The Christian Agenda Continues

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
421

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

I have to prove shit.

[/quote]

Alrighty then.[/quote]

…as I am not the one making extraordinary claims.

The one thing we all agree on is basic existing.
All solipsistic perceptions aside, by the simplest of all extensions, the universe does a pretty good job of just being there.

If someone shouts out: “a benign, eternal, creative gawd did all this”, I don’t feel too shabby to make a step towards him and remove all the divine baggage except the basics.
And it should work for him, better, in fact, then before.

I’ve no dogs in this fight, my own theories are weirder.

422

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
One thing Hitchens also said. He said there is no objective purpose for us. But does it really feel like he believes that? He talks about trying to “free” believers. But if there is no objective purpose, why use language? Either worldview would (religious or atheistic), intellectually, have as much value if objectively there is no end purpose. Again, it would be just be like choosing favorite colors. [/quote]

If you say so, it is.
No objective purpose means true freedom.
It can also beget profound meaning.

Here’s a story to illustrate that:

[i]
Imagine a demiurge created a hellish world with unkempt, two-legged creatures that instinctively wage war brother against brother.
Screams echo for millenia across the tiny globe.

Ultimately, the creatures discover rationality, the arts and love.
With his favourite bloody past time gone, the demiurge flips the bird and trolls away to create an even more vulgar and brutally spectacular universe.

Freed from their objective destiny, the upright creatures, as they call themselves, thrive.

One day, a little one goes for a walk with his pet and spots a strange light in the sky.
Turns out, a fell meteor would have smashed the planet to bits and pieces, was it not for the sharp eyes of one individual.

As the world’s president awards the little hero a gleaming medal, one ragged spectator, a former prophet, screams into the bewildered crowd:

“So what, he’s saved a god-forsaken world! And you’re all going to die anyway!”
[/i][/quote]

  1. Assumption that the religious person isn’t free.
  2. That religious is a “bad” state of being.
  3. Atheist is a “good” state of being.
  4. The “freedom” of atheism is more valuable than religiosity.

But if there is no objective morality, and no objective purpose, why implicitly/explicitly act and speak as if the opposite?

423

Neither states of being would good or bad. They would just…be.

424

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I mean, to an atheist, idolatry doesn’t exist. It’s part of “bronze-age mythology.” They can love and pursue money at all costs. Make basketball players and mma fighters into heroic figures. Hold and act on any number of philosophies dealing with distribution of resources. Etc. So long as it doesn’t literally involve belief in a deity.

Edit: It’s like there’s a bible based argument for when an atheist stops being an atheist. Based on a general view of idolatry. “Money is his god!” No, to him it’s just money. He doesn’t believe in any gods. He knows very well that it’s simply a material thing used to trading for material things. The football star? While celebrated, he’s just a guy who’ll eventually get old and be replaced. A completely material creature. [/quote]
Not all religions are actually defined by beliefs in supernatural deities.

For example many forms of Buddhism don’t really deal with that

BC had a thread about worshipping the golden calf, symbolically, today

Not people actually busting out golden calfs, but being overly concerned with money and not concerned enough about each other

By BC that was considered idolatry… I think Varq would agree. Varq doesn’t care if supposed atheists argue otherwise - there are no atheists, only idolaters. I estimate BC might agree - tho maybe not. In any event Varq isn’t saying anything super cutting edge and insane (no offense Varq)[/quote]

Buddhism deals with it in a different way. There ‘God Concept’ is very different than ours in that they don’t identify God as a ‘particular’, but they claim to see ‘it’ in everything. It’s more like the ‘Force’. A unity of being that runs through everything. They just never did the math, I reckon, or they don’t compartmentalize like western thinkers.[/quote]
No, that’s Hinduism

Many forms of Buddhism really don’t. I slipped up in a later post and dropped the “many forms”, which is wrong because there are also forms of Buddhism that do deal with deities

But Buddha pretty much said we should figure out our own stuff here first before worrying about pie in the sky theories

425

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
The universe is eternal.
Sometimes, life emerges.

^ what is religious about this?
[/quote]
Because if you can’t prove the universe is eternal, then it must be taken on faith, or discarded

So if someone takes this on faith, then that’s what’s religious about that

There might be another way - maybe you could just keep it in your pocket without dropping it or holding tight. But when you actually say it like that in argument form - it is a religious statement within a religious debate

In other words - if you hold that up as a [i]possibility[/i] rather than a superior answer, you might be able to get it to work. But you must hold and present it just like that - if you take it as your own, then it gets religious. If you take it as superior, it also becomes religious. Most likely it’s religious before the exercise even begins

426

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

I have to prove shit.

[/quote]

Alrighty then.[/quote]

…as I am not the one making extraordinary claims.

The one thing we all agree on is basic existing.
All solipsistic perceptions aside, by the simplest of all extensions, the universe does a pretty good job of just being there.

[/quote]

Eh, I know everyone hates this argument, but it is relevant. We can’t even KNOW that the universe exists outside of ourselves. And/or, that other minds even exist. That is, besides being some lonely delusion of our singular intelligence. One of the first things we do in our lives, before we even set out to observe and measure the universe, and everything in it, is to take it on faith that we are interacting with a real universe. And, with real others.

