[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I refuse to give up on you Chris. (or you either Pat) St. Thomas has left you guys naked and bleeding in a den of lions. You give them home advantage every time you do this.[/quote]
Hmmm, St. Thomas or John Calvin? I think I will stick with a bonifide genius, philosopher, scientist, and theologin. Not some nut-job reformer who made shit up out of thin air and pass it off as theology; who even other reformers think is whacked.
But thanks…
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
In what way are any of these things contingent upon the existence of a God? The self? As in “me, not you”? In what way is that scientifically inexplicable?
More generally: the burden of proof lies with the theist, not the atheist. It is on you to prove that there is a God, not on me to prove that there isn’t. So it is on you to prove that God was responsible for these things, not on me to prove that He wasn’t. And you can’t do that.[/quote]
So you’re not going to explain how the conscious, language, and the self came about through natural evolution?
More generally: no it does not. Answer how the conscious, language, and the self came about through naturally. [/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean by language, all social animals communicate. Humans use language to communicate, wales use wale song.
Couldn’t evolution of the brain be where the self or conscious comes from?[/quote]
Perhaps, but what is “consciousness”? I am more interested in what it is then how it got there.
[quote]HaveIronWillLift wrote:
Oh…you mean conscience? Just read the other posts.
I would say language is easy enough to figure in that it is merely a pattern of sounds that everybody agree means things.
[quote]
3. The self? Personally I was conceived due to coitus unlike the child of a certain lady who is full of grace and blessed amongst women.[/quote]
The ‘self’ is short for self awareness, or consciousness. Ploppin’ out of mama’s twat doesn’t mean you have self awareness, though most likely you do.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
In what way are any of these things contingent upon the existence of a God? The self? As in “me, not you”? In what way is that scientifically inexplicable?
More generally: the burden of proof lies with the theist, not the atheist. It is on you to prove that there is a God, not on me to prove that there isn’t. So it is on you to prove that God was responsible for these things, not on me to prove that He wasn’t. And you can’t do that.[/quote]
So you’re not going to explain how the conscious, language, and the self came about through natural evolution?
More generally: no it does not. Answer how the conscious, language, and the self came about through naturally. [/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean by language, all social animals communicate. Humans use language to communicate, wales use wale song.
Couldn’t evolution of the brain be where the self or conscious comes from?[/quote]
Perhaps, but what is “consciousness”? I am more interested in what it is then how it got there.[/quote]
Consciousness - Wikipedia (wikipedia) It has to do with our awareness of the world around us. This is an involved topic, people dedicate degrees to this stuff.
The op was asking where it came from. If it is a thought it comes from the brain.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I refuse to give up on you Chris. (or you either Pat) St. Thomas has left you guys naked and bleeding in a den of lions. You give them home advantage every time you do this.[/quote]Hmmm, St. Thomas or John Calvin? I think I will stick with a bonifide genius, philosopher, scientist, and theologin. Not some nut-job reformer who made shit up out of thin air and pass it off as theology; who even other reformers think is whacked.
But thanks…[/quote]Pat you’re too young for all this hypertension. Calm down my old friend. I’ll go with Paul like Calvin did. Zeb is right about how this is gonna go. You are in their intellectual arena attempting to fight with their weapons and they will win. Aquinas, despite being indeed an astronomical genius never did find the way out of father Adam’s broken epistemology. He didn’t even try. He willfully embraced it in the very Greek thinkers Paul denounces in his 1st letter to the Corinthians chapter 1. His god bows the knee to the same allegedly eternal omnipotent laws that these unbelievers worship. I’m am holding out hope that you will see that one day, but I’m thinkin not today.
I’ve got news for you: these questions are not going be resolved on a bodybuilding forum. The fact that I don’t have a phd in neuroscience and cannot explain the origin of human consciousness does not mean that your book of ancient fairy tales is correct. I can’t explain how a computer works either…doesn’t mean I think Jesus lives inside the shiny box and makes the internet pages appear with God-magic.
