first place, but the third person possessive adjective instead, just like there are possessive adjectives in the first and second person (
mon, ma, ton, ta). In fact, if German is any guide, then Dutch does the same thing (
mein(e), dein(e), sein(e) - mijn(e), dijn(e), zijn(e)) except that in addition to this set of possessive adjectives the third person pronoun has a genitive too, while the first and second person pronouns don't have a genitive.
Ever wondered why the first and second person pronouns don't have genitives in Germanic languages? Now that's confusing!
As to "Ukraine is a country in Eastern Europe and
her president is Petro Poroshenko" why don't you use
its because you are referring to a land? Ah, earlier you said that Dutch does not have an
its either. This is even more confusing! Dutch needs more fixing than French!
dijn
Possible if you're trying to sound like a time traveler, but the form is jouw, not unlike English (https://books.google.be/books?id=3TUXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA304&lpg=PA304&dq=yow+your&source=bl&ots=fmTSh-eIpF&sig=cLM2ZT84e-b03jRUroqROOCL3h4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwia97raiMjYAhVsKsAKHdvhBSYQ6AEIQjAJ#v=onepage&q=yow%20your&f=false).
why don't you use its because you are referring to a land?
It might be a conceptual land but in Duitsland what matters is that it's a modified form of land. Het Baskenland (n), de Baskenrepubliek (f), de Baskenstaat (m).
why don't you use its because you are referring to a land?
It might be a conceptual land but in Duitsland what matters is that it's a modified form of land. Het Baskenland (n), de Baskenrepubliek (f), de Baskenstaat (m).
Actually, your examples show all along that grammatical gender in Dutch has been reduced to the same level as in Swedish.
A grammatical gender can be said to be there if it has a marker or a distinction. In the set
- het Baskenland (n)
- de Baskenrepubliek (f)
- de Baskenstaat (m)
the gender is explicit in the neuter article. Elsewhere it is not there, not in the article and not in the word. So, for all intents and purposes, Dutch has two genders in nouns - neuter versus common, like the Nordic languages, and the distinction of feminine versus masculine can be said to have already gone "conceptual".
It is a stretch to claim that there is a distinction of (grammatical) feminine and masculine - a stretch insofar as it's not (grammatically) explicit. (It's explicit in the pronouns, but not in the nouns.) So it's gone "conceptual" in nouns and "conceptually" you should use an equivalent of
its for genitive or possessive of inanimate things. But if you lack an explicit
its, you're pretty much stuck, forced to a
his or
her - and there is no *grammatical* basis for either choice, because the nouns do not give you a *grammatical* hint either way. There can be only a "conceptual" or conventional choice.
In contrast, French has explicit masculine and feminine - explicit in the articles that you are supposed to memorise together with nouns. Even though you can't tell the (grammatical) gender from the word itself, you are supposed to memorise nouns together with the articles, and the article shows the gender. Same in German. Not so in Dutch, so you have already gone the way of Swedish and the grammatical genders you have are common versus neuter. If the school program has not caught up yet, I encourage you to suggest it to the relevant authorities.
Elsewhere it is not there, not in the article and not in the word.
That's at least somewhat debatable. I'd have to run numbers on it, but I'll hypothesize that words ending in -iek are feminine more often (wiek, piek, epiek, republiek, kriek, koliek) than not (giek, um…).
But yes, only pronouns like die/dat (that) and zijn/haar (his/her) carry a proper genus marker. At the same time these referential pronouns are meaningless without nouns.
But if you lack an explicit its, you're pretty much stuck, forced to a his or her
Note that the word "missing" might be misleading. In Old English it's genitive
his (m),
his (n),
hire (f).
Its is a Modern English development based on neuter
hit, from the nominative and accusative. Perhaps Dutch will gain an "its" too if the feminine continues its disappearance. Also note Old English hira (pl.).
In contrast, French has explicit masculine and feminine - explicit in the articles that you are supposed to memorise together with nouns.
Many French words can go either way and you just "randomly" assign a gender to indicate that, for example,
I am a man saying this about myself (or vice versa).
If the school program has not caught up yet, I encourage you to suggest it to the relevant authorities.
In linguistics we speak of common (subdivided in m and f) and neuter. I have no idea about the school program.
Elsewhere it is not there, not in the article and not in the word.
That's at least somewhat debatable. I'd have to run numbers on it, but I'll hypothesize that words ending in -iek are feminine more often (wiek, piek, epiek, republiek, kriek, koliek) than not (giek, um…).
