From the standpoint of Plumb's faith and or personal beliefs, are the Mormons headed for a reward in the afterlife as much as the Jehova's Witnesses insofar as any are righteous exemplars of their faith? — Nils Loc

I would think that after a life of being deprived of coffee the mormons would get all they could drink in heaven. And maybe they would be allowed to enjoy some "free from guilt" sex along with the jehova's witnesses, but not as much as the muslims with their harem of virgins .
I always wondered where the virgins came from, are they made on site or is it because there are so many virgins that actually get to heaven?

Or are other Christians on the wrong path? — Nils Loc

They are all on the wrong path, every single one of them.

Right now we are suffering the effects of the tropical storm Eta. We have had 4 solid days of rain, There are floods all over the place. Rivers have over run, houses, roads and bridges have been destroyed. And what are the people doing? Praying for the rain to stop.

How can anyone believe in the existence of god, or that the evidence of its existence is all around us.
What kind of a fucked up being would deliberately create something like the earth and its inhabitants.

If by "happy" you mean pure self-indulgence, I don't see that as a very meaningful end or that true "happiness" could be reduced to pure indulgence (if that was the case, then I'd venture that our Neanderthal ancestors would have discovered the secret to "happiness" eons ago, and that no modern existential thought on the subject would be necessary). — IvoryBlackBishop

No I was not talking about pure self-indulgence, I was talking about simple masturbation. The act of making yourself happy sexually is no different from taking a stroll to relax, or going dancing.
Any of the good things in life can be overdone and become obsessions or vices, but that does not mean they they are evil.

It actually gets better farther down.

5
I am the Lord, and there is no other,
besides me there is no God;
I equip you, though you do not know me,
6
that people may know, from the rising of the sun
and from the west, that there is none besides me;
I am the Lord, and there is no other.
7
I form light and create darkness;
I make well-being and create calamity;
I am the Lord, who does all these things.

I think it is obvious who is to blame for how badly fucked up the world is now, he admitted it long ago.

Do all Christians have a correct orientation to this one true God, even though they belong to different cults? — Nils Loc

All of the monotheists believe that they and only they worship the one true god, the rest are devil worshippers, pagans, savages and so on.

It would see exactly the same thing, because that is what is there to see. Whether it sees it in color, infrared, or as any other sort of energy wave would depend on its sensory ability.
How would it interpret what it saw would be the important question.

Yeah, whatever. :smirk:

You do not accomplish anything in a debate just by saying that others are wrong. If you want to do something productive you have to show them why the are wrong. You have failed.

I've heard that Emanuel Kant believed that masturbation was a violation of "moral duty to the self" or something along those lines, but I'm not sure what his line of logic or reasoning was. — IvoryBlackBishop

He was a wanker, don't believe anything he said.
How could the act of pleasuring one's self be a sin or crime. Is it not true that one must love thy self before being able to love another. And what greater love of one's self that making one's self happy.

Well at least you have a reason to make sure you get back here, I have the last post now.

A dictionary definition doesn't make it the truth and that is the whole point. — david plumb

No one mentioned truth, if you do not know the difference between a definition and truth then you should keep away from forums like this.

Dictionaries should not be seen as prescriptive nor restrictive, but they are descriptive. They show the accepted ways to use words.
Again I invite you to show us an acceptable definition of god that superheroes fit into. If you cannot do that, then all of your humble opinion is self delusion.

Personally I still believe that kids and even adults are able to see these super heroes as gods or even God if they have little belief or understanding. Everyone probably needs a greater being that allows them to make sense of the world but it's probably not useful for that to be a religious version, as in God. — david plumb

You are allowed to believe what ever you want, but that in no way makes me wrong nor closed minded. the burden of proof is up on you. Evidence is what will prove you point. Show us some.

The behaviour of those "worshipping" ( feel free to misunderstand this vital phrase) is similar to those who worship gods or God. — david plumb

Just a couple of examples, not possible situations but something that is actually happening in the world would be nice to see.

They see good v evil, they see a saviour when all else fails, they are educated in the rights and wrongs of life, — david plumb

No, the see a bunch of guys and women with strange costumes(mostly tight pants), with weird colors and shapes. They see people doing the things that many of them dream of doing, being strong, flying, being able to burn the nasty neighbor with a glance. But they also see the superheroes having to hide the things that they do not want others to see, just like them.
I do not think that even one person that goes to see a superhero movie would actually think of praying for Superman to come and save them from a mugger, the school bully or a tyrant boss.
And to say that people are educated in the rights and wrongs of life by a superhero movie would be similar to saying that people are educated in the customs of foreign countries by watching movies made there. Or maybe that Monty Python is good for political education.

they understand the existentialism of the scenes played out to them and they are excited at the drama and wonder of it all. Just like a religious person is about God and Jesus Christ. — david plumb

I am sorry, but you really do need to explain to me how you came to that conclusion. I have no idea.

You won't understand until you get there, I guess. Most of us live sheltered lives unaware of the realities of life's underbelly and in Aleppo your priorities will be nothing as you will spend all your time avoiding death. All very depressing. — david plumb

Once again, what the hell has Aleppo got to do with the price of jellybeans? What do you even know about the place? Have you been or lived there to be able to say that it will have that effect on a person?

When you say that most of us live sheltered lives, are you talking about me or yourself? If it is yourself, then it is probably understandable how you came ridiculous conclusion.
If it is about me, then I have to tell you that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about therefore it is also understandable how you came to this ridiculous conclusion.
If you are talking about you and a lot of other people that you presumable know a lot about, then all I can sat is that I am glad that I do not live in the same places as you. The people must be very depressing.

