Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Krankenstein on August 14, 2012, 07:39:25 PM
-
I know this thread will probably get derailed and turned into an argument, but a while back someone put a quote on here from a philosopher, or historical figure wherein they talked about (I think this is right) both sides of the question if god is real or not.
I have a friend who started in on me with the god talk when the subject of my fathers passing came up. The line about "its not ours to question who struggles or suffers" came up. To which I got pissed because of how there are so many scum bag fucks out there who need to die immediately and I had to watch my dad waste away to a shell of his former self.
Annnnyway...hopefully someone will know what the fuck I am talking about.
-
Hi, Krankenstein,
I'm sorry to hear about you losing your father. You might be thinking about Pascal's wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager).
Which is a bullshit quote, theres a youtube video clearly explaining why the Wager is actually against you.
tl;dr the wager is bullshit because it implies there is only one (and even further implying "true") god, when actually there is thousands if not more, so by believing in the christian god (the ulterior reason Pascal formulated the wager) odds are actually against you that you are right.
-
sorry to hear about your dad, krank.
i hate when people say "its not our place who suffers" So freaking stupid. Good way to relieve your god of any sort of responsibility. This is base on the assumption that a god even exists.
-
sorry to hear about your dad, krank.
i hate when people say "its not our place who suffers" So freaking stupid. Good way to relieve your god of any sort of responsibility. This is base on the assumption that a god even exists.
Negative midget post reported.
-
Which is a bullshit quote, theres a youtube video clearly explaining why the Wager is actually against you.
tl;dr the wager is bullshit because it implies there is only one (and even further implying "true") god, when actually there is thousands if not more, so by believing in the christian god (the ulterior reason Pascal formulated the wager) odds are actually against you that you are right.
Easy. I did not defend the wager. I suggested that it might be what K was thinking of. I'm aware of its deficiencies (No need for me to look at Youtube, I taught it at university, and criticized it through multiple perspectives and arguments very recently).
-
Which is a bullshit quote, theres a youtube video clearly explaining why the Wager is actually against you.
tl;dr the wager is bullshit because it implies there is only one (and even further implying "true") god, when actually there is thousands if not more, so by believing in the christian god (the ulterior reason Pascal formulated the wager) odds are actually against you that you are right.
sorry but I wage in Pascals favor against any internet broscientist trying to outsmart him.
-
sorry but I wage in Pascals favor against any internet broscientist trying to outsmart him.
Good for you ::)
-
Negative midget post reported.
I love when you pick on me. Its like the little girl in the playground who pinches and kicks the boy she likes :-* :-*
ps- I am 5'6" above midget height ;D ;D
-
sorry but I wage in Pascals favor against any internet broscientist trying to outsmart him.
haha, favoring in pascals wager = I feel bad for you.
-
I love when you pick on me. Its like the little girl in the playground who pinches and kicks the boy she likes :-* :-*
ps- I am 5'6" above midget height ;D ;D
Dwarf/midget/little person......whatever you people like to be called this week. ::)
-
Dwarf/midget/little person......whatever you people like to be called this week. ::)
Or maybe just a "human being" like all other homo sapiens :D :D
-
Or maybe just a "human being" like all other homo sapiens :D :D
LOL You're a homo alright.... ;D
-
sorry nothing personalbut i will be on the side of whoever have highest IQ, which in this case would be hmmm Pascal by 200 points or so.
-
sorry but i will be on the side of the whatever dude with the highest IQ, which would be hmmm Pascal by 200 points or so.
haha, thats pretty stupid. Take a look at Stephen Hawkings, Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein, all of whom are atheists. Just as smart as Pascal. Doesn't mean pascal is right.
::) ::)
-
haha, thats pretty stupid. Take a look at Stephen Hawkings, Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein, all of whom are atheists. Just as smart as Pascal. Doesn't mean pascal is right.
::) ::)
neither of them proved god didnt exist, thus validating the logic behind Pascals wage, hope this helps.
-
neither of them proved god didnt exist, thus validating the logic behind Pascals wage, hope this helps.
The sad part is I cant tell if youre a decent troll or very stupid.
-
Appreciate the sentiments. Actually after he took his final breath, I was fucking pissed...went outside to cool down. Threw a nice bird towards the sky with a big ol' "FUCK YOU".
Regarding the quote the guy made, I can recall something about how if god existed why should he care if we sat there constantly praising him (or something like that). If god didnt exsist, think of all the time wasted worshiping him. (again, or something to that effect)
-
neither of them proved god didnt exist, thus validating the logic behind Pascals wage, hope this helps.
That is HORRIBLE LOGIC!!! I can't even argue with logic that stupid. Seriously, just because you can't disprove something, it doesn't mean it exists.
You're either really dumb or trolling.
-
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.- Marcus Aurelius
-
That is HORRIBLE LOGIC!!! I can't even argue with logic that stupid. Seriously, just because you can't disprove something, it doesn't mean it exists.
You're either really dumb or trolling.
i take you still dont understand the logic behind Pascals wage since it doesnt aim to prove God existence, quite the opposite.
-
i take you still dont understand the logic behind Pascals wage since it doesnt aim to prove God existence, quite the opposite.
No, I totally get pascals wager. Its pretty straightforward
It posits that there's more to be gained from wagering on the existence of God than from atheism, and that a rational person should live as though God exists, even though the truth of the matter cannot actually be known.
Yes, I should just live as though God may exist, because I have more to lose in believing he doesnt exist. Yes, great logic. ::) ::)
-
you can get into a time machine and lecture pascal on logic then ;D
-
Which is a bullshit quote, theres a youtube video clearly explaining why the Wager is actually against you.
tl;dr the wager is bullshit because it implies there is only one (and even further implying "true") god, when actually there is thousands if not more, so by believing in the christian god (the ulterior reason Pascal formulated the wager) odds are actually against you that you are right.
there are thousands of gods ? ;D ;D proof ? ;D ;D
-
you can get into a time machine and lecture pascal on logic then ;D
Oh please, his stupid idea has been debunked and refuted many times over. ::)
-
I know this thread will probably get derailed and turned into an argument, but a while back someone put a quote on here from a philosopher, or historical figure wherein they talked about (I think this is right) both sides of the question if god is real or not.
I have a friend who started in on me with the god talk when the subject of my fathers passing came up. The line about "its not ours to question who struggles or suffers" came up. To which I got pissed because of how there are so many scum bag fucks out there who need to die immediately and I had to watch my dad waste away to a shell of his former self.
Annnnyway...hopefully someone will know what the fuck I am talking about.
Sorry about your loss brother.
Are you talking about the conversation between Einstein and his Professor? ???
-
No, I totally get pascals wager. Its pretty straightforward
It posits that there's more to be gained from wagering on the existence of God than from atheism, and that a rational person should live as though God exists, even though the truth of the matter cannot actually be known.
Yes, I should just live as though God may exist, because I have more to lose in believing he doesnt exist. Yes, great logic. ::) ::)
Got a question for you sf19 and please be open minded, is there a 0.1% chance God exist? Yes or No
-
Got a question for you sf19 and please be open minded, is there a 0.1% chance God exist? Yes or No
Can I give my answer ? :D There is a creator but there is no God like what Christians, Muslims etc believe in. So No from me :)
-
My condolences for your loss.
There's zero chance of a creator.
