Jump to content

chefranden

Regular Member
  • Posts

    4,371
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by chefranden

  1. chefranden

    Consciousness

    I got really sick a couple of weeks ago, and I've been a chicken soup kick ever since.
  2. How do we know that you have interpreted it properly? Because you say so? If you are not a Calvinist they would say that you interpreted improperly. I'm sure you are as confident in your interpretation as any Calvinist. But where does that leave me? As it is written, "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me." I guess that this is one of those prayers where God says no. When y'all get it worked out, come back and see me. I have to say that Calvinism explains the existence of atheists and Muslims, better than your view. We are obviously not chosen for grace. I couldn't choose to believe if you set my butt on fire. If you did set my butt on fire I'd probably say, "I believe" but I wouldn't, 'cause I couldn't. Once you find out Santa ain't real, you stop sending him letters.
  3. I wonder how we know that you are Christian. Probably because you said so. They say so, so they are Christians to me. I guess it is fair though, because they would say you aren't a Christian. I love it when Christians mix it up (shank each other) like this. I go read John 17 and giggle all the way through it. This doesn't tell me anything, because they would call you an apostate. Who's right? I can't tell, though I tend to come down on their side, since their actions more closely match biblegod's character. Compared to them you are a bit more new agey. Who is it that does this not allowing any way? Fred? The Pope? God? You? Who ever does it is not very effective.
  4. That will teach you not to be polite!
  5. chefranden

    Consciousness

    I do? Damn I shouldn't have cut that old tree down! If you mean there are pre-existing levels of consciousness that things evolve into, then I disagree whole heatedly. Nor do I think that there are other "levels" waiting out there. We may evolve into something that we might label a higher consciousness, but we are just as likely to go extinct. All our other hominid cousins are extinct already and most mammals make due with little or no consciousness. This doesn't say a lot for the consciousness niche. You are talking about a religious belief here as if it were something real. It is not anymore real then the resurrection. Well then we really can't discuss it. We can't discuss the virtues of chicken soup if we don't know what a chicken is. I don't know what you mean by consciousness except maybe that it is some kind of spirit world, or maybe it is a way to say supernatural without saying supernatural. If you say that the universe is conscious, to me you are saying that the universe is self aware and I don't give that idea much more credence than I give my own supposed soul.
  6. I don't deny "personal experiences". I had a few myself. I only deny that "personal experiences" are about anything real in the actual universe outside of one's "personal limpic system" activity. You understand your "personal experiences" are about God and about ChristianGod in particular. But your personal experiences are meaningless to me, just like the personal experiences that prove Allah to other believers are meaningless to you. I'm sure you had a warm fuzzy, but so? Personal experiences, being personal, are not good arguments for God when speaking to others who value logical and scientific evidence. Therefore I wouldn't expect "warm fuzzies" to be taken as evidence. "God can't be a mean asshole in spite of what the bible says, because I feel so nice when I think about him," is not an argument for god is love.
  7. Christians are one of the main attractions for me. You can't argue with them on Christian sites without getting banned. It used to be more fun in the olden days when more of you were around.
  8. I haven't bragged on a painting in awhile. I liked the way this one turned out. Other paintings on flickr
  9. I'm a Unitedstatesian. 1. There was no final trigger. My faith just faded away like the new on a new car fades until one day you realize it is an old car now. I tried my best to keep the new -- cleaning and detailing until I was blue in the face -- but it didn't work. It got old anyway. 2. I didn't decide to become an atheist. It wasn't like joining the ACLU. It was just what was left over after the faith wore off.
  10. chefranden