Why debatable instead of demonstrable? The way I was taught, if there is no material distinction, then the purported grammatical distinction has lost its standing.
North Germanic languages acknowledge that f and m have merged and now they only have so-called en-gender and ett-gender, i.e. named after the indefinite articles. In Russian there are no articles, but the gender is seen:
1) in the adjective forms attached to nouns
2) in the endings of nouns (to simplify, а, я for f, о, е for n, and everything else for m)
3) in the declension - distinct declension groups according to gender
4) the related indicative pronouns depend on it
What is the material basis for f and m distinction in Dutch nouns?
You have talked about #4, but this is no better than English hifalutin prose from a century ago where
child was referred to as
it. When this point (relation to pronouns) is alone by itself, it does not have clear grammatical force, but can be seen as a cultural phenomenon, de-personification of children the same way as there is personification of e.g. ships to be referred to as
she.
Many French words can go either way and you just "randomly" assign a gender to indicate that, for example, I am a man saying this about myself (or vice versa).
Nobody ever speaks about the (grammatical) gender of
I. You must be the first one. Or maybe the first one after a Very Long Time.
I have no idea about the school program.
I mean the way common grammar books present it, guidebooks for tourists etc. What is their basis to stating that there is an f and m distinction in Dutch nouns? What practical difference does it make? From what I see, it has similar residual importance like in English or Swedish, certainly no grammatical importance.
North Germanic languages acknowledge that f and m have merged and now they only have so-called en-gender and ett-gender, i.e. named after the indefinite articles. In Russian there are no articles, but the gender is seen:
And Dutch is in an interim stage, most likely moving in that direction. I imagine neuter will also go the way of the dodo, judging by the hundreds of thousands of Dutch-Moroccans who don't seem to know the proper gender of words. (Neither does my wife but she's an actual immigrant, not third or fourth generation.) Either way this is not some kind of artificial difference kept afloat only by schooling like the (written) difference between
ei and
ij.
What is the material basis for f and m distinction in Dutch nouns?
History in various forms. On the one hand the whole case system used to be a real thing in Old Dutch/Early Middle Dutch just like in Old English and Old/Middle/Modern German, on the other hand in the 16th century they artificially reintroduced some Middle Dutch stuff into the written language because the model of a proper language (Latin) also had those markers. But either way, I don't fully understand what you're saying. Government is obviously feminine, or it wouldn't be so utterly
wrong to say "the government and his whatever." This is not particularly different from how an English word like
box is obviously neuter imo.
Nouns may not have genus (grammatically marked gender), but they are gendered. Dutch isn't Russian or Latin with their propagandistic, fictional perfections. Dutch is Dutch. :P
I mean the way common grammar books present it, guidebooks for tourists etc. What is their basis to stating that there is an f and m distinction in Dutch nouns? What practical difference does it make? From what I see, it has similar residual importance like in English or Swedish, certainly no grammatical importance.
Afaik they start by only making a distinction between
de and
het, as they should. The feminine gender is finesse, hardly relevant to making yourself understood. (Saying
de neuter noun would also be perfectly comprehensible but it's more disturbing.)
Anyway, I should probably point out that [ət] does function as a referential pronoun in speech. It's as a referential pronoun that it doesn't have a counterpart.
A: Heb je het pakket ontvangen? (Did you receive the package? Lit. have you the package received?)
B: Het is aangekomen. (It has arrived.)
A: Heb je de postkaart ontvangen? (Did you receive the postcard?)
B: Hij/zij is hier. (It's here.)
History in various forms.
So the distinction is there as much as in Swedish and English. Both Swedish and English were historically like German, but now there is only residue of grammatical genders. From the diachronic point of view they are native elements, but from the synchronic point of view they are more like exceptions or complications in the grammar. Finesses as you say.
But either way, I don't fully understand what you're saying.
I'm saying that the presence or non-presence of a grammatical category is objectively measurable - by means of listing the corresponding grammatical elements like I did. The less elements there are, accordingly the less relevance or reality the category has.
Nobody denies that English used to have three genders in nouns, but it's equally undeniable that it does not have them anymore, and the little it has is little, restricted to pronouns only. By the same standard, Swedes and Danes acknowledge that their number of grammatical genders has reduced to two - en and ett (so-called common and neuter). From what I can see, Dutch genders are like in Swedish or Danish.
Nobody denies that English used to have three genders in nouns, but it's equally undeniable that it does not have them anymore,
I deny that. :P
Gendered nouns:
Higher living things. Masculine or feminine depending on real-world gender.
