A Christian Framework

[midniterider]

show me your boobs and i will show you my balls,,,,,

 

oh, no, the other fellow use the dirty word, no i would not have it, apologise or i will not show you my balls,,,,

 

oh, the other guy dont know about ad hocmsigfbvisn whatever shit that is, so i will not present my balls,,,,,

 

oh, i think you guys are poking my ass now, i will not show you my balls,,,,,,

 

IN ACTUAL FACT, you got no balls to show,,,,,,,,, just a pussy,,,,

 

Get on with your premise, your argument and lets go at it,,,,,

 

Ad Hominem is a food which consists of dried maize kernels which have been treated with an alkali in a process called nixtamalization.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So if you all refuse to define your terms, there is no discussion. Everyone lives with a philosophical framework for their beliefs, even if it is a simple one. This is just laziness. You're more concerned with jokes than you are with serious thought. Prove me wrong.

 

I'm mad? hahahahahahahaha no, I just shake my head and laugh. Stop giving intelligent and respectful atheists a bad name. I know you can do better.

I call complete and utter bullshit upon you, little boy.  I made plain my terms as I explained to you the simplicity of my philosophy.  You promised to get back to me after you had time to digest.  Two pages later you are still peddling the same "I'm right, you're all wrong" mantra.  If you wanted a true discussion, I gave you a place to start.  You are a liar.  Had you wanted genuine dialogue, you would have responded to the simple philosophy I gave you (according to your own words).  You never wanted discussion; you are here to get your point across, no matter what.  I warned you before, assertion and dishonesty will not get you very far on this website; now look where you are, you silly little child.

[Wololo]

 

So if you all refuse to define your terms, there is no discussion. Everyone lives with a philosophical framework for their beliefs, even if it is a simple one. This is just laziness. You're more concerned with jokes than you are with serious thought. Prove me wrong.

 

I'm mad? hahahahahahahaha no, I just shake my head and laugh. Stop giving intelligent and respectful atheists a bad name. I know you can do better.

I call complete and utter bullshit upon you, little boy.  I made plain my terms as I explained to you the simplicity of my philosophy.  You promised to get back to me after you had time to digest.  Two pages later you are still peddling the same "I'm right, you're all wrong" mantra.  If you wanted a true discussion, I gave you a place to start.  You are a liar.  Had you wanted genuine dialogue, you would have responded to the simple philosophy I gave you (according to your own words).  You never wanted discussion; you are here to get your point across, no matter what.  I warned you before, assertion and dishonesty will not get you very far on this website; now look where you are, you silly little child.

 

 

Check back. I addressed your philosophy and your "my consciousness exists". Go back and have a look. I don't recall your response. If you're going to shoot off your mouth, at least say something accurate. Want me to quote my response for you?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

No, I just checked back and didn't see a single reply.  Perhaps you could provide a link?  Your posts are often so long and convoluted that it is hard to follow.  Also, you have a habit of lying, like when you said you were attempting to explain how god was infinite when really you were only asserting that god was infinite, so there's that to consider.  Yes, I would like you to quote, verbatim, what your answer to my philosophy was.

[Wololo]

...

 

Yes, you should be quite familiar with Descartes if you hold to that belief, and if you are, you understand that the rational thinking that is occurring is consistent with itself meaning that there is indeed an "I". The "I" is the consciousness that exists and that thinks. If all that you know exists is this consciousness, then that consciousness would sum up your identity. You would be your consciousness. The very fact that the consciousness recognizes its own existence, means that it recognizes a 'self'. Do you disagree with that? Please elaborate, as I am comfortable going further.

 

...

 

Voila. My response.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

...

 

Yes, you should be quite familiar with Descartes if you hold to that belief, and if you are, you understand that the rational thinking that is occurring is consistent with itself meaning that there is indeed an "I". The "I" is the consciousness that exists and that thinks. If all that you know exists is this consciousness, then that consciousness would sum up your identity. You would be your consciousness. The very fact that the consciousness recognizes its own existence, means that it recognizes a 'self'. Do you disagree with that? Please elaborate, as I am comfortable going further.

 

...

 

Voila. My response.

 

Okay, demonstrate to me how I "hold to a belief".  I will give you a heads-up, little boy, acknowledging that the only thing I can be certain of is my consciousness is not a belief; it is simple honesty.

 

Incidentally, usually if you are replying to a specific post from a specific person, you either quote that person or say "hey mr. so and so, here's my response."  If you aren't ashamed and embarrassed by your response, then you shouldn't hide it where the intended victim can't find it.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

...

 

Yes, you should be quite familiar with Descartes if you hold to that belief, and if you are, you understand that the rational thinking that is occurring is consistent with itself meaning that there is indeed an "I". The "I" is the consciousness that exists and that thinks. If all that you know exists is this consciousness, then that consciousness would sum up your identity. You would be your consciousness. The very fact that the consciousness recognizes its own existence, means that it recognizes a 'self'. Do you disagree with that? Please elaborate, as I am comfortable going further.

 

...

 

Voila. My response.