Look I try to be respectful most of the time but in the interest of honesty I’m going to be frank. You have the mentality and naivete of a child. You dedicate a a substantial amount of your time (and I’m going to assume money as well) to following and defending a primitive mythology. A third-century middle-eastern shepherd can be excused for being stupid and needy enough to devote himself to Christianity (of Judaism or Islam or Zoroastrianism etc). An adult living in the industrialized West cannot. Biblical literalism is entirely dead. It has been killed a hundred million times over by centuries-worth of philosophers and scientists, all of whom are smarter than you. What does that leave you with? A book of metaphorical parables? In what way is that different from Aesop’s fables? Or Winnie the fucking Pooh?
Someone brought up the proof from cosmology. There is room for that kind of a discussion in the modern world–the great existential questions have not yet been answered (though they probably never will be). But stories in a book that was written by men thousands of years ago? Many of which are literally nothing more than recycled pagan fairy tales? If a supreme being is responsible for the existence of matter–and that is an unresolved philosophical question–how can you be so fucking arrogant to think that you know His most intimate wishes? What hubris men are capable of!
I sometimes hope that, for one instant just before your descent into the unending nothingness of death, you devout will realize that the storybook pearl gates of heaven do not and have not ever existed; that the philosophy with which you wasted your only single shot at existence is nothing more than a colossal sham; that gone forever are your miserable lives spent in exhausted devotion to the laughably anachronistic demands of a childish fairy-tale deity.
That is going to be one hell of a last thought.
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
In what way are any of these things contingent upon the existence of a God? The self? As in “me, not you”? In what way is that scientifically inexplicable?
More generally: the burden of proof lies with the theist, not the atheist. It is on you to prove that there is a God, not on me to prove that there isn’t. So it is on you to prove that God was responsible for these things, not on me to prove that He wasn’t. And you can’t do that.[/quote]
So you’re not going to explain how the conscious, language, and the self came about through natural evolution?
More generally: no it does not. Answer how the conscious, language, and the self came about through naturally. [/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean by language, all social animals communicate. Humans use language to communicate, wales use wale song.
Couldn’t evolution of the brain be where the self or conscious comes from?[/quote]
Perhaps, but what is “consciousness”? I am more interested in what it is then how it got there.[/quote]
Consciousness - Wikipedia (wikipedia) It has to do with our awareness of the world around us. This is an involved topic, people dedicate degrees to this stuff.
The op was asking where it came from. If it is a thought it comes from the brain. [/quote]
You referring whether you know it or not, to the mind-body problem. You’re on the body side of the equation.
Well done sir. Bravo SMH.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I refuse to give up on you Chris. (or you either Pat) St. Thomas has left you guys naked and bleeding in a den of lions. You give them home advantage every time you do this.[/quote]Hmmm, St. Thomas or John Calvin? I think I will stick with a bonifide genius, philosopher, scientist, and theologin. Not some nut-job reformer who made shit up out of thin air and pass it off as theology; who even other reformers think is whacked.
But thanks…[/quote]Pat you’re too young for all this hypertension. Calm down my old friend. I’ll go with Paul like Calvin did. Zeb is right about how this is gonna go. You are in their intellectual arena attempting to fight with their weapons and they will win. Aquinas, despite being indeed an astronomical genius never did find the way out of father Adam’s broken epistemology. He didn’t even try. He willfully embraced it in the very Greek thinkers Paul denounces in his 1st letter to the Corinthians chapter 1. His god bows the knee to the same allegedly eternal omnipotent laws that these unbelievers worship. I’m am holding out hope that you will see that one day, but I’m thinkin not today.
[/quote]
Calvinism was derived from Calvin, not Paul…The TULIP dogma is a man made tenet scarcely biblical if at all. If you take things out of context, you can make any book say anything…
I love St. Paul, so did Aquinas. St. Paul denounced greek thinkers?? LOL! Where?
1 Cor chap 1 was referring to the enemies of the Christians and those who spoke ill of them, mocked them or punished them. It wasn’t a denunciation of Plato or Aristotle or greek philosophers in general.
It’s interesting to me how you extrapolate this one paragraph to mean all Jews and Greeks are wrong, yet 1 Cor capt 11 clearly spells out Eucharistic doctrine and suddenly, St. Paul is wrong about that…Very interesting indeed.
Don’t worry, I know you will alway avoid the hard questions.