Neuter nouns:
Objects and lower living things.
The difference with Old English and Dutch is that the gender is not opaque but can be reasoned out.
From what you're saying I can't tell with certainty if Swedish actually only has two genders like French, or if it's like Dutch, with you discounting an obvious gender because it doesn't meet your standards.
so-called common and neuter
I already said that's how we classify it:
In linguistics we speak of common (subdivided in m and f) and neuter. I have no idea about the school program.
Anyway, other markers live on semi-unproductively. Des = masculine (like in 's avonds, at night, lit. of the night) and der = feminine (like in der naturen bloeme, nature's feminine flower; that'd be des naturen bloem if flower were masculin).
I say semi because I unconsciously derived these rules long before I was taught in school that they were supposedly "archaic" and "frozen" expressions. That's the same kind of thing I mean with -iek feeling feminine to me. Just because there are a lot of ignoramuses out there doesn't mean we're all blind to the patterns. The fact that I strongly feel these things is not because of having studied Middle Dutch or some such, but because of my above-average (for my generation) affinity with 1950s-era Dutch. Anyone who's moderately well-read likely experiences the same, especially if they've lived in Belgium where these distinctions are not just a written vestige.
PS Or at least if they're moderately well-read in sufficiently old editions. They tend to adapt the spelling in newer editions; a practice to which I object unless it abides by the author's intent.
PPS In spoken language there are also some living vestiges like Frits Bolkestein, whom you might know from the Bolkestein Directive. He even pronounces all the
-ns in plurals and such, unlike pretty much anyone for the past century or two. I suppose I might be a little bit like him, although I don't do that.
Gendered nouns:
Higher living things. Masculine or feminine depending on real-world gender.
Neuter nouns:
Objects and lower living things.
The difference with Old English and Dutch is that the gender is not opaque but can be reasoned out.
The way you use "opaque" here must be with the focus on the objective-world ontological point of view, whereas my point of view is entirely linguistic. From the linguistic point of view, German (incl. Proto-Germanic) genders are explicit, operative and productive, and Russian and Latin genders are near-perfectly transparent and thus even more explicit, operative and productive than in German.
The correlation of the linguistic grammatical reality is incidental to the objective world. There are no necessary one-to-one connections to the objective world.
From what you're saying I can't tell with certainty if Swedish actually only has two genders like French...
Two genders, yes, but French has m and f (no neuter), whereas Swedish has common and neuter (no distinction of m and f). Numerically the same subdivision of genders, but different substance.
...or if it's like Dutch, with you discounting an obvious gender because it doesn't meet your standards.
They are linguistic standards, not my standards. Linguists have their way of detecting whether something is present in a language or not. It's comparative and relative, of course, but that's how language is and works.
Anyway, other markers live on semi-unproductively. Des = masculine (like in 's avonds, at night, lit. of the night) and der = feminine (like in der naturen bloeme, nature's feminine flower; that'd be des naturen bloem if flower were masculin).
I say semi because I unconsciously derived these rules long before I was taught in school that they were supposedly "archaic" and "frozen" expressions.
So your sense of presence of m and f derives from your acquaintance with older literature. The elements are called already "archaic" and "frozen" in school, but the literature is still so recent that the language teaching has not reoriented its terms.
This applies to some aspects of teaching Estonian also. In Estonian schools, they spend so much time teaching some irrelevant little orthographical details about Estonian well into the secondary school, forgetting big things like syntax, so that when children begin learning English where syntax is a big deal, the children begin unconsciously applying English syntax to Estonian. The result is so horrific that I have nearly ceased reading Estonian newspapers. I only read at least half a century old books and science literature. Which of course makes things even worse, because it should be my duty to educate Estonian teachers.
So your sense of presence of m and f derives from your acquaintance with older literature. The elements are called already "archaic" and "frozen" in school, but the literature is still so recent that the language teaching has not reoriented its terms.
In my mind post-WW2 is all "modern" (or in this case more typically postmodern in literary terminology), but again I'm not really sure what you mean by the language teaching. I already said foreigners are taught there are
de and
het words?
They are linguistic standards, not my standards. Linguists have their way of detecting whether something is present in a language or not. It's comparative and relative, of course, but that's how language is and works.
It does mention something about linguistics on my diploma, you know. :P
Two genders, yes, but French has m and f (no neuter), whereas Swedish has common and neuter (no distinction of m and f). Numerically the same subdivision of genders, but different substance.