Monotheistic religions are so stupendously out of their depth in the light of scientific advancement it's shocking how prevalent these ideologies are in a modern world.
-
anyone asseerting to have any kind of knowledge on the subject, whether in affirmation or denial; whether about probability or about logic, is being dishonest and disingenuine with themself and/or others
-
anyone asseerting to have any kind of knowledge on the subject, whether in affirmation or denial; whether about probability or about logic, is being dishonest and disingenuine with themself and/or others
Not true. Believers in God have only negative evidence.
Theists / deists are continually moving the goal posts: once upon a time the shear quantity and diversity of life on Earth would have been "evidence" for a creator, as would the development of a complex organ like the eye (which is still retardedly used to this day...) - sadly for these groups science and empirical evidence explain the process of evolution and also confirmed Darwin's single "origin of life" (i.e. all life on Earth is related, FACT).
-
Got a question for you sf19 and please be open minded, is there a 0.1% chance God exist? Yes or No
You cannot use numbers here because probability is an abstract term to describe some types of "quantities" in abstract world. First you have to describe probabilistic space which is impossible.
Yet there is infinite amount of possibilities of what god, if existed might have been. Catholic god is just one of them, one of them that your ancestors chose to believe and in the process of historical evolution changed to what your mother chose to believe and thus, you are religious.
There is no evidence that catholic god doesn't exist; just like there's no evidence that god who wants you to, say, kill your kids and eat them doesn't exist.
That's why Pascal was full of shit.
-
.
(http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/215777_488566347822727_216006164_n.jpg)
-
These threads always help identify the cretins.
-
These threads always help identify the cretins.
When they knock at your door with a bible, don't let them in
-
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.- Marcus Aurelius
I like this quote.
Noted for future use in arguments with idiotic imbeciles.
-
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.- Marcus Aurelius
Adam comes through in the clinch!!
Thanks so much!!!
I appreciate all the sentiments, he passed last year and not a day goes by without some thoughts of him. Funny thing is that all the stuff my friend was saying was exactly how a priest would talk..
"It is not ours to question..."
"Who are we to question..."
"Judgement is left to the lord..."
"We are sinners, forgiveness is there for the asking..."
"Our faith is tested daily, we must renew our belief or our faith is lost..."
Unreal.... ::)
-
lots of getbig geniuses teaching logic to Blaise Pascal
-
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.- Marcus Aurelius
Exactly.
Religion is a method to control people.
Carry on.
8)
-
When they knock at your door with a bible, don't let them in
I go to town on there religion right on my doorstep and watch the horror unfold in their eyes.
-
GOD DIDNT SAVE YOU....WE DID!!
-
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
You don't have to be a genius to be able to look around at the world that exists and KNOW that there has to be a Creator. Among evolutionists there is not even a half-way reasonable idea for how we got here. The best they have is "the big bang" which still doesn't even attempt to explain where time, space, and matter originated.
big bang theory
n.
A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature.
Notice that the big bang does not explain where the small "matter" came from, nor where the "space" the matter exists in came from, nor where the "energy" for the temperature and explosion came from, nor where "time" originated.
Only by existing outside of time, space, and matter can you have the ability to create time, space, and matter. Therefore God cannot, by necessity, have a beginning. This logic is so simple, yet how many people are so quick to dismiss it and cling to their religion of the big bang or whatever fairytale of a religion that they desperately love.
My Dad also passed away about 2 years ago. It is a difficult thing to go through. I was only 25 at the time, and he was only 53. I find some comfort in the words of Jesus though,
John 11:25-26 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Shut the Fuck Up.
-
FUCK the NOTION of GOD! Talking about a GOD is just a fancy way of saying "I have no fucking clue how all this shit came about so I may as well make some shit up"
-
anyone asseerting to have any kind of knowledge on the subject, whether in affirmation or denial; whether about probability or about logic, is being dishonest and disingenuine with themself and/or others
You, as always, make stupid claims that are undefendable.
-
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
You don't have to be a genius to be able to look around at the world that exists and KNOW that there has to be a Creator. Among evolutionists there is not even a half-way reasonable idea for how we got here. The best they have is "the big bang" which still doesn't even attempt to explain where time, space, and matter originated.
big bang theory
n.
A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature.
Notice that the big bang does not explain where the small "matter" came from, nor where the "space" the matter exists in came from, nor where the "energy" for the temperature and explosion came from, nor where "time" originated.
Only by existing outside of time, space, and matter can you have the ability to create time, space, and matter. Therefore God cannot, by necessity, have a beginning. This logic is so simple, yet how many people are so quick to dismiss it and cling to their religion of the big bang or whatever fairytale of a religion that they desperately love.
My Dad also passed away about 2 years ago. It is a difficult thing to go through. I was only 25 at the time, and he was only 53. I find some comfort in the words of Jesus though,
John 11:25-26 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
White noise and spooky language.
-
"It is not ours to question..."
"Who are we to question..."
It is not wrong to question God about things that happen if you are sincere and actually wanting an answer. In Psalms God was questioned about why the writer was afflicted with certain situations.
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."- Marcus Aurelius
The above sounds good but each person has their view of what a "just God" would be. Also, does one live by the same virtues all of their life? If not, do the "unwholesome ones" not count and/or are ones that are considered wholesome by the "gods?"
Sorry about your father Krankenstein.
-
I know this thread will probably get derailed and turned into an argument, but a while back someone put a quote on here from a philosopher, or historical figure wherein they talked about (I think this is right) both sides of the question if god is real or not.
I have a friend who started in on me with the god talk when the subject of my fathers passing came up. The line about "its not ours to question who struggles or suffers" came up. To which I got pissed because of how there are so many scum bag fucks out there who need to die immediately and I had to watch my dad waste away to a shell of his former self.
Annnnyway...hopefully someone will know what the fuck I am talking about.
IMO if God exists, he/she/it is indifferent to our joy or our suffering. That is not God's concern.
-
People's beleif in God is absurd.
If someone came close to death but survived they thank God but if someone actually dies, they say that God had bigger plans. So no matter what, living or dying they give God and excuse for it.
-
I know this thread will probably get derailed and turned into an argument, but a while back someone put a quote on here from a philosopher, or historical figure wherein they talked about (I think this is right) both sides of the question if god is real or not.
I have a friend who started in on me with the god talk when the subject of my fathers passing came up. The line about "its not ours to question who struggles or suffers" came up. To which I got pissed because of how there are so many scum bag fucks out there who need to die immediately and I had to watch my dad waste away to a shell of his former self.
Annnnyway...hopefully someone will know what the fuck I am talking about.
I am sorry for your loss. Watching a loved one go through something painful can change people in unexpected ways.
Wow, just realized, but 2 years ago today I was on my death bed in the ER of my local hospital. Those situations certainly take a toll on those closest to us.
-
Shut the Fuck Up.
Settle down TA.....you're just fine.
-
(http://www.tshirt-reviews.com/images/ups/POWER-OF-CHRIST-Funny-Tshirts-power-of-christ.jpg)
-
People's beleif in God is absurd.
If someone came close to death but survived they thank God but if someone actually dies, they say that God had bigger plans. So no matter what, living or dying they give God and excuse for it.
Your belief that you love your family is absurd ;)
-
Shut the Fuck Up.