 

Okay, demonstrate to me how I "hold to a belief".  I will give you a heads-up, little boy, acknowledging that the only thing I can be certain of is my consciousness is not a belief; it is simple honesty.

 

Incidentally, usually if you are replying to a specific post from a specific person, you either quote that person or say "hey mr. so and so, here's my response."  If you aren't ashamed and embarrassed by your response, then you shouldn't hide it where the intended victim can't find it.

 

Oh, and by the way, you are still operating under the false assumption that I believe I exist.  I don't.  What I perceive, what I think, doesn't prove itself to be consistent with "I".  It merely demonstrates that the only thing I can be certain of, is that my consciousness exists.  I don't exist, necessarily.

[Wololo]

 

There is no empirical evidence. God is not empirical. I'm sorry. He's just not. He's not just a mental construct either. The only thing physical about God was Jesus, and while his existence is more or less agreed upon, his divinity is hotly contested. God himself is not physically accessible though. Again though...not jumping into an assumption that he exists...just answering your questions.

 

Alright then. :-) I'm not an atheist. This wine I'm drinking is turning me into a debate wuss. Dammit! :-) I agree that God, as defined as an old guy sitting on a throne in heaven is probably baloney. Nor do I buy Christianity anymore. Got tired of it. I don't like rules nor being told what I should believe. Nor rulebooks.

 

I'm more into Zen, Advaita, Eastern philosophy, Upanishads, The Gita, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi, though they could all be full of baloney as well. I like the idea that I may be the entire universe and that all things are related. What I don't like is subservient worship to the non-empirical. I dont like being feared, guilted or shamed into believing something which is why I rejected Christianity years ago. It's fear-based bullshit. Tithing is absurd as well. Pastors should get a real job doing real work. 

 

Yes, friends , I caved. I spilled my guts to Wololo. :-) Now it's time for more wine!

 

 

Alright, well that's actually a good start, and I appreciate that you're willing to open things up a bit. I've had half a beer so far, working on finishing it. Such a featherweight.

 

Eastern philosophy is actually something I'd like to study a bit more. I'm pretty familiar with most western philosophy, but it would be good to find a bridge to the easterners. If we are to discover the real truth about the universe, the best way to do so is to have a dialogue between people of all systems of belief.

 

One part of your perspective is actually not that much different from mine, at least philosophically speaking (believe it or not). I think this actually a very good place to start. Let's discuss the interrelatedness of everything. I do have a few questions though, I suppose I would like to direct this at everyone who would answer. Is there such thing as an essence? Do we agree that there are distinct identities? This is important to establish. When I was talking about nihilism, for those that don't know, it's the denial of any sort of meaning.

 

As I see it, everything in the world is definitely interrelated. Nothing is without some form of significance, and everything affects everything else. This underlies Systems Theory. Essentially, everything is interconnected and a multidisciplinary approach is necessary when you're working with complex issues. With a world as complex as ours, interrelatedness is the only thing that makes much sense.

 

In terms of my philosophy, I look at it in terms of concepts (which for me are completely nonphysical, though they can be represented physically). Words like 'marriage' don't need to have a fixed meaning. Instead they are related to and affected by the meanings of other words. Meaning is flexible based on what it 'needs' to be in the universe. Let me give you an example. The word "gay" used to refer to being in a state of happiness. Over time, the meaning has evolved into one synonymous with "homosexual"...and often with a negative connotation. This was not due to an arbitrary decision we made. The word evolved based on external influences. The culture shifted...the language shifted, and with it, a new meaning emerged. Rather than there being conflict, it is instead harmonious. Words and concepts mold and evolve over time based on interactions with other words and concepts. This is quite natural.

 

Fear and shame and guilt should not be a part of Christianity.

[Wololo]

 

 

 

...

 

Yes, you should be quite familiar with Descartes if you hold to that belief, and if you are, you understand that the rational thinking that is occurring is consistent with itself meaning that there is indeed an "I". The "I" is the consciousness that exists and that thinks. If all that you know exists is this consciousness, then that consciousness would sum up your identity. You would be your consciousness. The very fact that the consciousness recognizes its own existence, means that it recognizes a 'self'. Do you disagree with that? Please elaborate, as I am comfortable going further.

 

...

 

Voila. My response.

 

Okay, demonstrate to me how I "hold to a belief".  I will give you a heads-up, little boy, acknowledging that the only thing I can be certain of is my consciousness is not a belief; it is simple honesty.

 

Incidentally, usually if you are replying to a specific post from a specific person, you either quote that person or say "hey mr. so and so, here's my response."  If you aren't ashamed and embarrassed by your response, then you shouldn't hide it where the intended victim can't find it.

 

Oh, and by the way, you are still operating under the false assumption that I believe I exist.  I don't.  What I perceive, what I think, doesn't prove itself to be consistent with "I".  It merely demonstrates that the only thing I can be certain of, is that my consciousness exists.  I don't exist, necessarily.

 

 

Before I can respond to that... (It seems you want to play a Descartes.....?)

 

What kind of consciousness do you have? You haven't defined what your consciousness is.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

...