Then clearly it's at least a century ahead of Dutch. ;)
I already said foreigners are taught there are de and het words?
That's
de and
het gender, so to speak, but how about m and f? Are Dutch children in schools taught about m and f as currently relevant grammatical genders?
It does mention something about linguistics on my diploma, you know.
Yes, I know. This is why I keep wondering why you argue as if there were something to argue.
That's de and het gender, so to speak, but how about m and f? Are Dutch children in schools taught about m and f as currently relevant grammatical genders?
If by "grammatical" you mean "kind of like in German" then my dad was in the '40s and '50; I wasn't in the '90s and '00s.
Yes, I know. This is why I keep wondering why you argue as if there were something to argue.
I'm merely taking a conservative position. A traditional, respectable grammar like the ANS says that both positions are defensible and I agree with them.
http://ans.ruhosting.nl/e-ans/03/03/01/body.html
Het belangrijkste genusonderscheid tussen substantieven noemen we dan ook dat tussen 'de -woorden' (zoals ezel) en ' het-woorden' (zoals paard). Vanuit dit standpunt bezien kan men dan ook zeggen dat het Nederlands een tweegenerasysteem heeft
The most important genus distinction between substantives we call that between de words (like ezel) and het words (like paard). From this point of view you can say that Dutch has a two genera system.
De de-woorden worden, ook als ze geen levende wezens aanduiden, in de geschreven taal ook wel onderscheiden in mannelijke en vrouwelijke woorden, respectievelijk masculina en feminina. (De het -woorden worden onzijdig (neutrum) genoemd.) Vanuit dit standpunt bezien (vergelijk 1) kan men dus zeggen dat het Nederlands een driegenerasysteem heeft. Ook in de gesproken taal , zij het slechts sporadisch in het noorden, maar algemeen in het zuidelijke deel van het taalgebied, waar de dialecten een driegenerasysteem hebben, wordt dat onderscheid gemaakt.
tl;dr In the north we mostly have a two genera system, except in writing (and formal spoken language), while in the south there still exists a degenerating three genera system.
Het bedoelde onderscheid is alleen van belang voor de verwijzing door middel van persoonlijke en bezittelijke (en in beperkte mate vragende en betrekkelijke) voornaamwoorden
The distinction in question is only relevant for referral through personal and possessive (and in limited degree questioning and relative) pronouns.
Naar mannelijke substantieven wordt verwezen met de voornaamwoorden hij, ie, zijn, z'n, wiens, naar vrouwelijke met zij, ze, haar, (d)'r, wier.
Masculine substantives are referred to with the pronouns hij, ie, zijn, z'n, wiens, feminine with zij, ze, haar, (d)'r, wier.
Being from '97, the ANS grammar partially predates the natural compromise of saying Dutch has a two genera system with one of the genera subdivided in masculine and feminine. But I intend to keep annoying Dutch teenagers with female doors for decades to come if I can help it, just like Frits Bolkestein. :devil:
Anyway, if you want the most up to date Dutch grammar just check the other topic. It's at Taalportaal, in English. They explicitly take a progressive stance, but one that's slightly too Netherlands-centric for my taste. I should probably point out that these (dialectal, not formal due to context) gender markers are alive and well in the speech of many people around me here in Antwerp, which colors my position a bit differently from the Amsterdam/Utrecht/Leiden people, with whom I would've agreed much more completely a decade ago. I now recognize that it's effectively
our Hollandic dialect. Standard Dutch is both southern and northern, western and eastern. It is not and should not be just Hollandic. I suppose I'm very progressive as far as that particular issue goes, but cynically speaking it's quite easy to be progressive when it is simultaneously conservative.
http://www.taalportaal.org/taalportaal/topic/pid/topic-14419054999947754
Dutch nouns can be sorted into two genders, labelled common and neuter. Common gender comprises the historical masculine and feminine gender, which have merged in most varieties. Common and neuter can be distinguished with the help of the definite article. Common gender nouns take the article de, neuter gender nouns take het. This is in line with the fact that gender is a morphosyntactic feature, expressed through agreement on associated words. In Dutch, gender agreement is visible on definite articles, adjectives in attributive position and a variety of pronouns: the relative, the personal, the demonstrative and the possessive pronoun, as well as on the indefinite pronouns ieder and elk. The two relative pronouns wiens whose (masculine) and wier whose (feminine)are becoming archaic, and are often used incorrectly.
[…]
Dutch personal pronouns are special because they distinguish three genders rather than two. The three pronominal genders have the values masculine, feminine and neuter. The mismatch between the nominal and the pronominal genders goes hand in hand with difficulties and extensive variation.