Settle down there tough guy :P
-
Your belief that you love your family is absurd ;)
Give me one ounce of proof God exists. Real solid proof of something.
-
Your belief that you love your family is absurd ;)
Are you even fucking trolling??
-
Give me one ounce of proof God exists. Real solid proof of something.
Give me one once of proof you love your family?
-
Are you even fucking trolling??
So everyone who believes in God are trolling?
-
Give me one once of proof you love your family?
Certainly. Give me your criteria for proof that one loves his family so I can demonstrate it.
-
Certainly. Give me your criteria for proof that one loves his family so I can demonstrate it.
Any type of demonstration is not definitive proof and you know this.
-
Any type of demonstration is not definitive proof and you know this.
???
Total Bullshit. There are countless ways to demonstrate it.
-
If you were walking through the woods and found a TV, would you say "wow, look what grew out here in the forest!", or perhaps, "wow, look what just appeared out of nowhere!".
Of course not, that is not reasonable. We all know that TV had to have a Creator. Someone had to have made it. It didn't make itself.
Now apply the same logic to this world. The only "logical" conclusion is there IS a Creator. YET, people will agree with the first one and say the TV did not make itself, but then will turn around and say the world somehow made itself.
Just because you cannot SEE something, does not make it any less real. I cannot see my own heart, or brain, but by logic I know have them. I cannot SEE God, but by logic I know He exists.
LOLZers!
Keep on this is hilarious actually. Sad, but hilarious. I am going to reddit this.
-
???
Total Bullshit. There are countless ways to demonstrate it.
Name one and I will prove to you that that doesn't prove you love them.
-
Name one and I will prove to you that that doesn't prove you love them.
Give me your definition of love.
-
People's beleif in God is absurd.
If someone came close to death but survived they thank God but if someone actually dies, they say that God had bigger plans. So no matter what, living or dying they give God and excuse for it.
So basically, you can't get away from the mofo...
You are starting to sound like a certain Edmond from The Count of Monte Cristo.
-
So everyone who believes in God are trolling?
No, they can be trolling, or stupid, in your case, you are just stupid and your comparison was VERY PAINFULLY bad.
-
Give me your definition of love.
Bro, my point is there is no possible way you can prove you love some one, it is something that is felt inside you but cannot be proven no matter what
-
No, they can be trolling, or stupid, in your case, you are just stupid and your comparison was VERY PAINFULLY bad.
OK I am stupid, you win, now silence please, we are discussing something here, if you have nothing intelligent to say, save it, I`ve heard it all before.
-
If you were walking through the woods and found a TV, would you say "wow, look what grew out here in the forest!", or perhaps, "wow, look what just appeared out of nowhere!".
Of course not, that is not reasonable. We all know that TV had to have a Creator. Someone had to have made it. It didn't make itself.
Now apply the same logic to this world. The only "logical" conclusion is there IS a Creator. YET, people will agree with the first one and say the TV did not make itself, but then will turn around and say the world somehow made itself.
Just because you cannot SEE something, does not make it any less real. I cannot see my own heart, or brain, but by logic I know have them. I cannot SEE God, but by logic I know He exists.
You never read any philosphy after Aquinas? theres literally CENTURIES of asnwers to this faulty argument.
-
OK I am stupid, you win, now silence please, we are discussing something here, if you have nothing intelligent to say, save, I`ve heard it all before.
Indeed what a religious man would say, "Ive heard it all before" then dismiss any argument made against god.
Explain why you equate loving a human being to loving "god" in the epistemological level and explain why god exists then, I am still waiting for you to ¨prove¨ the existance of what you claim real.
Oh wait, you cant.
-
Bro, my point is there is no possible way you can prove you love some one, it is something that is felt inside you but cannot be proven no matter what
You failed to make your point and love is more than just feeling (love being a vague term for a whole set of experiences, physical and mental), however even the feeling of what one may perceives as "love" easily registers on a brain scan.
-
1. Are you arguing that a TV found in the woods made itself?
2. Are you arguing that the world we live in made itself?
If the answer to question 1, is NO, then the answer to question 2, must be NO as well in order to be consistent with LOGIC.
If the world did not make itself, then there is a CREATOR.
Your failure to respond with any logical response only accentuates the fact that you are blinded by your own sinful heart and choose to be willingly ignorant.
The "world", the "universe", "reality" in which ever epistemological meaning you assign to it was always here, and will always be, because its the only thing there is. Have you never tried understanding Hegel´s god? Its sort of like the laws of energy, never created, never lost, just transformed.
This is an old idea, Greeks already had this idea of the universe.
-
Indeed what a religious man would say, "Ive heard it all before" then dismiss any argument made against god.
Explain why you equate loving a human being to loving "god" in the epistemological level and explain why god exists then, I am still waiting for you to ¨prove¨ the existance of what you claim real.
Oh wait, you cant.
You aren`t arguing though, I never turn down a debate, you are simply mocking, name calling and being ignorant like an immature person, which I have no interest in or care for
I will explain if you can prove to me you love your family.
-
1. Are you arguing that a TV found in the woods made itself?
2. Are you arguing that the world we live in made itself?
If the answer to question 1, is NO, then the answer to question 2, must be NO as well in order to be consistent with LOGIC.
If the world did not make itself, then there is a CREATOR.
Your failure to respond with any logical response only accentuates the fact that you are blinded by your own sinful heart and choose to be willingly ignorant.
There is more scientific proof how the universe was created vs. what bible spouting idiots shout about existence.
-
the idiots sure do come out swinging in threads like this
-
1. Are you arguing that a TV found in the woods made itself?
2. Are you arguing that the world we live in made itself?
If the answer to question 1, is NO, then the answer to question 2, must be NO as well in order to be consistent with LOGIC.
If the world did not make itself, then there is a CREATOR.
Your failure to respond with any logical response only accentuates the fact that you are blinded by your own sinful heart and choose to be willingly ignorant.
1. Yes! Televisions create themselves all the time. Just because you have never seen it happen does not mean it hasn`t or doesn`t. I know because I have prayed using the Samsung manual and was answered via High Definition 1080p.
2. Not many people know this, but at the center of the Universe, which of course is the Earth, lies a giant brain which is connected to tree and mushroom roots. Nobody has seen it, but its there. Every time the brain has a thought, something is built. From a Toyota Prius to the Grand Canyon to Lil Wayn`s Iphone.
3. I responded equally as logical as your argument is. ;D Hope this helps.
-
You aren`t arguing though, I never turn down a debate, you are simply mocking, name calling and being ignorant like an immature person, which I have no interest in or care for
I will explain if you can prove to me you love your family.
I cant prove to you the love of my family besides actions, being that I am a rule-utilitarist its all that matters to me, actions on ones claims.
Now you, prove to me with actions that god EXISTS.
If you are willing to equate existance to an inner state of mind you a re more of an ignorant than i thought you were.
-
You failed to make your point and love is more than just feeling (love being a vague term for a whole set of experiences, physical and mental), however even the feeling of what one may perceives as "love" easily registers on a brain scan.
You are right there sir
so my point is love is something you experience but can not prove.
-
So the world has just "always" been here. It had no beginning and has no end?
You see, I find this logic very ironic. If I tell you that GOD has no beginning and no end, you will argue till your blue in the face, but if someone tells you the world has no beginning and no end, you believe it without any hesitation.