    Consciousness

    Yes I know you want every thing to be conscious, but it isn't. Unconscious stuff produces stars, comets, rock, interstellar gas, magnetism, gravity, ..., and consciousness given the right circumstances. If you want to say everything is conscious ok, but then the idea of consciousness is meaningless. Consciousness has a meaning: an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation. We could redefine anything into something else. Everything is popcorn for example. I don't see what the point is though, except to give oneself a warm fuzzy. People like to do that: "God is love" sigh. "The universe is conscious" sigh. Both of these ideas serve the same psychological purpose, but neither is true in the sense of being real. Both are states of delusion produced by the mind to keep itself more on the comfortable end of the continuum instead of on the end were it instructs the brain to blow it self out. The mind is a virtual awareness machine, but it isn't very good at awareness. It is only good enough. Evolution is always satisfied with good enough because everything it makes is disposable.
  11. So you are suggesting that the original poster was correct: God was supposedly testing to find out something he should have already known - because he's omniscient. So God isn't omniscient. I knew that. Of course God is omniscient, no one else is. We're slow,so He's letting us understand through experience what He knew all along. Someone once said that the world is a stage and we are the actors, so true. The bible says :1 Corinthians 4:9 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. In the margin in the bible spectale means theatre. Unfallen beings are watching us cuz we are virtual atheists. BTW tnks for helping with the fonts You know that actors get to read the script -- right? Alan Watts described God as a bored fellow with not much to do but stare at nothing for 10,000 years. So God creates the world for a little drama, a little fun as it were. But this is a Hindu sort of god that plays all the parts himself, and has made himself forget that this is what he is doing. The Hebrew God is more of a sick bastard, because he is doing it to people. Sort of like raising chickens for cock fights. "I want you to know I love you, therefore I break your nose and starve your kids. Now lets give us big hug!" Odd thing is that it works. Lots of fools give the SOB a hug.
  12. Shyone please forgive me. I singled this out because it is so patently absurd to me that it damages your credibility on this topic, in my eyes. Ideas are frequently used as weapons. Propaganda is proof. And deception is the essence of warfare. Where's the beef? How are you going to change minds without propaganda -- especially in a world in which propaganda is the life's blood of commerce. It's the real thing.
  13. Well would you look at that? That's Rosemary's baby!
  14. This is a tough tiddle of the Bible to claim God is omnibenevolent. I have heard people say that the Amalekites where horrible, immoral people; but, then again, the muslims could say the same about polytheist Christians and decide to go try and kill them all, which, they have tried to do. That just leaves it as a blank image for me, not monstrous, just kind of open for further explaining. One could say the Hebrews just gave God the recognition of 'the order'; and we do know that the writers didn't exactly collaborate perfectly all the time like in Kings and Chronicles, so maybe it was miswrote. It was all miswrote. You just think some bits weren't miswrote, and that you can tell the good bits from the bad. Since you have this power, I still don't understand why you don't just rewrite it so that the miswrote bits get fixed. Then, say in 4 or 5 hundred years there could be a gospel according to YoYo sitting on the altar of churches around the world. Why do you think that God gave you this power if not to fix the church with the truth? As it is written, "from him whom much has been given, much is expected." I think you should step up. I Chronicles 21:1 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. 2 Samuel 24 Again the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah. The first time I ever read the Bible, I noticed this inconsistency in Scripture. Who did it? God or Satan. I will say the NIV uses lower case for 'he' in 2 Sam. But, this is the point, here is not an example, not a theory, but proof that the scriptures are not infallible. So, writer error could be a feasible thought into Christian theology. 1. So, what if the writer claimed God lead Samuel to order the slaying of those innocent childrens, and really, it was Satan. With my example above,wouldn't that be a Biblical consideration? Of course, we could also say by that, possibly, that Satan followed Moses around and gave them all those commandments, or Elijah toasted all those prophets, or Satan made them bears come and maul them kids. So, in essence, Christianity would change forever, if not become ruined, or tainted in some degree. 2. This Chef, is why it is the skeptics favorite area of criticism, and most effective; and also, a fundy's nightmare question. It works out for good conversation, that is, until it gets real for people hurting over religion or whatnot 1. Sure, what the hell. Satan wrote bits of the bible. Santa wrote bits of the bible. The tooth fairy wrote bits of the bible. I'm not the one trying to believe it here, so it's all the same to me. 2. This is where the rubber meets the road and fails to provide traction. You want to lay the problem of religion at the feet of religion, instead of at the feet of God where it belongs. However, in the end you have to lay the problem on religion, for there is no god to lay it on. But I have to return to my plea. If you actually know the Jesus bits from the Satan bits, you should rewrite the Bible with just the Jesus bits left in -- you know for the good of mankind. It would seem that God can't manage this simple task himself. I think that is because there is no god to manage it. I suppose that you think that people mess up the process, not god. If this is so then you are the culprit, or one of them. You refuse to clean up the text even though you know the good bits from the bad. Poor God, too bad he never learned how to write.
  15. chefranden

    Who Are We?