I am not hypertensive. I am just not going to submit to your insults…
And ‘their’ intellectual arena is far more compelling than your bible thumping. Besides, this is BC’s arena.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I’ve got news for you: these questions are not going be resolved on a bodybuilding forum. The fact that I don’t have a phd in neuroscience and cannot explain the origin of human consciousness does not mean that your book of ancient fairy tales is correct. I can’t explain how a computer works either…doesn’t mean I think Jesus lives inside the shiny box and makes the internet pages appear with God-magic.
Look I try to be respectful most of the time but in the interest of honesty I’m going to be frank. You have the mentality and naivete of a child. You dedicate a a substantial amount of your time (and I’m going to assume money as well) to following and defending a primitive mythology. A third-century middle-eastern shepherd can be excused for being stupid and needy enough to devote himself to Christianity (of Judaism or Islam or Zoroastrianism etc). An adult living in the industrialized West cannot. Biblical literalism is entirely dead. It has been killed a hundred million times over by centuries-worth of philosophers and scientists, all of whom are smarter than you. What does that leave you with? A book of metaphorical parables? In what way is that different from Aesop’s fables? Or Winnie the fucking Pooh?
Someone brought up the proof from cosmology. There is room for that kind of a discussion in the modern world–the great existential questions have not yet been answered (though they probably never will be). But stories in a book that was written by men thousands of years ago? Many of which are literally nothing more than recycled pagan fairy tales? If a supreme being is responsible for the existence of matter–and that is an unresolved philosophical question–how can you be so fucking arrogant to think that you know His most intimate wishes? What hubris men are capable of!
I sometimes hope that, for one instant just before your descent into the unending nothingness of death, you devout will realize that the storybook pearl gates of heaven do not and have not ever existed; that the philosophy with which you wasted your only single shot at existence is nothing more than a colossal sham; that gone forever are your miserable lives spent in exhausted devotion to the laughably anachronistic demands of a childish fairy-tale deity.
That is going to be one hell of a last thought.[/quote]
I get your thoughts…I happen to hold that book of fairy tales in high regard, but I know better then to beat an unbeleiver over the head with it. One has to believe in God before a book about God makes any sense…
Anyhow, the book isn’t recycled pagan stories, the similarities are purely coinsidental. Most of the OT is the story of the Jewish people. The rise and the fall. Now many of the old texts were passed by oral tradition, prior to writing them down. Therefore the grape-vine effect is in order.
Despite that it’s definatly, just as a piece of literature, a very interesting read. I’ll give the ancient hebrews one thing, they put it all down, the good, the bad and the ugly. So it’s an honest account.
BTW, nobody is a biblical literalist. Least of those who claim to be. Those who claim to be, only pick and choose what parts they want to take literally. Those parts they don’t like, are suddenly symbolic.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< St. Paul denounced greek thinkers?? LOL! Where?
1 Cor chap 1 was referring to the enemies of the Christians and those who spoke ill of them, mocked them or punished them. It wasn’t a denunciation of Plato or Aristotle or greek philosophers in general. >>>[/quote]1st Corinthians 1:17-31 ESV
[quote]17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”[/quote]If you do not believe that Paul is here referring to the very famous galaxy of Greek philosophers including Plato, Aristotle and Socrates then who was he referring to? The citizens of Corinth knew EXACTLY who he was referring to. He is telling them flatly NOT to do what Aquinas did which was embrace the wisdom of this world proclaimed by exactly the people he was here denouncing. Paul as a high ranking and educated Jew I promise you was well versed in what he was warning against.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
In what way are any of these things contingent upon the existence of a God? The self? As in “me, not you”? In what way is that scientifically inexplicable?
More generally: the burden of proof lies with the theist, not the atheist. It is on you to prove that there is a God, not on me to prove that there isn’t. So it is on you to prove that God was responsible for these things, not on me to prove that He wasn’t. And you can’t do that.[/quote]
So you’re not going to explain how the conscious, language, and the self came about through natural evolution?
More generally: no it does not. Answer how the conscious, language, and the self came about through naturally. [/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean by language, all social animals communicate. Humans use language to communicate, wales use wale song.