 

Yes, you should be quite familiar with Descartes if you hold to that belief, and if you are, you understand that the rational thinking that is occurring is consistent with itself meaning that there is indeed an "I". The "I" is the consciousness that exists and that thinks. If all that you know exists is this consciousness, then that consciousness would sum up your identity. You would be your consciousness. The very fact that the consciousness recognizes its own existence, means that it recognizes a 'self'. Do you disagree with that? Please elaborate, as I am comfortable going further.

 

...

 

Voila. My response.

 

Okay, demonstrate to me how I "hold to a belief".  I will give you a heads-up, little boy, acknowledging that the only thing I can be certain of is my consciousness is not a belief; it is simple honesty.

 

Incidentally, usually if you are replying to a specific post from a specific person, you either quote that person or say "hey mr. so and so, here's my response."  If you aren't ashamed and embarrassed by your response, then you shouldn't hide it where the intended victim can't find it.

 

Oh, and by the way, you are still operating under the false assumption that I believe I exist.  I don't.  What I perceive, what I think, doesn't prove itself to be consistent with "I".  It merely demonstrates that the only thing I can be certain of, is that my consciousness exists.  I don't exist, necessarily.

 

 

Before I can respond to that... (It seems you want to play a Descartes.....?)

 

What kind of consciousness do you have? You haven't defined what your consciousness is.

 

And you have yet to define for me what your "god" is.  This is a ridiculous game, little boy.  If you don't know what the word "consciousness" means, google it, or try dictionary.com.  Do you really expect me to provide all of the answers for you?  

[Wololo]

Oh, I thought you were playing games with me. There are a whole bunch of different forms of consciousness. Let me list them for you. I need to know which of these is applicable, or else I can't really address your point.

 

Sentience

Wakefulness

Self-consciousness

"What it is like"

Transitive consciousness

State of consciousness (there are a bunch of potential ones)

Entity consciousness

[bornagainathiest]

(Bump!)

 

 

 

(snip)

 

This really is nothing more than the Prime Mover argument with a fresh coat of paint.  However we all know ex nihilo nihil fit.  So, Wololo, whence cometh thy god?

 

This is not creation ex nihilo, which was originally a response to the steady state argument (and such). Fortunately, science has assisted us in leaving that one mostly behind. I'm quite comfortable with a beginning and a Big Bang at that beginning.

 

At the beginning, just the smallest fraction of a moment after creation, there was an infinitely dense singularity containing everything that exists in the universe right now. Along with being infinitely dense, according to the second law of thermodynamics, it would have to be completely and 100% orderly as well. We're not quite going into where this came from just yet, but for now we have a singularity (which according to the current Big Bang theory is where we started.) Immediately, this singularity began to expand, and its density became finite. Here's the issue though. It was completely uniform. Had the universe remained this way, we would have had a uniform soup for a universe. Not so interesting. Instead, we had differential cooling, and entropy (according to recent findings I've outlined in another thread {I think it was another thread} this may have been caused in part by gravity, entropy, and/or uneven expansion.) Differential cooling was a lifesaver and allowed for the existence of matter as we know it.

 

(snip)

 

Wololo, re: the sentence highlighted in red...

 

How do you know this?

 

You state this as if it were a fact... is it?

 

What kind of singularity are you referring to?

 

What can you tell me about the decay of the Inflaton?

 

When the universe was a quantum-sized entity, which would have been dominant - Quantum effects or Einsteinian relativity?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Hi, I'll go find some proper sources and come up with a deeper explanation since you seem to know more than the some of the jokers here.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

No need, W.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62337-how-precisely-would-you-like-that-prediction-to-be-confirmed/#.U2_ssfldVmM

 

Just take a look here and the follow the links.

They'll tell you everything you need to know about where cosmology is at right now.

.

.

.

oh and here another one for you.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/61443-message-from-big-bang-revealed-tomorrow/?hl=bicep#entry933263

 

Enjoy!

 

 

[Wololo]

 

(Bump!)

 

 

 

(snip)

 

This really is nothing more than the Prime Mover argument with a fresh coat of paint.  However we all know ex nihilo nihil fit.  So, Wololo, whence cometh thy god?

 

This is not creation ex nihilo, which was originally a response to the steady state argument (and such). Fortunately, science has assisted us in leaving that one mostly behind. I'm quite comfortable with a beginning and a Big Bang at that beginning.

 

At the beginning, just the smallest fraction of a moment after creation, there was an infinitely dense singularity containing everything that exists in the universe right now. Along with being infinitely dense, according to the second law of thermodynamics, it would have to be completely and 100% orderly as well. We're not quite going into where this came from just yet, but for now we have a singularity (which according to the current Big Bang theory is where we started.) Immediately, this singularity began to expand, and its density became finite. Here's the issue though. It was completely uniform. Had the universe remained this way, we would have had a uniform soup for a universe. Not so interesting. Instead, we had differential cooling, and entropy (according to recent findings I've outlined in another thread {I think it was another thread} this may have been caused in part by gravity, entropy, and/or uneven expansion.) Differential cooling was a lifesaver and allowed for the existence of matter as we know it.