    Ah yes! The musings of one who refuses to see the organization of life we will nod to entropic forces No glance at our epistemic knife it's all particles in motion no functions to be seen no call for fancy notion can't upset physic's dean So we'll chase particles around and puree the organism until life's essence is found to reside in mechanism I doubt it. We will chase women as usual. However, since I caught a woman* 37 years ago, I have time to speculate on mechanism. *Actually she caught me. I hope that doesn't mess up the space time continuum.
  16. chefranden

    Consciousness

    Being is consciousness and consciousness is being. I am therefore I think. But not I think therefore I am. You need your stuff in order to think, but your stuff doesn't need your thinking in order to be. This is because being is not consciousness. It is existence. Stuff is the ground of consciousness, not consciousness is the ground of stuff. Watts said that the universe peoples like a tree leaves, but that isn't the case. A tree has to produce leaves according to its genetic rules i.e. it can't produce whales or snow. But the universe has no rules that forced it to produce people. The universe's rules allowed for the production of people, but it could just as well have done something else. In fact it will do something else sooner or later.
  17. Just face it Clay, my friend. The bible is full of confusion like this. What one author giveth another author taketh away. Why do you suppose there are so many denominations? Because one group reads the same book in a different way. Now why would that be??? Because the SOB is confusing that's why. Not even prayer by the bestest guy ever managed to straighten this out. Hell, the bible even gives multiple ways to salvation from just believing in the case of the thief, to immersion according to Peter. Ezekiel says all you have to do is obey a few simple rules for salvation meaning you are your own savior. Paul says you can obey all you want, but you are still just a rotting corpse. Hell, wars were fought for ages across Europe over these things, and the US founders fixed the constitution to prevent the same thing happening here. When you say the someone is perverting the message of scripture, what you mean is that they are fooling with your accepted patches on the problem.
  18. chefranden

    Who Are We?

    Yeah, that is right on....I wake these days thinking wtf? and then get in the shower anyhow. What has provoked thought is the founding father's list of rights and the qualities of the list...and added qualities....fwiw. Perhaps the meaning of life is just inertia. A body in motion stays in motion until acted on by an outside force. Life keeps on living until acted upon by an outside force. You do realize that if your mother had had a headache on a certain day some years ago you'd be someone else? Even then you had to beat Sally to the egg. Poor Sally, she never saw the light of day. You caused a whole shitload of people not to be born, and now you are not sure that getting in the race and winning it was all that cool. Edited for spelling
  19. Again you haven't identified any objective quality to morality. That is you haven't identified anything that exists as a moral outside of human sensibilities. The killing of female parents for reasons of honor in some societies would not be murder, and would not be murder even in some biblical/christian societies. In fact most killed adults are quite likely parents. The United States killed many parents in the war on Iraq, but few if any of those killings were considered murder by the United States, though I daresay many Iraqis considered these killings murder. I still think that you can't find any killing of any persons to be murder in all societies, or even in all Christian societies. This does not mean that all societies don't have some definition of murder. However that does not make murder objective i.e. existing outside of the sensibilities of humans. I will say that you have identified the best candidate for a possible objective moral, but you have not demonstrated it to be objective. You are going to have even more difficulty as you attempt to add other morals to your list.
  20. Of course it would be moral, just like the killing of the Amalekites and other tribes living in the promised land was moral. If Hitler had won that would be proof that he was right, just like in the bible the extermination of pre-Israelite tribes was moral. In fact failures to do so were considered immoral as when Saul was punished for not completing the job against the Amalekites. As far as brainwashing goes, I was raised in the 50's to believe that the firebombing of German and Japanese cities and the nuking of Japanese was not only good but heroic. Many if not most of my contemporaries still believe that this is the case. I'm quite sure that generations following Hitler's would consider the extermination of certain other peoples good or even heroic as well had he won. In addition these hypothetical generations would have considered the firebombings of German cities gross evil and would have prosecuted the perpetrators as criminals. I notice here that you have avoided mentioning your judgment of Biblical genocides. I wonder if that is because it would interfere with your insistence that murder is an objective moral. If it is an objective moral then either God is a murderer, or genocide is not murder. You have a problem either way. Things that are hideous in your mind are not necessarily hideous in the mind of others. You may think they ought to be hideous in the mind of others, but that does not make it so. As I indicated above honor killing is hideous in my mind, but not killing for honor is hideous in the mind of others. Which has an objective value? Try as you might you cannot separate these things from the minds that hold them. That makes these morals, even murder, relative to the minds involved. Morals are subjective because people are subjective. Murder is an objective moral in your mind, but you can't find it as such in the world because it can't even be defined in a fashion that even all Christians would agree on. You have not demonstrated it to be objective. If it were objective it would apply absolutely in all circumstances, which it does not even for you. You would consider the WWII Germans murderers, but not the biblical Israelites (or even the modern Israelis)though they were/are both doing the same thing. Your idea of murder is relative.
  21. Of course morals are relative. If Hitler had won the war, he would be a hero not an evil person. There would be temples to him like the Lincoln memorial. The evil of Hitler is relative to Germans loosing the war. Morals are always subjective and relative to the situation. You have tried to make murder an objective moral, while at the same time admitting that it is relative and subject to the interpretation of people. You are correct to the extent that people have some values though not identical that can be recognized across all cultures, but that doesn't make them objective morals. It merely makes these values relative to our species. "Thou shall not kill." If no killing were actually an objective value we'd all die. We need to kill to live. Even vegetarians need to kill to live. If your God made the world as you say, that is the way he made it. In any case your God is recorded as a killer and commander of killings. That in itself is proof that these morals are relative not objective. If they were objective, God would be bound by them. Even if God lay down these rules, they are only applicable to humans making these rules relative to humans. In addition these rules are subject to human interpretation which makes them subjective. Perhaps from your subjective point of view abortion is murder, from my subjective view it is not murder. You may say that abortion is objectively immoral, but that would only be your opinion. From my perspective Hitler's killing of the Jews and other groups was evil. However from Hitler and company's point of view it was good. These peoples that they were killing were in their minds the evil doers. These peoples occupied places that Germans should occupy. These peoples were the Amalekites of his day. As a believer you quite likely view the killing of the Amalekites down to the last cow OK. If so this means you don't find Hitlers actions objectionable. You only find that his choice of people to exterminate was objectionable. From my point of view honor killings of women is immoral murder. However, from a devote Muslim's point of view these killings are not only not murder, they are necessary. To these believers if they didn't kill these women they would be guilty of immorality. Our respective morality is relative to our beliefs and not to anything that exists objectively outside of those beliefs. When you insist that there are objective morals you are just insisting that your moral values are the real ones. Try as you might, you will not be able to identify all or any of these objective moral absolutes that even all Christians will recognize as moral absolutes. I've challenged many Christians spouting objective morals to write out a list of them that all Christians will agree apply absolutely in all circumstances i.e. these morals would not be relative. No Christian yet has attempted to do it. Why is that? Surely you will be able to do it.
  22. chefranden