People are quick to believe ANY theory, as long as it isn't that God is real. Because they do not want to answer to anyone. They want to believe they are the god of their own universe.
No, I have no trouble in saying Hegel´s god is an interesting idea which I could ultimately agree with give or take certain details of Hegels thinking.
Also, I dont say the world, I say reality, everything, the noumenical world in kant's terms.
-
I cant prove to you the love of my family besides actions, being that I am a rule-utilitarist its all that matters to me, actions on ones claims.
Now you, prove to me with actions that god EXISTS.
If you are willing to equate existance to an inner state of mind you a re more of an ignorant than i thought you were.
If you continue with your childish remarks I will ignore you and thanks for admitting love can not be proven. Actions do not prove love, never could, and never will.
-
If you continue with your childish remarks I will ignore you and thanks for admitting love can not be proven. Actions do not prove love, never could, and never will.
So areyou willing to equate an inner state of mind to the concept of existance, which by itself implies in todays terms some sort of sensible accesibility?
Are you saying god is like a state of mind? If so, id agree, god is nothingn but a state of mind.
Oh, and cool move not adressing any of the questions, thats why Its so loveable to afgue with religious fanaticss.
-
You failed to make your point and love is more than just feeling (love being a vague term for a whole set of experiences, physical and mental), however even the feeling of what one may perceives as "love" easily registers on a brain scan.
And the fact that love is both a physical and mental state that registers on a brain scan means what exactly?
-
Like I said, you have no logic on your side. The thing that motivates you to deny God is your love for sin. Those that love darkness hate the light. Your pseudointellectualism is sad.
I have said enough that any reasonable person can understand. I'm finished discussing the topic on this thread.
1. Prove to me Televisions don`t create themselves when you pray using the Samsung Instructional Manual?
2. Just because you can`t see the giant brain at the center of the earth, also the center of the Universe conveniently, doesn`t mean its not there. Prove that it isn`t.
3. You lose. ;D
Romans 3:22 -Thine dick of God shoved down your throat, is still a dick.
-
So areyou willing to equate an inner state of mind to the concept of existance, which by itself implies in todays terms some sort of sensible accesibility?
Are you saying god is like a state of mind? If so, id agree, god is nothingn but a state of mind.
Oh, and cool move not adressing any of the questions, thats why Its so loveable to afgue with religious fanaticss.
Why add that last remarks, ask anyone on getbig, I swear every 2 seconds, I am far from a religious fanatic, we are discussing what we believe in.
The experience you have with love is an experience that you know but ca not prove to others, so the experience I have with God is something I know but freely admit I could not prove it to you, it`s called faith
-
If you continue with your childish remarks I will ignore you and thanks for admitting love can not be proven. Actions do not prove love, never could, and never will.
::)
Yes, because you are the gatekeeper of love and only you can interpret what love is or isn`t. Why should we follow YOUR definition of love?
-
And the fact that love is both a physical and mental state that registers on a brain scan means what exactly?
Means that it is easily proven and can be repeated over and over and over and over again with the same results.
-
::)
Yes, because you are the gatekeeper of love and only you can interpret what love is or isn`t. Why should we follow YOUR definition of love?
I am not defining love TA, why would you say that I am. All I am say is love can not be proven and if it can show me.
-
Means that it is easily proven.
I assume you mean love is then proven to exist based on the brain scan measure/capture?
-
I am not defining love TA, why would you say that I am. All I am say is love can not be proven and if it can show me.
You are defining it when you say it can`t be proven. You obviously have set some limits to what you think is love and what is not love, although you won`t tell us these limits for some strange reason. ???
-
I assume you mean love is then proven to exist based on the brain scan measure/capture?
Thats one way for sure. There are also actions and emotions associated with what one may call love that can be demonstrated over and over again. Also, love is subjective to each individual as well as objective depending on ones culture, norms and mores and even that can be subjective depending on who you ask.
The point is, whatever one considers love can be demonstrated, physically and mentally rather easily.
I love Pulled Pork Barbecue. How do I know? Because its all I think about and sometimes I get a boner while I eat it.
-
Thats one way for sure. There are also actions and emotions associated with what one may call love that can be demonstrated over and over again. Also, love is subjective to each individual as well as objective depending on ones culture, norms and mores and even that can be subjective depending on who you ask.
The point is, whatever one considers love can be demonstrated, physically and mentally rather easily.
I love Pulled Pork Barbecue. How do I know? Because its all I think about and sometimes I get a boner while I eat it.
give me an example of a demonstration and i will prove to you that the demonstration does not equal proof
-
give me an example of a demonstration and i will prove to you that the demonstration does not equal proof
So you admit to having some sort of workable definition of what you think love is? Otherwise you wouldn`t be able to tell me whether or not my demonstration qualifies. Correct?
-
Is this the first death you've experienced? I knew a degenerate in my younger days who got shot for robbing cocaine. It took a couple of days for the reality to set in and i teared up a little after seeing his picture in our local newspaper.
That was my first experience of someone i knew dying. Now shit doesn't even phase me and i find myself unaffected by it. My grandmother, neighbour, uncles, and a few other distant acquaintances passed away since then and i must say it's business as usual for me with no resentment meltdowns aimed at an imaginary entity.
-
So you admit to having some sort of workable definition of what you think love is? Otherwise you wouldn`t be able to tell me whether or not my demonstration qualifies. Correct?
Listen bro, any demonstration you give to prove to me you love someone; a complete stranger can also give that demonstration, hence love can not be demonstrated and if love can not be demonstrated it can not be proven. I don`t make the rules, that`s just the way it is period.
-
Listen bro, any demonstration you give to prove to me you love someone; a complete stranger can also give that demonstration, hence love can not be demonstrated and if love can not be demonstrated it can not be proven. I don`t make the rules, that`s just the way it is period.
Any demonstration I give will go like this.
Me: Here, this proves my love for X
You: No it doesn`t, because thats not what love is.
Me: O`rly? Can you give some sort of parameters or definition so we can know why you don`t think this experiment was a success and the conclusion reached was therefore insufficient or incorrect?
You: Nope.
Me: ???
-
Any demonstration I give will go like this.
Me: Here, this proves my love for X
You: No it doesn`t, because thats not what love is.
Me: O`rly? Can you give some sort of parameters or definition so we can know why you don`t think this experiment was a success and the conclusion reached was therefore insufficient or incorrect?
You: Nope.
Me: ???
But I can, whatever you demonstrate can be duplicated with 2 others that don`t love each other right.... so if 2 others that don`t love each other can do what you did to prove your love it can`t be counted as sufficient enough proof. Are you that slow that you don`t understand what I am saying
-
Thats one way for sure. There are also actions and emotions associated with what one may call love that can be demonstrated over and over again. Also, love is subjective to each individual as well as objective depending on ones culture, norms and mores and even that can be subjective depending on who you ask.
The point is, whatever one considers love can be demonstrated, physically and mentally rather easily.
I love Pulled Pork Barbecue. How do I know? Because its all I think about and sometimes I get a boner while I eat it.
I follow you.
I'm not a philosopher or scientist ("You're not MOS? I can't believe it!" :) ), just noodling here, but considering the brain scan idea measuring a subjective response (ex: love)...does the recorded measure help prove the existance of the response itself, the stimulus or both?