 

(snip)

 

Wololo, re: the sentence highlighted in red...

 

How do you know this?

 

You state this as if it were a fact... is it?

 

What kind of singularity are you referring to?

 

What can you tell me about the decay of the Inflaton?

 

When the universe was a quantum-sized entity, which would have been dominant - Quantum effects or Einsteinian relativity?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Hi, I'll go find some proper sources and come up with a deeper explanation since you seem to know more than the some of the jokers here.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

No need, W.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62337-how-precisely-would-you-like-that-prediction-to-be-confirmed/#.U2_ssfldVmM

 

Just take a look here and the follow the links.

They'll tell you everything you need to know about where cosmology is at right now.

.

.

.

oh and here another one for you.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/61443-message-from-big-bang-revealed-tomorrow/?hl=bicep#entry933263

 

Enjoy!

 

 

 

Thank you, I will come back tomorrow.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

(Bump!)

 

 

 

(snip)

 

This really is nothing more than the Prime Mover argument with a fresh coat of paint.  However we all know ex nihilo nihil fit.  So, Wololo, whence cometh thy god?

 

This is not creation ex nihilo, which was originally a response to the steady state argument (and such). Fortunately, science has assisted us in leaving that one mostly behind. I'm quite comfortable with a beginning and a Big Bang at that beginning.

 

At the beginning, just the smallest fraction of a moment after creation, there was an infinitely dense singularity containing everything that exists in the universe right now. Along with being infinitely dense, according to the second law of thermodynamics, it would have to be completely and 100% orderly as well. We're not quite going into where this came from just yet, but for now we have a singularity (which according to the current Big Bang theory is where we started.) Immediately, this singularity began to expand, and its density became finite. Here's the issue though. It was completely uniform. Had the universe remained this way, we would have had a uniform soup for a universe. Not so interesting. Instead, we had differential cooling, and entropy (according to recent findings I've outlined in another thread {I think it was another thread} this may have been caused in part by gravity, entropy, and/or uneven expansion.) Differential cooling was a lifesaver and allowed for the existence of matter as we know it.

 

(snip)

 

Wololo, re: the sentence highlighted in red...

 

How do you know this?

 

You state this as if it were a fact... is it?

 

What kind of singularity are you referring to?

 

What can you tell me about the decay of the Inflaton?

 

When the universe was a quantum-sized entity, which would have been dominant - Quantum effects or Einsteinian relativity?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Hi, I'll go find some proper sources and come up with a deeper explanation since you seem to know more than the some of the jokers here.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

No need, W.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62337-how-precisely-would-you-like-that-prediction-to-be-confirmed/#.U2_ssfldVmM

 

Just take a look here and the follow the links.

They'll tell you everything you need to know about where cosmology is at right now.

.

.

.

oh and here another one for you.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/61443-message-from-big-bang-revealed-tomorrow/?hl=bicep#entry933263

 

Enjoy!

 

 

 

Thank you, I will come back tomorrow.

 

Sounds similar to what Jeebus said.

[bornagainathiest]

I look forward to it, W.

In the meantime, here's some bedtime reading material for you.  

.

.

.

 

A Brief History of Time, 1988. Stephen W. Hawking.

 

“In 1965 I read about Penrose’s theorem that any body undergoing gravitational collapse must eventually form a singularity.  I soon realized that if one reversed the direction of time in Penrose’s theorem, so that the collapse became an expansion, the conditions of his theorem would still hold, provided that universe were roughly like a Friedmann model on large scales at the present time.”

 

http://phys-astro.sonoma.edu/people/faculty/tenn/FriedmannModels.html

 

The Friedmann model Hawking refers to is the ‘Just Open’ Euclidean one, in blue.  This has now been discarded because it failed to take into account quantum physics.  The fluctuations seen in the CMB are due to quantum effects, which imprinted themselves on the structure of the early universe when it was a quantum-sized entity.  The Friedmann solutions, which use only General Relativity, cannot account for these fluctuations.  Which is why Hawking goes on to write this…

 

“During the next few years I developed new mathematical techniques to remove this [the initial singularity] and other technical conditions from the theorems that proved that singularities must occur.  The final result was a joint paper by Penrose and myself in 1970, which at last proved that there must have been a big bang singularity provided only that general relativity is correct and the universe contains as much matter as we observe.”

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singularity_theorems

 

“So in the end our work became generally accepted and nowadays nearly everyone assumes that the universe started with a big bang singularity.  It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe – as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account.”

 

So you see Wololo, the initial singularity is a spurious artifact, caused by using only general relativity to describe the early universe.  Since the CMB tells us that quantum effects cannot be ignored, quantum physics cannot be ignored, when describing the early universe.  

 

Which means that the description of the early universe you presented in post #6 is incomplete.

Yours was a 'classical', purely relativistic model, which Hawking and other cosmologists have discarded.  As he writes on p.148 of his book...

 

"When the curvature of space-time becomes large, quantum gravitational effects will become important and the classical theory will cease to be a good description of the universe.  One has to use a quantum theory of gravity to understand how the universe began."