Further investigation shows that in 2013, a doctoral thesis came out which is what the Taalportaal article lists as one of its sources.
Audring, Jenny. 2009. Reinventing Pronoun Gender. Amsterdam. Free University. Thesis. http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/handle/1871/15413/8136.pdf
The abstract says that 20-year-olds use mainly semantic agreement (like in English) and the grammatical agreement with pronouns is limited mostly to 60-plus-year-olds. (Tell that to the Antwerp teens who do pronominal agreement and then some. :P)
Looks like I have to read it. Which is annoying (or awesome, let's say both), because I have yet to read The Dawn of Dutch, freely available from http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027264503.
Anyway, thanks! This thesis had slipped under my radar.
Anyway, thanks! This thesis had slipped under my radar.
And thank you for the reference(s). I found what to read in the thesis piece: Chapter 9, Diachrony and Parallels in Germanic.
On page 179 in the thesis piece there is a topical table where Dutch is neatly placed with Danish and Swedish.
But I have not properly kept in mind that Icelandic retains just about everything in Germanic grammar, including the three genders. I have Rask's work on Icelandic lined up for reading and I should not postpone it any longer. Every new generation should always reread the classics.
In Dutch and German, a girl is neuter. Suck on that. :P
That's right. One never knows, at first glance. :left: :right:
:faint:
Barbarians discussing gramar... it's a lost world.
Grammar.
Grammar.
"Quit you like men:be strong"
:)
Eh, ersi?! I just pointed out tht Belfrager had misspelt the word grammar ( :lol: ). By th eway that quote "Quit you like me be strong was the motto of my branch of a national youth organisation here attached to churches and is from the Bible. :up:
attached to churches and is from the Bible.
Explains why it doesn't make much sense. Doesn't excuse the bad grammar.
I'd let missing an 'm' in 'grammar' pass as a typo...
"Quit you like me be strong was the motto[...]
...But you're gonna want to close that quote. Maybe stay away from criticizing someone else's grammar. :)
You are being wrong as I was right to point out that the word was misspelt so are you sober?? My biblical quote used by a uniformed youth organisation long church attached is perfectly fine and an odd distraction from my passing and minor correction from Belfrager!
out tht Belfrager
By th eway
Do you want me to correct you? I think not.
Haha. Revenge is sweet eh? :D
Chile is now bishopless (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-44169484) and, different from other Nordic churches, Finnish Lutheran church is still not celebrating gays (https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10212107).
Eh, ersi?
They have offered to go but are still in existence and what is the weird Nordic stuff? Chile is nowhere near northern Europe nor part of it (as well as being Protestant Faith not Popish) !
Eh, ersi?
They have offered to go but are still in existence and what is the weird Nordic stuff? Chile is nowhere near northern Europe nor part of it (as well as being Protestant Faith not Popish) !
The latest on the religious front.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/style/wp/2018/05/21/feature/two-sons-of-rev-moon-have-split-from-his-church-and-their-followers-are-armed/?utm_term=.afe049fde2b8
Well poor man such people have been heavily influenced by the wonderful US of A so hardly surprising. No national churches in America just loads of would-be fanatical spiritual groups. Not surprised your grey cells give you the direction you have poor soul! :-[
The lack of a national church is a plus. In Scotland?
"More Scots than ever have described themselves as having no religion, according to new research.
The Scottish Attitudes Survey, compiled by the independent research body ScotCen, found 58% of respondents said they had no religion at all.
When the survey was carried out in 1999, the figure was 40%.
Among major denominations, the Church of Scotland has seen the sharpest decline, with just 18% saying the belong to the Kirk."
Dog bless our Scottish friends.
Seeing you are where you are from I will try and impart it a little more to you so muse slowly.
The rather challenging growth of your country had strong participation by a myriad nay legion of multi-evangelical peoplerather than a couple of established ones here like the CoE and the CoS and of course Jewish financial control, etc. Here we had a more generally consistent religious situation as we adapted to the world. That wee bit religious fanaticism of over the pond has had a rather weird forming of the country.
Catholicism in New York is out of business.
New York Catholic diocese files for bankruptcy to cover abuse lawsuit costs (https://news.yahoo.com/clergy-sex-abuse-cases-covid-160249166.html)
What I couldn't immediately find is if they're a business or a charity?
What I couldn't immediately find is if they're a business or a charity?
If it can go bankrupt, it is a business. Charities would just run out of steam.