-
But I can, whatever you demonstrate can be duplicated with 2 others that don`t love each other right.... so if 2 others that don`t love each other can do what you did to prove your love it can`t be counted as sufficient enough proof. Are you that slow that you don`t understand what I am saying
I`ll just repost this because it appears you didn`t see it.
I assume you mean love is then proven to exist based on the brain scan measure/capture?
Thats one way for sure. There are also actions and emotions associated with what one may call love that can be demonstrated over and over again. Also, love is subjective to each individual as well as objective depending on ones culture, norms and mores and even that can be subjective depending on who you ask.
The point is, whatever one considers love can be demonstrated, physically and mentally rather easily.
I love Pulled Pork Barbecue. How do I know? Because its all I think about and sometimes I get a boner while I eat it.
-
Can you say a little more about Hegel's god? How seriously have you studied Hegel?
Spanish is my first language so bare with me, it is important in this kind of discussions.
I love the dialectic idea of "god" as a conscience unfurling in constant struggle. I agree "god" could be all of it, the entire reality, existance, history itself, the mind, however you wanna call it, Id have no trouble with such a concept of a "neutral" god, not a creatinist god or anything like traditional religions or creeds defend (an "ethic god").
I have studied Hegel through Heidegger and Hegel´s political thoughts in Uni and HighSchool, I am not a Hegel scholar but I can defend myself against them, not that I have anything particularly smart to say about him but I know his thought.
-
I`ll just repost this because it appears you didn`t see it.
Thats one way for sure. There are also actions and emotions associated with what one may call love that can be demonstrated over and over again. Also, love is subjective to each individual as well as objective depending on ones culture, norms and mores and even that can be subjective depending on who you ask.
The point is, whatever one considers love can be demonstrated, physically and mentally rather easily.
I love Pulled Pork Barbecue. How do I know? Because its all I think about and sometimes I get a boner while I eat it.
whatever one considers love and he-she chooses to demonstrate by a certain action can also be done by someone who doesn`t love so this can not be counted as proof. Don`t forget proof is an absolute, it is non negotiable, it is 100%, not anything short of this and love can not fallinto this category and yes I read your post already. And that brain scan shows a certain feeling, does not show love.
-
Listen bro, any demonstration you give to prove to me you love someone; a complete stranger can also give that demonstration, hence love can not be demonstrated and if love can not be demonstrated it can not be proven. I don`t make the rules, that`s just the way it is period.
Exactly, states of mind cannot be proven to others directly and can hardly be proven undirectly, then again, the same applies to the idea of god, so god cannot proven, hence the best you can say is that "in my mind, much like love, I feel god" which sadly is too little to say or to convince anyone.
In a traditional religion, a statement like above would be considered heresy, for them god is REAL in all terms, it IS, it even interacted with humans several times according to their scripts (talking to Abraham, for example). Hence, I find your belief in god completely weak, and in general, the belief in god cannot be rationalized just like many other things. If you say you believe in god because you like to or because it is practical for you, good for you, I cant rebuttal that, but rationalizing it does not do any good to your faith.
-
Exactly, states of mind cannot be proven to others directly and can hardly be proven undirectly, then again, the same applies to the idea of god, so god cannot proven, hence the best you can say is that "in my mind, much like love, I feel god" which sadly is too little to say or to convince anyone.
In a traditional religion, a statement like above would be considered heresy, for them god is REAL in all terms, it IS, it even interacted with humans several times according to their scripts (talking to Abraham, for example). Hence, I find your belief in god completely weak, and in general, the belief in god cannot be rationalized just like many other things. If you say you believe in god because you like to or because it is practical for you, good for you, I cant rebuttal that, but rationalizing it does not do any good to your faith.
BINGO BINGO BINGO BINGO YES YES YES YES YES
WE HAVE A WINNER FINNALY, WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOsh.
-
BINGO BINGO BINGO BINGO YES YES YES YES YES
WE HAVE A WINNER FINNALY, WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOsh.
Are you admitting your concept of god is egocentric and solipsist? You are about the worse believer I ever met, and I mean this literally, your concept of god is as vague as the concept of Justice and Im guessing you act like you actually didnt have a god at all...
-
Are you admitting your concept of god is egocentric and solipsist? You are about the worse believer I ever met, and I mean this literally, your concept of god is as vague as the concept of Justice and Im guessing you act like you actually didnt have a god at all...
My concept of God is a s Vague as you knowing how much you love your family
-
Exactly, states of mind cannot be proven to others directly and can hardly be proven undirectly, then again, the same applies to the idea of god, so god cannot proven, hence the best you can say is that "in my mind, much like love, I feel god" which sadly is too little to say or to convince anyone.
In a traditional religion, a statement like above would be considered heresy, for them god is REAL in all terms, it IS, it even interacted with humans several times according to their scripts (talking to Abraham, for example). Hence, I find your belief in god completely weak, and in general, the belief in god cannot be rationalized just like many other things. If you say you believe in god because you like to or because it is practical for you, good for you, I cant rebuttal that, but rationalizing it does not do any good to your faith.
Uh, states of mind are easily proven and we have a whole slew of medication for depression and any other mental problem you can possibly have.
-
My concept of God is a s Vague as you knowing how much you love your family
Cool, you have just admitted that you are a practical atheist, you say you believe in "god" but you cant quite possibly act throught it because its a vague concept you cant even define nor show to others...
Welcome to the atheist world, bro.
-
Uh, states of mind are easily proven and we have a whole slew of medication for depression and any other mental problem you can possibly have.
LMAO, now I got you 2 atheist against each other ;D
-
LMAO, now I got you 2 atheist against each other ;D
He is wrong in his statement. It was hopefully just a temporary error in judgement.
-
Cool, you have just admitted that you are a practical atheist, you say you believe in "god" but you cant quite possibly act throught it because its a vague concept you cant even define nor show to others...
Welcome to the atheist world, bro.
Listen, I know I love my children, but can not prove it to anyone, I know I have experienced God (hence I know he exist) but can not prove it to anyone. So I am not a good believer cause I admit God can`t be proven ???, the Bible says the only way to God is through faith, I am 100% on par with the scriptures, do you understand now. BTW where are you from, you said spanish is your first language as is mine.
-
Uh, states of mind are easily proven and we have a whole slew of medication for depression and any other mental problem you can possibly have.
This is going to turn into philosophy of science so its gonna take a lot of fucking walls of text...Ill try and keep it as short as possible
We never know states of mind directly, only undirectly through measurements of brain activity, which only works as a MODEL, science doesnt have today the pretention of knowledge, just funcionality.
Following that, the fact that it is, sometimes, funcional doesnt render it true, just an aproximation, and that is only under the assumption that there is something we can actually aproximate too (this is a Lakatos example not mine), its like walking in the absolute dark, how do you know you are getting closer to anywhere? You can be sure through experience (not really, but for simplifications) that certain medicine appears to help patients, do you know how many errors are made for actual results? The scientific method does not actually exist, and it is because of "unscientific science" that people thought that maybe the planet was not the center of the universe, going against the grain.
[citation needed]
Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend
-
He is wrong in his statement. It was hopefully just a temporary error in judgement.
He is 100% right, you are wrong
-
Spanish is my first language so bare with me, it is important in this kind of discussions.