Couldn’t evolution of the brain be where the self or conscious comes from?[/quote]
Perhaps, but what is “consciousness”? I am more interested in what it is then how it got there.[/quote]
Consciousness - Wikipedia (wikipedia) It has to do with our awareness of the world around us. This is an involved topic, people dedicate degrees to this stuff.
The op was asking where it came from. If it is a thought it comes from the brain. [/quote]
You referring whether you know it or not, to the mind-body problem. You’re on the body side of the equation. [/quote]
If by mind you don’t mean brain then yes I’m on the side of body. I think I’ve read about that before. Arguing where is probably pointless if we can’t agree on stuff like how we came to be in the first place. I think that was part of BG’s point.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I’ve got news for you: these questions are not going be resolved on a bodybuilding forum. The fact that I don’t have a phd in neuroscience and cannot explain the origin of human consciousness does not mean that your book of ancient fairy tales is correct. I can’t explain how a computer works either…doesn’t mean I think Jesus lives inside the shiny box and makes the internet pages appear with God-magic.
Look I try to be respectful most of the time but in the interest of honesty I’m going to be frank. You have the mentality and naivete of a child. You dedicate a a substantial amount of your time (and I’m going to assume money as well) to following and defending a primitive mythology. A third-century middle-eastern shepherd can be excused for being stupid and needy enough to devote himself to Christianity (of Judaism or Islam or Zoroastrianism etc). An adult living in the industrialized West cannot. Biblical literalism is entirely dead. It has been killed a hundred million times over by centuries-worth of philosophers and scientists, all of whom are smarter than you. What does that leave you with? A book of metaphorical parables? In what way is that different from Aesop’s fables? Or Winnie the fucking Pooh?
Someone brought up the proof from cosmology. There is room for that kind of a discussion in the modern world–the great existential questions have not yet been answered (though they probably never will be). But stories in a book that was written by men thousands of years ago? Many of which are literally nothing more than recycled pagan fairy tales? If a supreme being is responsible for the existence of matter–and that is an unresolved philosophical question–how can you be so fucking arrogant to think that you know His most intimate wishes? What hubris men are capable of!
I sometimes hope that, for one instant just before your descent into the unending nothingness of death, you devout will realize that the storybook pearl gates of heaven do not and have not ever existed; that the philosophy with which you wasted your only single shot at existence is nothing more than a colossal sham; that gone forever are your miserable lives spent in exhausted devotion to the laughably anachronistic demands of a childish fairy-tale deity.
That is going to be one hell of a last thought.[/quote]
Anyhow, the book isn’t recycled pagan stories, the similarities are purely coinsidental. [/quote]
Defend the above. Explain the “coincidence”.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I’ve got news for you: these questions are not going be resolved on a bodybuilding forum. The fact that I don’t have a phd in neuroscience and cannot explain the origin of human consciousness does not mean that your book of ancient fairy tales is correct. I can’t explain how a computer works either…doesn’t mean I think Jesus lives inside the shiny box and makes the internet pages appear with God-magic.
Look I try to be respectful most of the time but in the interest of honesty I’m going to be frank. You have the mentality and naivete of a child. You dedicate a a substantial amount of your time (and I’m going to assume money as well) to following and defending a primitive mythology. A third-century middle-eastern shepherd can be excused for being stupid and needy enough to devote himself to Christianity (of Judaism or Islam or Zoroastrianism etc). An adult living in the industrialized West cannot. Biblical literalism is entirely dead. It has been killed a hundred million times over by centuries-worth of philosophers and scientists, all of whom are smarter than you. What does that leave you with? A book of metaphorical parables? In what way is that different from Aesop’s fables? Or Winnie the fucking Pooh?
Someone brought up the proof from cosmology. There is room for that kind of a discussion in the modern world–the great existential questions have not yet been answered (though they probably never will be). But stories in a book that was written by men thousands of years ago? Many of which are literally nothing more than recycled pagan fairy tales? If a supreme being is responsible for the existence of matter–and that is an unresolved philosophical question–how can you be so fucking arrogant to think that you know His most intimate wishes? What hubris men are capable of!