Of course charities can go bankrupt.
If not, who pays for the suppliers and debts? Ersi & Frenzie Co?
I have an austere view of charities. A charity should employ only volunteers, no wage-earners. A charity should not buy stuff, only accept what is given and pass it on. Thus debt commitments cannot accrue and a bankruptcy is impossible.
Charities can be insolvent and liquidated, whatever you want to call it. Of course I was surprised that it sounded like the New York Catholic diocese was a business, which is why I'm curious if it's a business or a charity (as per New York statutes).
Catholic dioceses all over the world do more work helping human beings than most state institutions ever do, that you can be sure.
So it's really strange when I see people rejoicing because catholic institutions are facing financial difficulties.
As for American things specifically, they are totally out of comprehension. No comments.
Catholic dioceses all over the world do more work helping human beings than most state institutions ever do, that you can be sure.
Not the dioceses, but maybe Catholic orphanages and schools and what have you. Dioceses are basically a head-tax extortion racket.
Dioceses are basically a head-tax extortion racket.
Wrong. Dioceses are simply the Holy Church territorial units, created by the Pope all over the world and are administrate necessarily by a Bishop.
Very important dioceses will be called archdioceses.
Just that.
As for the financial administration, I'm not sure but I think that those Bishops will report to the Cardinals they are hierarchically subjected and the Cardinals will report directly to the Vatican's financial institution. In fact many dioceses at poor countries are very very poor and the social work needs to be financed by other dioceses or by the Vatican directly.
Et voilá. No secrets à lá Dan Brown. :wine:
As for the financial administration, I'm not sure...
Maybe a place to start to become more sure:
The Catholic church is as big as any company in America. Bankruptcy cases have shed some light on its finances and their mismanagement
A simple fact: Bishops get salaries and there are lucrative dioceses (with rich donors) and non-lucrative.
In a charity, nobody would get a salary.
And this is not just against the Catholic Church. For example in the Nordic countries, even though they like to think of themselves as secular now, the state church still operates as the head counter, officially registering births, deaths, and marriages.
No, that is the tax authorities. You could say they perform a similar divine role, knowing who is good, bad, or in arrears, where they live (or if they live) and who they are in family with.
Bishops get salaries
And so do priests. It's not practical to have people always behind them carrying bags full of money to pay the bills.
You seem not to know that many if not most priests are also doctors, teachers, philosophers, lawyers, economists and so on.
Most of them don't live in monasteries following a life of hermitage.
To become a simple priest you must study several years at the seminar where besides the religious studies you need to get a superior graduation in some area.
The Catholic Church is not isolated from the world, by the contrary. It needs to pay salaries, it needs to receive donations. In fact, the Church should be paid directly by the States for all the social work realized that the State doesn't do.
Yes, all of this is familiar to me. And what I am saying is that none of this is characteristic to a charity, given the tasks the church assumes and the way it performs them. It is a state power, the first estate in shambles.
In medieval times, the catholic church assumed itself to be above the state, with the authority to appoint kings and emperors. The protestant church became the state department of census and ideology. These days we still have significant remnants of this state-like institutionality.
The original apostolic-era church was a volunteer initiative operating like a charity as in Acts 4:32-34. These times ended as soon as popery became autocratic, orthodox patriarchs became emperor-appointed, and the church became the owner of land and serfs.
And what I am saying is that none of this is characteristic to a charity,
Ok, you base your point in a definition of "charity" that is not clear at all.
We have in my country what we call IPSS meaning Private Institutions for Social Solidarity, that's the closest I know to "charities". At all of them people are paid, I know it well, I already worked for one of those.
Those Institutions have a special tax regime because they aren't considered businesses. But they have to pay their debts as anyone else. They also have volunteers that don't have a salary but can have some form of retribution like meals or housing.
Charities are like everything else, it's not possible to do a consistent job if you don't pay people. Volunteering is very nice but you can't rely exclusively on them.
The Church does the same thing.
I agree with your points, Bel. (But I'd rather you said, say, "remuneration" or " recompense" than "retribution" -- which carries the weight of punishment in its connotation! Unless you meant just that, ala "No good deed goes..." :) )
Do you consider yourself, ersi, to be a Trotsky-ite (https://yctiwydramaturgy.weebly.com/terms-people-and-references.html) ? :)
In a thread about religion, I am the only one quoting scriptures. Just saying.
Just saying.
I'll take it then that you're a baptized, and confirmed
devotee to some sect of Obscurantism... Good to know.