I love the dialectic idea of "god" as a conscience unfurling in constant struggle. I agree "god" could be all of it, the entire reality, existance, history itself, the mind, however you wanna call it, Id have no trouble with such a concept of a "neutral" god, not a creatinist god or anything like traditional religions or creeds defend (an "ethic god").
I have studied Hegel through Heidegger and Hegel´s political thoughts in Uni and HighSchool, I am not a Hegel scholar but I can defend myself against them, not that I have anything particularly smart to say about him but I know his thought.
Bien hecho!
In order to understand Hegel's theory of anything, one has to grasp his theory of the concept (der Begriff), as related in the Science of Logic (a notoriously difficult work). I've done a lot of work on Hegel and have defended papers in front of some of the world's preeminent Hegel scholars. Keep in mind that there are a lot of misreadings of Hegel's philosophy (by, e.g., Marx, Kojeve, Popper, Arendt, and others), and remember that Hegel's so-called "dialectic" is not the thesis-antithesis-synthesis stuff that is sometimes thrown around in popular discussions. Also, with regard to God, when Hegel talks about God in his works on history and politics, he is not talking about God per se, but rather about Spirit’s (Geist) divine attribute of actively realizing itself, namely through self-reflective, speculative thinking. In order to understand this dynamic process, we need to be clear on the rich definition Hegel accords to the terms ‘Spirit’ and ‘speculative,’ but that would take us too far afield.
-
This is going to turn into philosophy of science so its gonna take a lot of fucking walls of text...Ill try and keep it as short as possible
We never know states of mind directly, only undirectly through measurements of brain activity, which only works as a MODEL, science doesnt have today the pretention of knowledge, just funcionality.
Following that, the fact that it is, sometimes, funcional doesnt render it true, just an aproximation, and that is only under the assumption that there is something we can actually aproximate too (this is a Lakatos example not mine), its like walking in the absolute dark, how do you know you are getting closer to anywhere? You can be sure through experience (not really, but for simplifications) that certain medicine appears to help patients, do you know how many errors are made for actual results? The scientific method does not actually exist, and it is because of "unscientific science" that people thought that maybe the planet was not the center of the universe, going against the grain.
[citation needed]
Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend
Try Science for once, not Psuedo-Science.
I guess all mental health professionals and the Billions spent on proven medication to treat Mental Diseases and Mental States are all a sham right? A waste of time. All the Peer Reviewed literature should be rounded up in a big pile in front of Times Square and burned because its useless. Is that what you are saying?
-
Listen, I know I love my children, but can not prove it to anyone, I know I have experienced God (hence I know he exist) but can not prove it to anyone. So I am not a good believer cause I admit God can`t be proven ???, the Bible says the only way to God is through faith, I am 100% on par with the scriptures, do you understand now. BTW where are you from, you said spanish is your first language as is mine.
This is the deal, you said that god cannot be proven, its a state of mind, well then, because of that, you cannot possibly share states of mind, hence your feeling of god cannot be contrasted to ther feelings of god of other people, rendering all concepts of god useless in practice (like I said, Im a utilitarist so I dont have to explain myself all the way).
Your concept of god is solipsist, and if you believe in the scriptures then YOU CANNOT agree that god is a state of mind but an actual real thing/being whatever that has actually interacted with humans, that is a contradiction in terms of your faith and the scriptures, Descartes actually was a revolutionary thinker because of that.
-
whatever one considers love and he-she chooses to demonstrate by a certain action can also be done by someone who doesn`t love so this can not be counted as proof. Don`t forget proof is an absolute, it is non negotiable, it is 100%, not anything short of this and love can not fallinto this category and yes I read your post already. And that brain scan shows a certain feeling, does not show love.
The brain scan records the subjective response to a stimulus, but provides no definitive proof of a specific response (ex: love). Does the brain scan provide any secondary proof for the stimulus itself?
-
Try Science for once, not Psuedo-Science.
I guess all mental health professionals and the Billions spent on proven medication to treat Mental Diseases and Mental States are all a sham right? A waste of time. All the Peer Reviewed literature should be rounded up in a big pile in front of Times Square and burned because its useless. Is that what you are saying?
Peer reviewed literature in psychiatry ::)
Almost all journals are financed by the pharmaceutical industry, there's not much room for objectivity there
-
The brain scan records the subjective response to a stimulus, but provides no definitive proof of a specific response (ex: love). Does the brain scan provide any secondary proof for the stimulus itself?
"Love" is subjective and just a juvenile term to describe a billion different neurological interactions.
-
Try Science for once, not Psuedo-Science.
I guess all mental health professionals and the Billions spent on proven medication to treat Mental Diseases and Mental States are all a sham right? A waste of time. All the Peer Reviewed literature should be rounded up in a big pile in front of Times Square and burned because its useless. Is that what you are saying?
I am saying the model sometimes works, simetimes it doesnt, it sometimes changes radically (Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Einstein) and sometimes stays the same. Seriously, for a man who praises to know so much I am in awe you cannot grasp the basic references to Kuhn´s Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Theres only one thing worst than a religious fanatic, a science fanatic...this is, and I am not kidding, Philisophy 101, I think that Ill leave this discussion here and continue with the god one because this one is going to get NOWHERE and will sprial in no time in epic walls of text that nobody will bother read or understand.
-
This is the deal, you said that god cannot be proven, its a state of mind, well then, because of that, you cannot possibly share states of mind, hence your feeling of god cannot be contrasted to ther feelings of god of other people, rendering all concepts of god useless in practice (like I said, Im a utilitarist so I dont have to explain myself all the way).
Your concept of god is solipsist, and if you believe in the scriptures then YOU CANNOT agree that god is a state of mind but an actual real thing/being whatever that has actually interacted with humans, that is a contradiction in terms of your faith and the scriptures, Descartes actually was a revolutionary thinker because of that.
I don`t care what term you title my belief with, it means nothing to me, the Bible makes it clear the way to God is by faith and that is what I have faith.
anyway I will be back in a few hour, you will have your hands full with TA
lol, divide and conquer, you guys are to easy ;D
-
Peer reviewed literature in psychiatry ::)
Almost all journals are financed by the pharmaceutical industry, there's not much room for objectivity there
I see Katie let you keep the Laptops.
There are mountains of data not financed by Big Pharma. Even if they were, thats not a bad thing. They still have to go through the Scientific Method.
-
The brain scan records the subjective response to a stimulus, but provides no definitive proof of a specific response (ex: love). Does the brain scan provide any secondary proof for the stimulus itself?
No it doesn`t
-
I see Katie let you keep the Laptops.
???
There are mountains of data not financed by Big Pharma.
The smaller journals that noone pays attention to.
Even if they were, thats not a bad thing. They still have to go through the Scientific Method.
Compromise is a bad thing, to use your term. P-docs get serious grants from pharmas. Wrong results, no more grants.
-
Bien hecho!
In order to understand Hegel's theory of anything, one has to grasp his theory of the concept (der Begriff), as related in the Science of Logic (a notoriously difficult work). I've done a lot of work on Hegel and have defended papers in front of some of the world's preeminent Hegel scholars. Keep in mind that there are a lot of misreadings of Hegel's philosophy (by, e.g., Marx, Kojeve, Popper, Arendt, and others), and remember that Hegel's so-called "dialectic" is not the thesis-antithesis-synthesis stuff that is sometimes thrown around in popular discussions. Also, with regard to God, when Hegel talks about God in his works on history and politics, he is not talking about God per se, but rather about Spirit’s (Geist) divine attribute of actively realizing itself, namely through self-reflective, speculative thinking. In order to understand this dynamic process, we need to be clear on the rich definition Hegel accords to the terms ‘Spirit’ and ‘speculative,’ but that would take us too far afield.