Sure, you know you’re thinking, therefore you are. But after that? Everything comes in through your senses (if there’s actually anything outside from which to come in), processed through your mind.

427

I mean, accepting on faith that the universe exists, we’re already implanting false memories into mice. In some years, humans?

428

[quote]Sloth wrote:
One of the first things we do in our lives, before we even set out to observe and measure the universe, and everything in it, is to take it on faith that we are interacting with a real universe.
[/quote]

I don’t think I agree with this statement. People and animals just start interacting with the world–they don’t “take it on faith” that that is what they are doing. Its only later–around the time they go to college and smoke some dope for many–that they start thinking about the possibility that everything is fake and that we somehow need to either “prove” there is a real universe or “take it on faith” that there is a real universe.

429

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
One of the first things we do in our lives, before we even set out to observe and measure the universe, and everything in it, is to take it on faith that we are interacting with a real universe.
[/quote]

I don’t think I agree with this statement. People and animals just start interacting with the world–they don’t “take it on faith” that that is what they are doing. Its only later–around the time they go to college and smoke some dope for many–that they start thinking about the possibility that everything is fake and that we somehow need to either “prove” there is a real universe or “take it on faith” that there is a real universe.
[/quote]

Ok, so let us say it comes later. At least to us humans. I see you sort of brush it off as an exercise while under the influence. But it isn’t necessary to smoke dope. It’s sort of one of those first things, type of thing. Yeah, I am, because I’m aware of my thinking. But after that? Any comment?

430

And hey, I’m not saying this isn’t reality. I take it on faith that it is and get on with my business. But I absolutely have no way to prove it to myself.

431

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Because if you can’t prove the universe is eternal, then it must be taken on faith, or discarded
So if someone takes this on faith, then that’s what’s religious about that
[/quote]
Friend Bear, as I already wrote:
I merely try to make the life of certain religious guys easier.
If you need an eternal being as a premise for your own cosmology - ditch the godhead!
ANd it works better with less weight.
Isn’t that divine, I mean great!?

And I take nothing “on faith” here.
Actually, the very word is thrown around so carelessly, it does the whole debate a great disservice.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
There might be another way - maybe you could just keep it in your pocket without dropping it or holding tight. But when you actually say it like that in argument form - it is a religious statement within a religious debate
In other words - if you hold that up as a [i]possibility[/i] rather than a superior answer, you might be able to get it to work. But you must hold and present it just like that - if you take it as your own, then it gets religious. If you take it as superior, it also becomes religious. Most likely it’s religious before the exercise even begins
[/quote]

I have no idea if the universe is eternal; chances are, I’ll never know.

And it’s alright with me, there’s enough beauty and meaning in a mortal universe with gigantic neutron stars spinning alone in abysmal nothingness and teeny, tiny ants crawling confused over my shirt as I embrace the light of a slowly decaying sun.

432

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
One of the first things we do in our lives, before we even set out to observe and measure the universe, and everything in it, is to take it on faith that we are interacting with a real universe.
[/quote]

I don’t think I agree with this statement. People and animals just start interacting with the world–they don’t “take it on faith” that that is what they are doing. Its only later–around the time they go to college and smoke some dope for many–that they start thinking about the possibility that everything is fake and that we somehow need to either “prove” there is a real universe or “take it on faith” that there is a real universe.
[/quote]

Ok, so let us say it comes later. At least to us humans. I see you sort of brush it off as an exercise while under the influence. But it isn’t necessary to smoke dope. It’s sort of one of those first things, type of thing. Yeah, I am, because I’m aware of my thinking. But after that? Any comment? [/quote]

It is interesting to think about, and one of the great benefits/luxuries of being capable of abstract thought. I’ve seen the Matrix and can’t say something like that is impossible. In college a few times I also took a few substances that, frankly, had me questioning the nature of reality in a pretty profound way.

I often wonder what its like to have the cognitive capacity of an animal, like a dog for example, and how differently we would view the world, and how we wouldn’t know any better or what we were missing out on. In the same way, I have wondered what we are actually missing out on, like if we had exponentially more cognitive power or exponentially better senses, how we would view the world and what kind of shit would we think about/see/experience? I am a big Star Trek Next Gen fan, and the “Q” and “Traveler” characters always fascinated me for this same reason.

Really, I don’t see a way to fully separate or know “objective reality” distinct from our “subjective reality” because of the limited nature of our cognitive capacity and senses.

433

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
One thing Hitchens also said. He said there is no objective purpose for us. But does it really feel like he believes that? He talks about trying to “free” believers. But if there is no objective purpose, why use language? Either worldview would (religious or atheistic), intellectually, have as much value if objectively there is no end purpose. Again, it would be just be like choosing favorite colors. [/quote]

If you say so, it is.
No objective purpose means true freedom.
It can also beget profound meaning.

Here’s a story to illustrate that:

[i]
Imagine a demiurge created a hellish world with unkempt, two-legged creatures that instinctively wage war brother against brother.
Screams echo for millenia across the tiny globe.