    Consciousness

    This is what I have been saying all along. Self-awareness is not the totality of consciousness, but one highly developed aspect of it. It is present in one form or another all the way down, and all the way up - again, in one form or another, some more shallow, some more deep. Self-awareness is a deeper form of it. But where does consciousness come from? Where does the Universe come from? I think that I have led you astray. I have a conservative definition of consciousness which is an alert cognitive/mental state in which and individual is aware of self and it's situation. I think that consciousness may exist on a continuum in things that have a brain/nervous system the scale of which may go from 1 in a mosquito to 1000 in a human and maybe beyond in something else. The universe as a whole is not conscious because it is not structured as a brain/nervous system. Consciousness, is not the ground of being. Consciousness in simply one artifact among many of the organizational property of stuff. When I say the universe knows how to make a human, I'm writing about its unconscious organizational abilities that are described in the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. Consciousness is not the ground of being, being is the ground of consciousness.
  23. This is a tough tiddle of the Bible to claim God is omnibenevolent. I have heard people say that the Amalekites where horrible, immoral people; but, then again, the muslims could say the same about polytheist Christians and decide to go try and kill them all, which, they have tried to do. That just leaves it as a blank image for me, not monstrous, just kind of open for further explaining. One could say the Hebrews just gave God the recognition of 'the order'; and we do know that the writers didn't exactly collaborate perfectly all the time like in Kings and Chronicles, so maybe it was miswrote. It was all miswrote. You just think some bits weren't miswrote, and that you can tell the good bits from the bad. Since you have this power, I still don't understand why you don't just rewrite it so that the miswrote bits get fixed. Then, say in 4 or 5 hundred years there could be a gospel according to YoYo sitting on the altar of churches around the world. Why do you think that God gave you this power if not to fix the church with the truth? As it is written, "from him whom much has been given, much is expected." I think you should step up.
  24. Miracle, another English word so discounted that nowadays it is a miracle when I get my socks on the right feet.
  25. Unfortunately solidness is a physical property and the Supernatural conveniently doesn't have any physical properties. You can say the Supernatural is x but not y, and then later say the Supernatural is y but not x and not be contradictory because no one knows what the properties of the Supernatural are. One of the properties of the Supernatural may well be self-contradiction, but you will never know that or any other Supernatural property because the Supernatural is "outside of physics" and you are inside of physics. By Ordinary's definition the Supernatural is undefinable, but of course that doesn't stop him from defining it.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.