Gracias.
Yeah, thats what I dont like about the concept of god in general philosophy, it tends to have certain attributes depending on the context of the use of the term, overcomplicating an already complicated concept. PLus Hegel is one hard bitch to read and I only read it in english...so yeah. I likek the idea of the developing god-history but I particularly think its ethically void, useless and should be avoided in the real world, its only mental masturbation (Im much closerto english analytics and contemporary utilitarism).
Also, I think Hegel himself had a too grandious idea of god rendering it too ambiguous, its beautiful, I agree, but disposable (much like heideggers Da-Sein, interesting descriptive metaphysics but ultimately useless).
What do you think of Strawsons "Individuals"?
-
Also, I am from Chile Onetimehardon.
-
Philosophy is useless to my dog.
-
I don`t care what term you title my belief with, it means nothing to me, the Bible makes it clear the way to God is by faith and that is what I have faith.
anyway I will be back in a few hour, you will have your hands full with TA
lol, divide and conquer, you guys are to easy ;D
oh, I know you dont care, I am not here to change you mind, just to show anybody reading the inner contradictions and para-concistent premises of the concept of god and faith in general.
-
I don`t care what term you title my belief with, it means nothing to me, the Bible makes it clear the way to God is by faith and that is what I have faith.
anyway I will be back in a few hour, you will have your hands full with TA
lol, divide and conquer, you guys are to easy ;D
What makes your bible the official word of God? Just as how you beleive in your bible, Jews believe in their Torah, Muslims believe in their Koran, Buddhists believe in their teachings etc... So why is it that Christians make their God and Jesus so absolute and disregard other religions?
-
What makes your bible the official word of God? Just as how you beleive in your bible, Jews believe in their Torah, Muslims believe in their Koran, Buddhists believe in their teachings etc... So why is it that Christians make their God and Jesus so absolute and disregard other religions?
Have you studied history
The Assyrian empire, 6 generations, 6 rulers
The Babylonian Empire, 3 generation, 3 rulers
The achaemenid Dynasty (persia) 5-6 generations
Greek rule 10 generations
The Roman empire
This is the Biblical timeline and it goes through these super powers precisely
We know of the existence of over 120 Biblical cities and over 150 Biblical ruler through archaeology alone, we have documented proof of over 50 Biblical wars
The total historical timeline is based and on par with the Biblical narrative and Islam and Judaism is a branch of the Old Testament.
That is 1 reason, would you like another ???
-
Have you studied history
The Assyrian empire, 6 generations, 6 rulers
The Babylonian Empire, 3 generation, 3 rulers
The achaemenid Dynasty (persia) 5-6 generations
Greek rule 10 generations
The Roman empire
This is the Biblical timeline and it goes through these super powers precisely
We know of the existence of over 120 Biblical cities and over 150 Biblical ruler through archaeology alone, we have documented proof of over 50 Biblical wars
The total historical timeline is based and on par with the Biblical narrative and Islam and Judaism is a branch of the Old Testament.
That is 1 reason, would you like another ???
Whoa wait. Judaism is a branch of what??? You do know that Judaism predates christianity.
-
Also, I am from Chile Onetimehardon.
Oh, I am from Costa Rica Fagabolic 8)
-
Whoa wait. Judaism is a branch of what??? You do know that Judaism predates christianity.
I will let you take this back, :o
-
Have you studied history
The Assyrian empire, 6 generations, 6 rulers
The Babylonian Empire, 3 generation, 3 rulers
The achaemenid Dynasty (persia) 5-6 generations
Greek rule 10 generations
The Roman empire
This is the Biblical timeline and it goes through these super powers precisely
We know of the existence of over 120 Biblical cities and over 150 Biblical ruler through archaeology alone, we have documented proof of over 50 Biblical wars
The total historical timeline is based and on par with the Biblical narrative and Islam and Judaism is a branch of the Old Testament.
That is 1 reason, would you like another ???
The Sumarian Culture (Our first known civilization), WELL before biblical times 6000B.C. era had stories of great floods and the idea of an Ark being built. Stated that man was created in the image of "gods" (with a little "g", there is a difference). Stated that woman was created from man and many, man, other similarties all pre bible. This is a culture that very few talk about. Many things we use today were based on their knowledge. "The Sumerians made contribution in various fields like commerce, written and oral communication science and literature among other fields. They developed a system of written communication that built the basis of all written communication systems to come. They used to write on clay tablets and it was the first ever form of writing. They also were able to develop a number system that was based on a basic unit of 60. They were the ones who divided an hour into sixty minutes and said that a circle had three sixty degrees in it. They invented the wheel and the wheeled transportation vehicles as well that facilitated them in trade. They also contributed to the field of astrology as they tracked stars to make calendars."
These people stated they received their knowledge from the gods (yes, plural). They also stated that us, as in humans were genetically modified from whatever the fuck was here at the time...homo erectus. We are slave species that was used to mine gold.
So I'm not saying whose right and whose wrong. But the many stories in the bible, didn't originate from the bible...
-
What do you think of Strawsons "Individuals"?
Early in my studies (I'm currently a PhD student/lecturer), I read and wrote on a lot of work in language (Frege to Kripke), modality (Quine vs. Barcan), and math (mostly Frege), but I've been concentrating over the last few years on the metaphysical influence in post-Kantian, German political philosophy. I've read Strawson, but not Individuals (though I do seem to recall reading a chapter from that book, "Persons," in a class once). I have read Strawson's influential The Bounds of Sense, but I find that he, and someone close to him like Jonathan Bennett, while putting up important arguments, sometimes misinterpret Kant's thought. So I would say that while Strawson's work is very important to analytic work on Kant, there remains something to be desired on the level of interpretation (exegesis). With regard to contemporary analytic work, I've completed drafts of papers at the intersection of complex dynamical systems and Hegel's theory of self-organization (which is being cited by others). And I've recently done what some consider decent work pointing out problems with John Searle's theory of social ontology.
-
Early in my studies (I'm currently a PhD student/lecturer), I read and wrote on a lot of work in language (Frege to Kripke), modality (Quine vs. Barcan), and math (mostly Frege), but I've been concentrating over the last few years on the metaphysical influence in post-Kantian, German political philosophy. I've read Strawson, but not Individuals (though I do seem to recall reading a chapter from that book, "Persons," in a class once). I have read Strawson's influential The Bounds of Sense, but I find that he, and someone close to him like Jonathan Bennett, while putting up important arguments, sometimes misinterpret Kant's thought. So I would say that while Strawson's work is very important to analytic work on Kant, there remains something to be desired on the level of interpretation (exegesis). With regard to contemporary analytic work, I've completed drafts of papers at the intersection of complex dynamical systems and Hegel's theory of self-organization (which is being cited by others). And I've recently done what some consider decent work pointing out problems with John Searle's theory of social ontology.