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[bornagainathiest]

Oh and here's some more...

.

.

.

 

This is from before the BICEP2 data release.

 

http://www.nature.com/news/how-to-see-quantum-gravity-in-big-bang-traces-1.13834

 

And this is from after it.

 

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/mar/17/bicep2-finds-first-direct-evidence-of-cosmic-inflation

 

And here is one of the founders of Inflationary theory being told the news about BICEP2.

 

 

Please listen carefully to Linde at 1:30, Wololo.

"...a purely quantum gravity feature of what was produced in the big bang..."

 

Your singularity-based description of the early universe takes quantum gravity into account... how? 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[bornagainathiest]

Lastly Wololo, here's what Alan Guth (one of the co-founders of Inflationary theory) has to say about singularities.

 

The Inflationary Universe, p.341.

 

"If the standard big bang theory is extrapolated all the way back to time zero, one reaches an instant of infinite density, infinite pressure and infinite temperature - an instant that is frequently called the initial singularity.  This singularity is sometimes said to mark the beginning of time, but it is more realistic to recognize that an extrapolation to infinite density cannot be trusted."

 

And that's pretty much what you wrote in post #6, isn't it?

 

"At the beginning, just the smallest fraction of a moment after creation, there was an infinitely dense singularity containing everything that exists in the universe right now. Along with being infinitely dense, according to the second law of thermodynamics, it would have to be completely and 100% orderly as well. We're not quite going into where this came from just yet, but for now we have a singularity (which according to the current Big Bang theory is where we started.) Immediately, this singularity began to expand, and its density became finite. Here's the issue though. It was completely uniform. Had the universe remained this way, we would have had a uniform soup for a universe. Not so interesting. Instead, we had differential cooling, and entropy (according to recent findings I've outlined in another thread {I think it was another thread} this may have been caused in part by gravity, entropy, and/or uneven expansion.) Differential cooling was a lifesaver and allowed for the existence of matter as we know it."

.

.

.

 

Hmmm.... well, if Guth were reading your post, it looks like he wouldn't trust it.  

 

Care to comment?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

[Ravenstar]

" The only thing physical about God was Jesus, and while his existence is more or less agreed upon".  No.. it's not. Other than the Bible there is NO evidence for a character named Yeshua Ben Yosef…or even one who did what the Bible says he did. There are no contemporous references AT ALL. (I believe John the Baptist has more evidence) No census data, no historian of the time even whiffs in that direction, and there were quite a few… good ones. It is seriously in debate on whether he existed at all. Even if he did, as a person, that does not validate any 'miracles' or make him more than just another religious/political nut job with an agenda,  and the message attributed to him was actually pretty nasty.

 

​As a matter of fact there is little historical or archaeological evidence for most of the OT events (but not all.. the Hebrews were actually a people living in the area from at least 1500BC - although there are NO originals or even copies of the Torah until much, much later). 

 

Without original sin (i.e.: Adam and Eve) there is no need for a saviour - Adam and Eve are ridiculous concepts in the real world. It just doesn't work, scientifically or logically. For those of us who are actually informed on religious syncretism in the ancient middle east it's pretty easy to see how Judaism developed… and then Christianity (which is NOT based on Judaism - but Hellenism/Zoroastrianism) It's not unique or even original.

 

That's the facts… unless you have something new I haven't come across?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Oh, I thought you were playing games with me. There are a whole bunch of different forms of consciousness. Let me list them for you. I need to know which of these is applicable, or else I can't really address your point.

 

Sentience

Wakefulness

Self-consciousness

"What it is like"

Transitive consciousness

State of consciousness (there are a bunch of potential ones)

Entity consciousness

Which "point" do you think I made that needs addressing? 

[par4dcourse]

"What I want to do though is give you an idea of how my perspective fits together in a Christian sense. "

 

Um, read the masthead. We really don't give a shit about your perspective in a xian sense. And "Christian sense" is an oxymoron.

[thereisnoperfect]

Let's refrain from ad hominem. We all know it's not logical and it doesn't add to the discussion. Stop acting like silly teenagers.

Um...your irony detector is broken. You should get that looked at.

 

 

From now on, I'm going to reply only to people who can be respectful and civil. The rest of you can just read this thread or ignore me. Some of you seem to be interested in a reasonable discussion, so I will address your concerns, as long as I'm given the opportunity to find the very start. If you feel I'm still making assumptions, point them out. I don't mind starting at the beginning with Descartes and cogito ergo sum. If you treat me with decency, I will be nice and reasonable

 

As a note, I'm not here to prove the existence of God. That is something that cannot be done. What I want to do though is give you an idea of how my perspective fits together in a Christian sense. At the very least I hope that some of you will eventually understand and find it reasonable, even though you don't agree. I'm here to learn from you, and I hope that you can learn from me too. No sales pitch, no evangelism...I don't know how I can make it clearer. Let's start at the beginning again. I'll address some of the posts above and maybe we can get started. Let's leave this rocky start behind, because I don't think it does justice to your community as a whole. I understand you've dealt with a lot of crap from people like me, so let's turn over a new leaf. If I can't find anyone here that's truly interested in an honest, respectful discussion, then I would be wasting my time and I'll go...but I'd rather not.