Ultimately, the creatures discover rationality, the arts and love.
With his favourite bloody past time gone, the demiurge flips the bird and trolls away to create an even more vulgar and brutally spectacular universe.

Freed from their objective destiny, the upright creatures, as they call themselves, thrive.

One day, a little one goes for a walk with his pet and spots a strange light in the sky.
Turns out, a fell meteor would have smashed the planet to bits and pieces, was it not for the sharp eyes of one individual.

As the world’s president awards the little hero a gleaming medal, one ragged spectator, a former prophet, screams into the bewildered crowd:

“So what, he’s saved a god-forsaken world! And you’re all going to die anyway!”
[/i][/quote]

  1. Assumption that the religious person isn’t free.
  2. That religious is a “bad” state of being.
  3. Atheist is a “good” state of being.
  4. The “freedom” of atheism is more valuable than religiosity.

But if there is no objective morality, and no objective purpose, why implicitly/explicitly act and speak as if the opposite? [/quote]

If that is what you get out of my tale, I feel sorry.

435

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
One thing Hitchens also said. He said there is no objective purpose for us. But does it really feel like he believes that? He talks about trying to “free” believers. But if there is no objective purpose, why use language? Either worldview would (religious or atheistic), intellectually, have as much value if objectively there is no end purpose. Again, it would be just be like choosing favorite colors. [/quote]

If you say so, it is.
No objective purpose means true freedom.
It can also beget profound meaning.

Here’s a story to illustrate that:

[i]
Imagine a demiurge created a hellish world with unkempt, two-legged creatures that instinctively wage war brother against brother.
Screams echo for millenia across the tiny globe.

Ultimately, the creatures discover rationality, the arts and love.
With his favourite bloody past time gone, the demiurge flips the bird and trolls away to create an even more vulgar and brutally spectacular universe.

Freed from their objective destiny, the upright creatures, as they call themselves, thrive.

One day, a little one goes for a walk with his pet and spots a strange light in the sky.
Turns out, a fell meteor would have smashed the planet to bits and pieces, was it not for the sharp eyes of one individual.

As the world’s president awards the little hero a gleaming medal, one ragged spectator, a former prophet, screams into the bewildered crowd:

“So what, he’s saved a god-forsaken world! And you’re all going to die anyway!”
[/i][/quote]

  1. Assumption that the religious person isn’t free.
  2. That religious is a “bad” state of being.
  3. Atheist is a “good” state of being.
  4. The “freedom” of atheism is more valuable than religiosity.

But if there is no objective morality, and no objective purpose, why implicitly/explicitly act and speak as if the opposite? [/quote]

If that is what you get out of my tale, I feel sorry.[/quote]

Well, I was more continuing the train of thought you replied to.

436

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your claim is the most extraordinary of all. It is flat-out unfathomably illogical. You must have far more faith than Pat or me.
[/quote]

Lol, as usual, 0 arguments

what is more logical:

eternal universe
or
eternal demiurge who creates a universe

both result in the same

/case

437

Schwarz, what if the demiurge in your parable was more benign than how you describe, and took no pleasure in the instinctual savagery of the creatures he had created, but rather pity as it watched the inevitable consequences of their evolving consciousness? Such a demiurge might nudge them toward a more enlightened and rational state, but respecting their free will does not directly intervene on a grand scale.

Little by little, though, as the creatures discover rationality, a few individuals might intuit the benevolent nature of the demiurge, and try to pass on what they have intuited to their fellow creatures, but time and again they are silenced, and their message coopted by the savage society for their own political and avaricious aims.

Would that still make sense in your paradigm?

439

[quote]Karado wrote:

This is second time you haven’t answered a simple question BC…why are you refusing to
answer?
Could it be you invoke dead saints as well over Christ himself like Father Foster claims the Italians
do over there and have him a lower priority in place of the saints?

I didn’t claim that about Italian Catholics, Father Foster did! Remember that.

You refused to answer, so I must speculate at this point about YOU practicing necromancy as well because you refused to condemn it…no need to answer now, I got your answer because your continued silence on the simplest of questions
has spoken so loudly now I cannot hear what you’re saying.
[/quote]

Machine Gun Fallacy. This is where instead of finishing a topic of debate when you realize you have no rebuttal you move to another topic in hopes I won’t notice and that it’ll seem like you’re gaining ground. So please stay on subject, we were on Fatima. I’ll give you one more chance to answer my questions to you about Fatima or I’ll put you on ignore.

Your behavior only shows your anti-Catholic bigotry, not my lack of willingness to discuss topics on Catholicism. The fact that I’ve already debated you on these two topics before is proof of the latter. And, well probably proof of the former, as well.

So, please answer my questions or I’ll just have to not only stop debating you on this, but also stop talking to you as you are unable to understand plain english and common sense manners.

440

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
What was before the Big-Bang?
Our universe might be inside a black hole from another universe, which creation created the [a] Big-Bang.
Or maybe the universe just expands and contracts-endlessly.

Big-Bang doesn’t necessarily mean there was no other universe beforehand, probably with different physical rules.[/quote]