disillusioned

Regular Member
  • Content count

    891
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

disillusioned last won the day on November 22 2015

disillusioned had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

605 Outstanding

About disillusioned

  • Rank
    Holy Prophet of the FSM

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Still trying to find my way, mostly making it up as I go along.
  • Interests
    Chess, literature, science, philosophy, entertainment, food and drink.
  • More About Me
    "Using words to talk of words is like using a pencil to draw a picture of itself, on itself."
    ~Patrick Rothfuss~

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    I have looked deep into the sauce and cheese.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,819 profile views
  1. I think he's gone again. Maybe he'll return, but no one knows the day or the hour.
  2. Yes, this seems correct to me. I can't see a way that either Matthew or Luke could have viewed Mark as scripture.
  3. Again, I think the root problem here is that "free will" is not well defined. And why should it be? As I said before, consciousness is involved, and consciousness is tricky to nail down. And this should not be surprising. There is no reason that issues of this nature should be comprehensible to humans. I suspect that these are questions which will never be answered, and that the true answers (if they exist) might not make sense to us anyways.
  4. Yes, but in that case it seems to me that the subsequent gospels would have most likely focussed on clarifying specific aspects of Christ's life rather than on attempting to depict his life as a whole. But what we actually have is a number of different accounts of Christ's entire life, none of which agree on all of the major issues. This seems problematic to me.
  5. This. Give us an example or STFU.
  6. Hey look. He's back.
  7. It seems to me that the simplest explanation is that each gospel was written to be "THE GOSPEL", ie, the one and only correct account. They authors probably never intended for them to be entirely consistent with each other.
  8. I've given some thought to this over the past few years, but sadly I haven't really drawn any firm conclusions. I think that this is because I inevitably find myself running into a wall when I consider how to define "free will". Colloquially, we might define it as "the freedom to choose our actions", or something along those lines. But the problem is that this is not a properly rigorous definition for a serious discussion. What does it mean to choose? It seems to me that intelligence and, possibly, consciousness are involved, and neither of these concepts is particularly well understood either (at least not by me). So I usually answer the question of free will as Christopher Hitchens used to by saying "Of course I have free will; I have no choice but to have it." This is clever, but unsatisfactory. So I'm very interested to see where this discussion goes. Can anyone here offer a robust definition of "free will"?
  9. GOOD.
  10. Here's an alternative view to your article: https://thinkprogress.org/climate-change-deniers-can-rest-easy-knowing-the-democratic-party-isnt-out-to-prosecute-them-da4ca53751a2 It seems that these prosecutions have more to do with corporate fraud than simple climate change denying. But maybe this source is also flawed. I don't know, but my point remains: I haven't seen it happening, and were I to hazard a guess, I'd say that you haven't seen it either. Not having seen it, should you not disbelieve it? Are these not your principles? If individuals were being prosecuted for their views, then that would be very troubling indeed. But this is not happening. So that leaves us with me saying that I don't see something happening, and to show me that it is happening you gave me an example of something that isn't happening. Interesting reasoning, that.
  11. And who exactly is acting like the world is about to end? I'm asking sincerely. I know that there are a few people on the very fringes of society who are acting like this, but they are certainly not in positions of power. Otherwise, all the resources would be dedicated to dealing with climate change. They aren't, and never were. Only a very few people are panicking. We're all still driving our cars, flying our planes, and running our ACs and furnaces 24/7. My opinion is that this is an issue that we should be taking much more seriously, but you are absolutely free to disagree with me there. I don't really care. But it does seem strange to me that you seem to have it in your mind that everyone is acting as if we're doomed tomorrow. I don't see anybody acting that way. The great barrier reef is dying, fast. We have just gotten our first CO2 readings above 410ppm. The ice caps are melting. Global temperatures are rising. These are facts. And yet, we are pretty much just carrying on as usual. Who do you see that is panicking? Honestly, from here it seems like you just don't like listening to people who disagree with you.
  12. Actually, I do understand that this is what you are saying, and I don't disagree that there is always the potential for institutions to be corrupted by money. But surely you can see that there is more money on the other side of this particular issue. I'm curious as to why you don't factor this into your position. I've heard you say this many times BO, but your position here is not consistent. First of all, you believe lots of things that you can't see with your own eyes as has been argued many times. Do you accept that the universe is expanding? Can you see it? Do you accept evolution? Have you seen it? Do you have a liver? Have you seen it? But the bigger issue is that you consistently take a dogmatic stance with respect to this issue. A sceptic would say "I'm not sure about climate change", and leave it at that. A cynic would say "I don't trust scientific institutions, and I'm suspicious of the veracity of the claims that they make", and leave it at that. But that's not what you do. Any time anyone brings up climate change, you immediately start yelling about GLOW BULL WARMING. You refuse to accept any evidence that suggests, or even seems to suggest that climate change might be an issue on the basis of scepticism/cynicism, but you are very quick to point towards any source that agrees with your position. This is dogmatism, plain and simple. You aren't saying that climate change might not be an issue, you are saying that it definitely isn't. So again, I ask what makes you so convinced that this is a conspiracy?
  13. BO, I don't understand why you think that the money is predominantly on the side of the scientists who are concerned about climate change. I've spoken to a number of climate scientists who are very concerned about climate change, and none of them is receiving any money to promote their views. On the contrary, they usually complain that they are functionally muzzled, because of all the money that is involved in the energy sector. The governments of the world are largely controlled by big oil, and big oil has a vested interest in making sure that the public is not overly concerned about climate change. Consequently, many of the scientists that I've spoken to have, either explicitly or implicitly, been told to shut up by the institutions that they work for. I honestly don't understand how you can view this as some sort of conspiracy. Climate scientists, by and large, are not getting rich by engaging in sensationalism. Climate change does not dominate the headlines. It does not receive a huge amount of news coverage (it gets some, to be sure, but not as much in the last few months as the size of the crowd at Donald Trump's inauguration). I get scepticism. I even get cynicism. But dogmatism is another issue. Why are you so convinced that this is some sort of conspiracy?
  14. Very, very cool.
  15. I'm Canadian. Know that we find the state of your government to be hillarious. And also horrifying.