 

Let's reason together, please.

 

You spend a lot of time lecturing us about not listening to you, but not much time showing that you've actually listened to us. And you've said you want to discuss, presumably meaning to increase understanding by sharing different perspectives, but you've also said you do that because you want to be able to better present your views, which means we're just lab rats, a practice audience. That doesn't communicate respect to us.

 

And yeah, you've gotten cheap jokes and insults hurled at you. Nothing very potent, in my view, but they happened. Sure enough. Read the Lion's Den rules again, and don't let it get your goat, or more people will just pile on. Consider where you are and what you represent to the audience here. And keep in mind that you accused us all of acting like "silly teenagers." Not very "turn the other cheek" of you, eh?

 

Now, a million posts ago, you asked me where I think meaning comes from, and since then you've asked us (all of us?) to define our philosophies. If by "philosophy" you mean "worldview," then yes, each of us has one. But they are not necessarily coherent, and they may not be articulable. And of course they are all different. Even the atheists here each have a different worldview, though they hold some pieces in common. So I'm not sure how you expect us to provide that information, or what it would do if we did except overwhelm you.

 

But here's a part of me: I think meaning is something we create. People look for patterns, and eventually from those patterns we create a meaning. (Actually, of course, multiple meanings--but for simplicity's sake I will pretend that a person has one big meaning that stands over the others, though some people do and some don't.) As long as that meaning works for us, we hold on to it. But sometimes there is such a big crisis or so many little cognitive dissonances that the meaning can't hold up, and then we feel lost until we can construct a new meaning. Of course that constructed meaning is largely taken from others.

 

My bigger philosophy? We are and always have been and always will be imperfect. This is not a flaw or a tragedy, just something inherent. It must be accepted and worked with. We are dynamic because we live in time. Perfection is not a goal to be obtained or a useful measure to compare ourselves to. The useful goal is progress and growth. The useful moral basis is compassion. Because we are imperfect, and because of the way knowledge works, I am wrong, always, about something/s. To have a chance to figure out what I'm wrong about, I must be aware that I could be wrong, be open to encountering other ideas and evidence, and see how things work in actual practice. This is a tool for that growth and progress I mentioned. 

 

However, there is no final goal or final answer. Someday I will run out of time, and then it's over for me. I hope that other humans will continue to progress in my absence. 

 

As to nihilism and postmodernism, all I can say is that I am not primarily a philosopher, but I certainly have read Foucault and Derrida and etc., plus plenty of other kinds of postmodernists. I've taught deconstruction to undergraduates. Postmodernism generally does not lead to nihilism for me (which is what counts the most for me) nor for many other people I know. One of the features of postmodern art is "carnivalisation," which is the party that ensues when the artist realizes we are no longer bound by traditional knowledge and right/wrong answers. Postmodernism can be freeing and fun. And for me, I am considerably more conscientious about my choices and my moral obligations post-christian (when I know it is up to me to decide what is right) than in any of my christian incarnations.

 

Finally, forgive me if it hurts you to hear this but you need to understand: I don't really care about your philosophy. Because everyone creates their own meaning, discovering that you've created meaning for yourself in a way that you find consistent and satisfying isn't news to me. Everybody does that. You've put a little more reading and thought into it than some people. But I can go to any library and find people with way more training and expertise than you who have done the same. I'm not here for a philosophy lecture. If you really, really want to discuss in order to learn, then ignore the jokes and insults, quit lecturing about your elaborate philosophical thing, ask some real questions, answer some real questions, and chill a bit. That's my advice as a rhetoric teacher and as a human being. Or else find somewhere else to hang out. Life's finite, so use it well. Decide to be happy, and do the things that support that. There, that's more of my philosophy to end on.

[Orbit]

Wololo, here is how you are coming across: "Tell me your worldview so I can tell you how mine is better". That's not a debate. I have repeatedly asked you what ISSUE you would like to debate, and never receive an answer. I guess that means you don't have an issue to debate. Instead you persist in this bizarre insistence on knowing our "philosophies", which is not the basis for a debate. It's like you want us to articulate an "atheist worldview" so you can condescendingly bring us to the realization that we need to be Christians. It's transparent and it's insulting. I have taught epistemology to undergraduates and would never let them get away with this kind of sloppy thinking.

[mymistake]

Wololo, here is how you are coming across: "Tell me your worldview so I can tell you how mine is better". That's not a debate. I have repeatedly asked you what ISSUE you would like to debate, and never receive an answer. I guess that means you don't have an issue to debate. Instead you persist in this bizarre insistence on knowing our "philosophies", which is not the basis for a debate. It's like you want us to articulate an "atheist worldview" so you can condescendingly bring us to the realization that we need to be Christians. It's transparent and it's insulting. I have taught epistemology to undergraduates and would never let them get away with this kind of sloppy thinking.