I sometimes hope that, for one instant just before your descent into the unending nothingness of death, you devout will realize that the storybook pearl gates of heaven do not and have not ever existed; that the philosophy with which you wasted your only single shot at existence is nothing more than a colossal sham; that gone forever are your miserable lives spent in exhausted devotion to the laughably anachronistic demands of a childish fairy-tale deity.
That is going to be one hell of a last thought.[/quote]
APPLAUSE - STANDING FUCKING OVATION - BRAVO!
Imagine if ALL the mystics on the planet just pulled their heads out of their asses and believed in reality and science. Imagine how wonderful and advanced we’d be.
As for the cosmological argument - astrophysicists have been just piling on the data about the big bang etc, yet the bible pushers still claim the big man in the clouds they call God somehow created it.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< St. Paul denounced greek thinkers?? LOL! Where?
1 Cor chap 1 was referring to the enemies of the Christians and those who spoke ill of them, mocked them or punished them. It wasn’t a denunciation of Plato or Aristotle or greek philosophers in general. >>>[/quote]1st Corinthians 1:17-31 ESV
[quote]17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”[/quote]If you do not believe that Paul is here referring to the very famous galaxy of Greek philosophers including Plato, Aristotle and Socrates then who was he referring to? The citizens of Corinth knew EXACTLY who he was referring to. He is telling them flatly NOT to do what Aquinas did which was embrace the wisdom of this world proclaimed by exactly the people he was here denouncing. Paul as a high ranking and educated Jew I promise you was well versed in what he was warning against.
[/quote]
No, he was not at all referring to them at all. He was referring to those rejecting the gospel he was preaching, that’s it. He is saying that all the wisdom of the Gospel and that of God is greater than all wisdom by man.
If he was trying to prove Aristotle unwise, then he failed miserably. You have to prove philosophies wrong, not say it’s wrong and hope people agree with you. This is not what Paul was doing. Seriously, did you ever read any of the background info behind the epistles? It may help you not make grave mistakes like this.
If you really want to destroy Aristotle or Aquinas, prove them wrong. Taking the epistles out of context is doing you a great deal of harm. We are to seek wisdom, not shroud our selves in wilfull ignorance.
So I’ll be Aquinas or Aristotle, you pick. Then bring up one or some of their philosophies and show why what they said is wrong. If what they said is wrong, you simply need to prove it. If you think this out of context quote proves them wrong, make an argument for it…
You cannot though can you?
This is why I say you are incapable of honest debate, you will run away from this because you cannot answer the question.
You will shirk this because you falsely think that St. Paul is telling you to avoid gaining wisdom…
Go read the Proverbs, all wisdom is from God, is it not? So if what Aristotle or Aquinas said was wrong and proven so, that would make them unwise…If what they said was true, then isn’t all truth from God? Or are you saying there is truth apart from God?
Don’t worry, I have come not to expect you to address these questions and concerns. I fully expect you to avoid it like the plague. It will not stop me from calling out your foolishness.
Apparently I need your prayers Pat.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I’ve got news for you: these questions are not going be resolved on a bodybuilding forum. The fact that I don’t have a phd in neuroscience and cannot explain the origin of human consciousness does not mean that your book of ancient fairy tales is correct. I can’t explain how a computer works either…doesn’t mean I think Jesus lives inside the shiny box and makes the internet pages appear with God-magic.
Look I try to be respectful most of the time but in the interest of honesty I’m going to be frank. You have the mentality and naivete of a child. You dedicate a a substantial amount of your time (and I’m going to assume money as well) to following and defending a primitive mythology. A third-century middle-eastern shepherd can be excused for being stupid and needy enough to devote himself to Christianity (of Judaism or Islam or Zoroastrianism etc). An adult living in the industrialized West cannot. Biblical literalism is entirely dead. It has been killed a hundred million times over by centuries-worth of philosophers and scientists, all of whom are smarter than you. What does that leave you with? A book of metaphorical parables? In what way is that different from Aesop’s fables? Or Winnie the fucking Pooh?
Someone brought up the proof from cosmology. There is room for that kind of a discussion in the modern world–the great existential questions have not yet been answered (though they probably never will be). But stories in a book that was written by men thousands of years ago? Many of which are literally nothing more than recycled pagan fairy tales? If a supreme being is responsible for the existence of matter–and that is an unresolved philosophical question–how can you be so fucking arrogant to think that you know His most intimate wishes? What hubris men are capable of!