Would you, will you answer my question: Do you consider yourself, ersi, to be a Trotsky-ite ? (You should have followed the link above...)
@OakdaleFTL No, I don't follow your links. When you give a link, you should either quote the relevant bit from there to here or you indicate how the whole page is totally worth reading. You are not even trying. You are off topic and irrelevant. Repetition will not help. About time for you to grow up and learn some basic internet manners.
Do you ever miss your sense of humor? You lost it long before we met... Perhaps you no longer feel the lack.
I picture you as a cloistered monk -- who long ago lost his faith.
Perhaps this will help: "Brevity may be the soul of wit. But diversion and digression are the twin pleasures of conversation."
(I know you don't get the point... :) )
Quoting snippets of scripture is not a fit exercise of a healthy intellect! (It reminds me of W.C. Fields on his death-bed being caught reading the Bible! His nurse inquires, "Claude! You're not getting religion, are you?" He replies, "No, my dear. Just looking for loopholes...") I also believe humility is mentioned somewhere in the Good Book... Have you any recollection of the context of such?
How about this?
Mexico’s president published an open letter to Pope Francis Saturday calling on the Roman Catholic Church to apologize for abuses of Indigenous peoples during the conquest of Mexico in the 1500s.
[...]
The letter comes as Mexico struggles with how to mark the 500th anniversary of the 1519-1521 conquest, which resulted in the death of a large part of the country’s pre-Hispanic population.
In 2019, López Obrador asked Spain for an apology for the conquest, in which millions of Indigenous people died from violence and disease.
Going back a long way for apologies from Rome considering modern times and even a cardinal in jail over in Australia!
Catholicism in New York is out of business.
If you'd read past the headline:
In Rockville Centre, Bishop Barres said the Chapter 11 filing would not immediately affect the operations of parishes and schools, because they are separate legal entities, although the diocese as a result would have less money to share with them.
"The financial burden of the litigation has been severe and only compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic," Bishop Barres said. "Our goal is to make sure that all clergy sexual abuse survivors, and not just a few who were the first to file lawsuits, are afforded just and equitable compensation."
Barres assured parishioners that their church offerings would not be used in any lawsuit settlements.
Child protection remains a priority for the church, he said.
"Our diocese underwent extensive reforms in 2003, with the creation of our Office for the Protection of Children and Young People. We will continue to be vigilant in our commitment to child protection," Barres said.
(at this point, you can read "the rest of the story" as it were... :) )
How about this?
t seems that Mexico got a president who is clearly a historical ignorant and an idiot. It happens frequently with Republics.
Hard to get good help nowadays.
New Orleans archbishop: Priest's desecration of altar 'demonic' (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop-aymond-new-orleans-priests-desecration-of-altar-demonic-29763)
The Archbishop of New Orleans said Friday that a priest’s filming of a pornographic videotape atop a church’s altar was demonic, and that the priest will never again serve in Catholic ministry.
Fr. Travis Clark’s “obscene behavior was deplorable,” Aymond said in a statement released by the Archdiocese Oct. 9.
“His desecration of the altar in Church was demonic. I am infuriated by his actions. When the details became clear, we had the altar removed and burned. I will consecrate a new altar tomorrow,” Aymond said.
The RC Church has held onto clergy not permitted to marry and for centuries not some dashed recent modernism a hard fact that it has been a corrupt as could be for centuries. It once included Popes as well as senior and junior clergy so as obvious as possible that priestly corruption a permanent thing. Even that famous German priest Martin Luther was very shocked at Rome when he visited. If the ill-based Vatican had seen sense when set up moral corruption would hot be a nuilt in permanent corrupt status. The Russian Orthodox Church for all it's formal procedures encourages marriage and having families amongst their clergy. Years ago we had a bishop in their denomination here in Scotland but eventually turned out to be second fancy woman. A dozen or so years ago I was on a ferry across the Irish Sea from Scotland to Ulster and met a clergyman from England whom I had a passing deep chat with as he told me he was a priest and then introduced me to his wife!Claimed he had been a clergyman in the Church of England?!
Moral sexual corruption in the Roman corner has been a disgrace and they do sod all about it. From me a strong Protestant I would advise that lot to follow the Orthodox who has always had married clergy and families! :idea:
Better yet, RJ: No more human priests! AI is the way to go. What's the worst that could happen? :)
(I remember an old SciFi short-short where the world's most advance computer was built. The first question put to it was "Is there a God?" The machine promptly replied "There is now!")