 

If Wololo is interested in the framework for an "atheist worldview" then he is welcome to respond to the one I laid out in the thread "For Ordinaryclay: Atheism".  So far Ordinaryclay has ignored it.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62106-for-ordinaryclay-atheism/#.U3Db8Sjqp5g

[Wololo]

" The only thing physical about God was Jesus, and while his existence is more or less agreed upon".  No.. it's not. Other than the Bible there is NO evidence for a character named Yeshua Ben Yosef…or even one who did what the Bible says he did. There are no contemporous references AT ALL. (I believe John the Baptist has more evidence) No census data, no historian of the time even whiffs in that direction, and there were quite a few… good ones. It is seriously in debate on whether he existed at all. Even if he did, as a person, that does not validate any 'miracles' or make him more than just another religious/political nut job with an agenda,  and the message attributed to him was actually pretty nasty.

 

​As a matter of fact there is little historical or archaeological evidence for most of the OT events (but not all.. the Hebrews were actually a people living in the area from at least 1500BC - although there are NO originals or even copies of the Torah until much, much later). 

 

Without original sin (i.e.: Adam and Eve) there is no need for a saviour - Adam and Eve are ridiculous concepts in the real world. It just doesn't work, scientifically or logically. For those of us who are actually informed on religious syncretism in the ancient middle east it's pretty easy to see how Judaism developed… and then Christianity (which is NOT based on Judaism - but Hellenism/Zoroastrianism) It's not unique or even original.

 

That's the facts… unless you have something new I haven't come across?

 

That's false. Do some research please. It is commonly accepted by scholars that the man 'Jesus' did exist and did die due to crucifixion.There are historical records (someone here made a thread about it.) Tacitus (in Annals) and Josephus (in Antiquities of the Jews) both wrote about him...and especially the negative tone of Tacitus' account essentially proves it's an independent account uninfluenced by Christians. There are plenty of Christian records as well. In fact, Jesus is one of the most well documented men of his day. So not only are there many internal sources, but also external sources. Your first paragraph is completely false.

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls are the largest source for the Old Testament. I'm not as knowledgeable about it, so I'll have to leave that to someone else to explain, but I do know that there are several thousand very very old copies of the New Testament that are 99.5% consistent (which for a historical text of that age is remarkable).

 

It really depends on what you consider to be sin. I don't believe in a literal creation account, nor do I believe in a literal Adam and Eve. Those two are a story that explains the implications for free will in a world where there is good, and not good.'

Hehehehe Christianity based on paganism? Hahaha let's see you back up that assertion. Go ahead, make my day.

 

 

Oh, I thought you were playing games with me. There are a whole bunch of different forms of consciousness. Let me list them for you. I need to know which of these is applicable, or else I can't really address your point.

 

Sentience

Wakefulness

Self-consciousness

"What it is like"

Transitive consciousness

State of consciousness (there are a bunch of potential ones)

Entity consciousness

Which "point" do you think I made that needs addressing? 

 

You haven't answered my question. If I'm going to address the fact that all you know is that your consciousness exists, you need to let me know what your consciousness is. There are a many definitions.

[Wololo]

 

Let's refrain from ad hominem. We all know it's not logical and it doesn't add to the discussion. Stop acting like silly teenagers.

Um...your irony detector is broken. You should get that looked at.

 

 

From now on, I'm going to reply only to people who can be respectful and civil. The rest of you can just read this thread or ignore me. Some of you seem to be interested in a reasonable discussion, so I will address your concerns, as long as I'm given the opportunity to find the very start. If you feel I'm still making assumptions, point them out. I don't mind starting at the beginning with Descartes and cogito ergo sum. If you treat me with decency, I will be nice and reasonable

 

As a note, I'm not here to prove the existence of God. That is something that cannot be done. What I want to do though is give you an idea of how my perspective fits together in a Christian sense. At the very least I hope that some of you will eventually understand and find it reasonable, even though you don't agree. I'm here to learn from you, and I hope that you can learn from me too. No sales pitch, no evangelism...I don't know how I can make it clearer. Let's start at the beginning again. I'll address some of the posts above and maybe we can get started. Let's leave this rocky start behind, because I don't think it does justice to your community as a whole. I understand you've dealt with a lot of crap from people like me, so let's turn over a new leaf. If I can't find anyone here that's truly interested in an honest, respectful discussion, then I would be wasting my time and I'll go...but I'd rather not.

 

Let's reason together, please.

 

You spend a lot of time lecturing us about not listening to you, but not much time showing that you've actually listened to us. And you've said you want to discuss, presumably meaning to increase understanding by sharing different perspectives, but you've also said you do that because you want to be able to better present your views, which means we're just lab rats, a practice audience. That doesn't communicate respect to us.

 

And yeah, you've gotten cheap jokes and insults hurled at you. Nothing very potent, in my view, but they happened. Sure enough. Read the Lion's Den rules again, and don't let it get your goat, or more people will just pile on. Consider where you are and what you represent to the audience here. And keep in mind that you accused us all of acting like "silly teenagers." Not very "turn the other cheek" of you, eh?