... people still study Kant?
oh yeah... you're a university philosopher ::)
-
Early in my studies (I'm currently a PhD student/lecturer), I read and wrote on a lot of work in language (Frege to Kripke), modality (Quine vs. Barcan), and math (mostly Frege), but I've been concentrating over the last few years on the metaphysical influence in post-Kantian, German political philosophy. I've read Strawson, but not Individuals (though I do seem to recall reading a chapter from that book, "Persons," in a class once). I have read Strawson's influential The Bounds of Sense, but I find that he, and someone close to him like Jonathan Bennett, while putting up important arguments, sometimes misinterpret Kant's thought. So I would say that while Strawson's work is very important to analytic work on Kant, there remains something to be desired on the level of interpretation (exegesis). With regard to contemporary analytic work, I've completed drafts of papers at the intersection of complex dynamical systems and Hegel's theory of self-organization (which is being cited by others). And I've recently done what some consider decent work pointing out problems with John Searle's theory of social ontology.
Nice, how old are you and where are you finishing your PhD? I have done some shit myself but nothing like you, good job man!
Do you like Austin?
-
Nice, how old are you and where are you finishing your PhD? I have done some shit myself but nothing like you, good job man!
Do you like Austin?
Austin's great, and a very pleasurable read. Searle, too. But there are some things about the social world that they take for granted. Don't want to get specific about specifics. Northeast USA. Thanks, man!
-
The Sumarian Culture (Our first known civilization), WELL before biblical times 6000B.C. era had stories of great floods and the idea of an Ark being built. Stated that man was created in the image of "gods" (with a little "g", there is a difference). Stated that woman was created from man and many, man, other similarties all pre bible. This is a culture that very few talk about. Many things we use today were based on their knowledge. "The Sumerians made contribution in various fields like commerce, written and oral communication science and literature among other fields. They developed a system of written communication that built the basis of all written communication systems to come. They used to write on clay tablets and it was the first ever form of writing. They also were able to develop a number system that was based on a basic unit of 60. They were the ones who divided an hour into sixty minutes and said that a circle had three sixty degrees in it. They invented the wheel and the wheeled transportation vehicles as well that facilitated them in trade. They also contributed to the field of astrology as they tracked stars to make calendars."
These people stated they received their knowledge from the gods (yes, plural). They also stated that us, as in humans were genetically modified from whatever the fuck was here at the time...homo erectus. We are slave species that was used to mine gold.
So I'm not saying whose right and whose wrong. But the many stories in the bible, didn't originate from the bible...
They both are right cause they are both the same event...
Go to any major university and any historian will date the Sumerians to 3000-3500 BC, this is the accepted date, the problem with you is you have been reading to much of Zackariah`s BS and the poorly translated Annunaki BS
I have read every single Summerian artifact and manuscript and or tablets and a lot of it is symbolic in nature like the list of the God-kingship who came down from heaven and reigned each one from 20 000 years to 60 000 years, really convincing. A king reigned for 28 900 years and you are taking this literally ???
The cities of walled Uruk and Babel erected by Gilgamesh is the Biblical Nimrod. In the Bible it states that Nimrod built the same cities that Gilgamesh built, according to both texts they where both mighty hunters, both where kings in Mesopotamia, both where giants, both where difiant to God, both erected tall structures that could withhold a flood and both where the first military commander to rise up an army of 5000 men, also known as Sargon. So to say they where not the same characters is fucken outright stupid.
The flood story is the same story as the Biblical flood story and took place at the same time obviously, the only difference is the Summerian flood story was written before the Biblical account, so what that means nothing, the Biblical account was derived from a past down manuscript from the same time, hence it is the same event that took place. Utanapishtim is the Biblical Noah and Gilgamesh is Nimrod
anything else you want to know, I spent 5 years studying the Cuneiform tablets. 8)
-
Very sorry to hear about your father Curt.......my sincere condolences buddy.
-
Very sorry to hear about your father Curt.......my sincere condolences buddy.
Wes, since you were around well before Jesus was born can you explain to everyone what religion was like then?
-
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.- Marcus Aurelius
I have used this same quote before. It covers all of the bases. Amazing that this man thought like this 2,000+ years ago.
-
I have used this same quote before. It covers all of the bases. Amazing that this man thought like this 2,000+ years ago.
Then what is considered good? It is in human's nature to kill animals to eat them. But in north america killing a dog and eating it is illegal, but in asia it is not. Are they bad?
Religion brought on all of these rules of what makes a "good" human. Men need to fuck women, plain and simple. Yet this thing called marriage makes it not so with them or else you are breaking a rule.
-
Then what is considered good? It is in human's nature to kill animals to eat them. But in north america killing a dog and eating it is illegal, but in asia it is not. Are they bad?
Religion brought on all of these rules of what makes a "good" human. Men need to fuck women, plain and simple. Yet this thing called marriage makes it not so with them or else you are breaking a rule.
This is what I believe: An all knowing/loving god will except me for the flawed human that I am. He would know that I lived a good, honest, and humble life. I am not worried either way. It will be either eternal darkness or salvation.
-
This is what I believe: An all knowing/loving god will except me for the flawed human that I am. He would know that I lived a good, honest, and humble life. I am not worried either way. It will be either eternal darkness or salvation.
Where did this whole belief in the afterlife come from? Remember that ages ago people thought heaven was in the clouds and that hell was in the pits of the earth. I think science has proved that to be wrong ;)
-
Where did this whole belief in the afterlife come from? Remember that ages ago people that heaven was in the clouds and that hell was in the pits of the earth. I think science has proved that to be wrong ;)
I agree. I'm just covering my tracks :D
-
Is this the first death you've experienced? I knew a degenerate in my younger days who got shot for robbing cocaine. It took a couple of days for the reality to set in and i teared up a little after seeing his picture in our local newspaper.
That was my first experience of someone i knew dying. Now shit doesn't even phase me and i find myself unaffected by it. My grandmother, neighbour, uncles, and a few other distant acquaintances passed away since then and i must say it's business as usual for me with no resentment meltdowns aimed at an imaginary entity.
Close with Dad. Moved back to midwest from Arizona because I just had a feeling it would be better as parents got older.
-
Listen, I know I love my children, but can not prove it to anyone, I know I have experienced God (hence I know he exist) but can not prove it to anyone. So I am not a good believer cause I admit God can`t be proven ???, the Bible says the only way to God is through faith, I am 100% on par with the scriptures, do you understand now. BTW where are you from, you said spanish is your first language as is mine.
I am not going to engage in the god is/isn't debate....but as far how you could prove your love? How about this. If there was any way of donating my life to my father could live. I would do so. Thats love. I am sure you would give your last breath, your last shred of clothing, your last penny, etc. for your children. That is love.
I am sure you would step in front of a moving car for them. Yes? Again, thats a sign of love
-
Come home from work and the poo is flying
-
Wes, since you were around well before Jesus was born can you explain to everyone what religion was like then?
Who`s Jesus ? :D
-
I am not going to engage in the god is/isn't debate....but as far how you could prove your love? How about this. If there was any way of donating my life to my father could live. I would do so. Thats love. I am sure you would give your last breath, your last shred of clothing, your last penny, etc. for your children. That is love.
I am sure you would step in front of a moving car for them. Yes? Again, thats a sign of love
I understand exactly what you are saying. All those points are a very good sign of love. All I am saying is that any one of those actions does not prove 100% that you love someone. There is always the possibility, however improbable it may be, that someone that does not love someone would do 1 of those things for them.