I sometimes hope that, for one instant just before your descent into the unending nothingness of death, you devout will realize that the storybook pearl gates of heaven do not and have not ever existed; that the philosophy with which you wasted your only single shot at existence is nothing more than a colossal sham; that gone forever are your miserable lives spent in exhausted devotion to the laughably anachronistic demands of a childish fairy-tale deity.
That is going to be one hell of a last thought.[/quote]
Just QFT
[quote]saveski wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I’ve got news for you: these questions are not going be resolved on a bodybuilding forum. The fact that I don’t have a phd in neuroscience and cannot explain the origin of human consciousness does not mean that your book of ancient fairy tales is correct. I can’t explain how a computer works either…doesn’t mean I think Jesus lives inside the shiny box and makes the internet pages appear with God-magic.
Look I try to be respectful most of the time but in the interest of honesty I’m going to be frank. You have the mentality and naivete of a child. You dedicate a a substantial amount of your time (and I’m going to assume money as well) to following and defending a primitive mythology. A third-century middle-eastern shepherd can be excused for being stupid and needy enough to devote himself to Christianity (of Judaism or Islam or Zoroastrianism etc). An adult living in the industrialized West cannot. Biblical literalism is entirely dead. It has been killed a hundred million times over by centuries-worth of philosophers and scientists, all of whom are smarter than you. What does that leave you with? A book of metaphorical parables? In what way is that different from Aesop’s fables? Or Winnie the fucking Pooh?
Someone brought up the proof from cosmology. There is room for that kind of a discussion in the modern world–the great existential questions have not yet been answered (though they probably never will be). But stories in a book that was written by men thousands of years ago? Many of which are literally nothing more than recycled pagan fairy tales? If a supreme being is responsible for the existence of matter–and that is an unresolved philosophical question–how can you be so fucking arrogant to think that you know His most intimate wishes? What hubris men are capable of!
I sometimes hope that, for one instant just before your descent into the unending nothingness of death, you devout will realize that the storybook pearl gates of heaven do not and have not ever existed; that the philosophy with which you wasted your only single shot at existence is nothing more than a colossal sham; that gone forever are your miserable lives spent in exhausted devotion to the laughably anachronistic demands of a childish fairy-tale deity.
That is going to be one hell of a last thought.[/quote]
APPLAUSE - STANDING FUCKING OVATION - BRAVO!
Imagine if ALL the mystics on the planet just pulled their heads out of their asses and believed in reality and science. Imagine how wonderful and advanced we’d be.
As for the cosmological argument - astrophysicists have been just piling on the data about the big bang etc, yet the bible pushers still claim the big man in the clouds they call God somehow created it.
[/quote]
Not sure I agree.
Yes, the hundreds of Christian myths are no different than the hundreds of Hindu, Muslim, etc. myths that people subscribe to like children believing in Santa Claus.
However, that doesn’t mean there’s no utility in false beliefs. If it makes people want to treat one other with kindness, fairness, and respect, I’m not sure it’s such a bad thing.
Ideally people would have the moral maturity to do this anyway, without needing superstitious mumbo jumbo to motivate them. But not everyone is morally mature. Lacking that motivation, many would probably give in to addictions, violence, and selfishness.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Not sure I agree.
Yes, the hundreds of Christian myths are no different than the hundreds of Hindu, Muslim, etc. myths that people subscribe to like children believing in Santa Claus.
However, that doesn’t mean there’s no utility in false beliefs. If it makes people want to treat one other with kindness, fairness, and respect, I’m not sure it’s such a bad thing.
Ideally people would have the moral maturity to do this anyway, without needing superstitious mumbo jumbo to motivate them. But not everyone is morally mature. Lacking that motivation, many would probably give in to addictions, violence, and selfishness.[/quote]
Motivation? I’m not so sure I agree with that. In my experiences people will act however they’re predisposed to act.
to BC`s question:
A lack explanetion does not = god exist.
A lack of explanetion = A lack of explanetion.