Even better, no more rjhowie's mumbo jumbo. ;)
I also remember an old Sci-Fi short story, by Arthur C. Clarke,
The Nine Billion Names of God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Billion_Names_of_God).
Plot summary
In a Tibetan lamasery, the monks seek to list all of the names of God. They believe the Universe was created for this purpose, and that once this naming is completed, God will bring the Universe to an end. Three centuries ago, the monks created an alphabet in which they calculated they could encode all the possible names of God, numbering about 9,000,000,000 ("nine billion") and each having no more than nine characters. Writing the names out by hand, as they had been doing, even after eliminating various nonsense combinations, would take another 15,000 years; the monks wish to use modern technology to finish this task more quickly.
They rent a computer capable of printing all the possible permutations, and they hire two Westerners to install and program the machine. The computer operators are skeptical but play along. After three months, as the job nears completion, they fear that the monks will blame the computer, and by extension its operators, when nothing happens. The Westerners delay the operation of the computer so that it will complete its final print run just after their scheduled departure. After their successful departure on ponies, they pause on the mountain path on their way back to the airfield, where a plane is waiting to take them back to civilization. Under a clear night sky they estimate that it must be just about the time that the monks are pasting the final printed names into their holy books. Then they notice that "overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out."
Well how about this OakdaleFTL.
As a very strong Protestant and spoke at including rallies during a long time in my city education department as a school liason officer for a state RC secondary school for ten years. One of the teachers was a young nun just turned 30 and we got on well so when she was moving to another school arranged to take her out to a nearby posh restaurant. She was in a smart grey jacket and skirt and a small modest wee hat. During the pleasant meal she smiled and said she had never had a date with an Orangeman before and I laughed ans said same for me with a nun!
The Church of Scotland gave up running Prot schools towards the end of the 19th century saying was the State's job of giving education but I have never agreed with the State running RC ones. I also got on well with that school's chaplain who fully knew my corner and we got on well even though different corners. Lucky priest knowing me! :D
Better yet, RJ: No more human priests! AI is the way to go. What's the worst that could happen? :)
(I remember an old SciFi short-short where the world's most advance computer was built. The first question put to it was "Is there a God?" The machine promptly replied "There is now!")
Dwan Ev ceremoniously soldered the final connection with gold. The eyes of a dozen television cameras watched him and the subether bore throughout the universe a dozen pictures of what he was doing. He straightened and nodded to Dwar Reyn, then moved to a position beside the switch that would complete the contact when he threw it. The switch that would connect, all at once, all of the monster computing machines of all the populated planets in the universe -- ninety-six billion planets -- into the supercircuit that would connect them all into one supercalculator, one cybernetics machine that would combine all the knowledge of all the galaxies. Dwar Reyn spoke briefly to the watching and listening trillions.
Then after a moment's silence he said, "Now, Dwar Ev." Dwar Ev threw the switch. There was a mighty hum, the surge of power from ninety-six billion planets. Lights flashed and quieted along the miles-long panel. Dwar Ev stepped back and drew a deep breath.
"The honor of asking the first question is yours, Dwar Reyn."
"Thank you," said Dwar Reyn. "It shall be a question which no single cybernetics machine has been able to answer."
He turned to face the machine. "Is there a God?"
The mighty voice answered without hesitation, without the clicking of a single relay. "Yes, now there is a God."
Sudden fear flashed on the face of Dwar Ev. He leaped to grab the switch. A bolt of lightning from the cloudless sky struck him down and fused the switch shut.
—Fredric Brown,
Answer
Thanks jax! That's the one. Brown was a prolific cynic... :)
What little respect I had for Evangelical Christians was washed away the past 4 years with the way they have elevated Trump to the level of, or just below, YHWH.
There is currently a trending post on Facebook from that bunch saying “It took Jesus 3 days to perform a miracle too 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 “
Seems very sacrilegious to me. But then again, these same ppl are voting for Trump regardless of the fact he paid for his mistresses to have abortions (that topic is #1 in Mississippi) the 3-5 rape allegations, emoluments clause violations, etc, etc.
Eyes wide shut.
Unfortunately evangelical traditions over the pond are rather different and as a strong Prot where orange y favourite colour (!) a bit f a sigh.
Vatican puts EU founding father Robert Schuman on path to sainthoodIn bestowing the title "venerable" on Schuman, Francis put the Luxembourg-born leader on course to be designated as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church.
Schuman, who died in 1963, was a devout Catholic who "lived in prayer and was nourished by the daily Eucharist," the Vatican said.