 

Now, a million posts ago, you asked me where I think meaning comes from, and since then you've asked us (all of us?) to define our philosophies. If by "philosophy" you mean "worldview," then yes, each of us has one. But they are not necessarily coherent, and they may not be articulable. And of course they are all different. Even the atheists here each have a different worldview, though they hold some pieces in common. So I'm not sure how you expect us to provide that information, or what it would do if we did except overwhelm you.

 

But here's a part of me: I think meaning is something we create. People look for patterns, and eventually from those patterns we create a meaning. (Actually, of course, multiple meanings--but for simplicity's sake I will pretend that a person has one big meaning that stands over the others, though some people do and some don't.) As long as that meaning works for us, we hold on to it. But sometimes there is such a big crisis or so many little cognitive dissonances that the meaning can't hold up, and then we feel lost until we can construct a new meaning. Of course that constructed meaning is largely taken from others.

 

My bigger philosophy? We are and always have been and always will be imperfect. This is not a flaw or a tragedy, just something inherent. It must be accepted and worked with. We are dynamic because we live in time. Perfection is not a goal to be obtained or a useful measure to compare ourselves to. The useful goal is progress and growth. The useful moral basis is compassion. Because we are imperfect, and because of the way knowledge works, I am wrong, always, about something/s. To have a chance to figure out what I'm wrong about, I must be aware that I could be wrong, be open to encountering other ideas and evidence, and see how things work in actual practice. This is a tool for that growth and progress I mentioned. 

 

However, there is no final goal or final answer. Someday I will run out of time, and then it's over for me. I hope that other humans will continue to progress in my absence. 

 

As to nihilism and postmodernism, all I can say is that I am not primarily a philosopher, but I certainly have read Foucault and Derrida and etc., plus plenty of other kinds of postmodernists. I've taught deconstruction to undergraduates. Postmodernism generally does not lead to nihilism for me (which is what counts the most for me) nor for many other people I know. One of the features of postmodern art is "carnivalisation," which is the party that ensues when the artist realizes we are no longer bound by traditional knowledge and right/wrong answers. Postmodernism can be freeing and fun. And for me, I am considerably more conscientious about my choices and my moral obligations post-christian (when I know it is up to me to decide what is right) than in any of my christian incarnations.

 

Finally, forgive me if it hurts you to hear this but you need to understand: I don't really care about your philosophy. Because everyone creates their own meaning, discovering that you've created meaning for yourself in a way that you find consistent and satisfying isn't news to me. Everybody does that. You've put a little more reading and thought into it than some people. But I can go to any library and find people with way more training and expertise than you who have done the same. I'm not here for a philosophy lecture. If you really, really want to discuss in order to learn, then ignore the jokes and insults, quit lecturing about your elaborate philosophical thing, ask some real questions, answer some real questions, and chill a bit. That's my advice as a rhetoric teacher and as a human being. Or else find somewhere else to hang out. Life's finite, so use it well. Decide to be happy, and do the things that support that. There, that's more of my philosophy to end on.

 

 

It's all a matter of how you interpret it. I see you treat all of us the same, regardless of the fact that...like you are not all the same as each other, we are also not all the same. Instead stereotypes are thrown around with the slightest whiff of similarity. I've got a really thick skin, so I'm not that concerned with insults. I'm going to just ignore most of you anyway since it appears some people can't contribute to the discussion.

 

My follow-up then...what recognizes those patterns? I don't mind deconstructing in order to find that piece. There's a reason why I ask the question, and in the end I find most discussions end up at that point anyway. If you don't believe all of this descends into nihilism, I would be interested to know where your meaning is derived from? You said from yourself, but what part of yourself? If you answer with something like "my brain", I'm going to keep deconstructing and ask you what part of your brain. Until you can find that initial piece of matter that's making these decisions and recognizing these patterns, I'm not going to be satisfied. Most of you seem to be materialists, which is why I'm challenging that more than anything else now.

 

I don't really have a problem with imperfection. As a Christian, I don't believe imperfection is held against us either. It was a natural product of having free will in a world where there is good, and the absence of good (which could be referred to as 'evil.') There is an easy solution to that imperfection, and it seems you may already grasp it.

 

No, it would take a lot more than silliness to offend me. Honest opinions generally don't. The rest I just blow off. Who cares?

 

Wololo, here is how you are coming across: "Tell me your worldview so I can tell you how mine is better". That's not a debate. I have repeatedly asked you what ISSUE you would like to debate, and never receive an answer. I guess that means you don't have an issue to debate. Instead you persist in this bizarre insistence on knowing our "philosophies", which is not the basis for a debate. It's like you want us to articulate an "atheist worldview" so you can condescendingly bring us to the realization that we need to be Christians. It's transparent and it's insulting. I have taught epistemology to undergraduates and would never let them get away with this kind of sloppy thinking.

 

Thanks for the straw man.

 

You clearly didn't hear when I said I wanted to communicate more effectively, and in order to do so, I need to know a little more about how and what you think. Effective communication involves knowing your audience.

 

For the umpteenth time too. I'm not here trying to make you realize you should be Christians. I said I'm NOT evangelizing. Get off it.