One last time, I am not going to reply unless you answer some of the questions and skip the BS.

:up:

Interesting that you talk about a new definition of God as though your knowledge is the correct one. From what I can see so far your definition is a simple one, one that sits well with those that need the conclusions to fit in with their closed mind perceptions. Clear your mind of pre-conditioned bias and open your mind to the possibilities. — david plumb

Seriously, there are several definitions of what a god is. If you look in several dictionaries you will probably be able to find most of those definition. The dictionaries help us to define the properties of a god, so that we can decide whether something would fit into that category.

For example, if you look up the word "chair" you would find several different definitions. What is common to all of those definitions is that they list the types and properties of a chair.

1. A seat for one person, with a support for the back
2. The position of professor
3. The officer who presides at the meetings of an organization
4. An instrument of execution by electrocution; resembles an ordinary seat for one person
5. A particular seat in an orchestra

So if I call the thing that my backside is resting upon a "chair" then surely it would be expected to fit into one of these definitions.

If the thing I am sitting on does not have a back then it does not fit into the first definition so I must either find another name for it or continue to demonstrate my ignorance by calling it a chair still.

While it is common for people to use words incorrectly and for the words to change their meaning if enough people actually continue to use it in a certain way. A really good explanation of this is given here.
The Secret Life of Words:
English Words
and Their Origins
Anne Curzan, Ph.D.

It is really well done, but she has a bad habit of pausing before the last word of the sentence. There are several others that I can recommend and if you are interested I might be able to provide for you.

But there are some words that cannot have their meanings changed without losing the principle significance of the word.
What would happen if people started calling trees "livewood"? The word is obviously correct in its concoction and connotation. But it removes an essential part of the societies concept of the object. People hear or say "tree" and the image of greenery, shade, woods and forests comes to mind. Live would does not do that and probably never will. I seriously doubt the idea that people even over a long time will start calling trees by any other name.
So tree, chair, god have many definitions. But those definitions exist because they are the accepted uses of the words by the society that uses them. And they are written in dictionaries as guides to there usage.

You are trying to put a square peg into a round hole. Show us anywhere there is an acceptable definition that your use of "superheroes" fits into.
If you cannot do this then it is obvious that you are changing the definition to suite your purpose.

This worries you? That seems a tad primitive. A day in Aleppo would sort the cobwebs out for you, nay make that an hour. — david plumb

Yes it worries me, fanatics are often the cause of great strife to societies. And confused fanatics that write God with a capital G and then say that superheroes are the new gods would probably be worse.

It is strange that you mention Allepo, do you live there or have you been there? How or in what way do you think that it would remove the cobwebs from my mind? Allepo had serious problems, a lot of them cause by religious factors. Maybe they need to change to superheroes.
I am not up to date about they situation there as I tend to spend more time observing what is happening in the place I live. It had the highest murder rate in the world for several years. The highest violent death rate for a non-combatant area.

Presumably if we met I would have to call him Sir. — david plumb

"Manners makyeth man" - William of Wykeham. — david plumb

:smirk:

An explanation of that would be interesting. — praxis

He does not have one, the only way that he could explain it is by saying that the word god has a new definition and that unless you believe him you are closed minded. He does not even have the new definition of god to give us.

Proof that God exists is there for all to see unless you rely solely on your senses. Proof is not a simple process of scientific data. — david plumb

This worries me, he believes that "God", with a capital G exists. What doe that tell us about him?

So your whole argument comes down to the fact that you have changed the meaning of god.

Transfer that to the God/super heroes question. To you God has x.y and z as you see it but to others the definition of God may not necessarily have the x,y and z as you see it but to them it is God per se. — david plumb

So then to make it easier on you, provide some evidence that others are using your definition of god instead of most common, standard, sited in every dictionary definition that everyone else uses.

GOD
1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. "a moon god"

The super heroes of the movies do not even fit in the second category, because no no worships them as having any power over anything at all. They have no effect on peoples everyday lives such as the rain gods are supposed to have.

The fact that the State is using the movies to mind wash the idiots just as they have done with the churches for centuries speaks more to the stupidity of the people than the astuteness of the people running the State.
Supermarket commercials do as much in controlling the masses as any superhero movie does. Do you remember the commercials for cigarettes and booze back in the 60's and 70's, so many people would have thought those actors were gods according to your definition.

If you can do nothing more about proving any of the statements you have made by showing some examples of just how people consider the movies super heroes as gods when they sit down to watch a Superman movie after church on Sunday then I have nothing more to discuss.

:chin: I like his way of thinking, but it is too late to hear it all today. 20 mins. left for tomorrow.

This months books
The Lady Astronauts series. Mary Kowal
Secret Journey to the Planet Sarpo. Len Kasten
Dumbing Us Down. John Gatto
The End of the World Runnin Club. Adrian Walker
Calling Bullshit. J. West & C. Bergstrom
Hitlers Secret Jewish Psychic and Other Strange and Obscure History

Approximately 7,821,493,909 people in the world.

Approximately 44,236,745 people in the world that have been infected.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

Doing the math it will be a long time before enough people have been sick for it to make any difference.

On the surface it appears like it is just good fun but in reality the subliminal message is hard to avoid and very cleverly uses the propaganda that reaches out to children's accepting, unquestioning minds. — david plumb

Holy infantile conditioning Batman, he may be on to something here. :chin: :smirk:
I never knew that what made people think that the Flintstones was a pure and simple kiddies program. It is one of the best examples of subliminal conditioning that I can think of. Watch any episode and you will find messages about how adults are supposed to behave. It contains violence, sexism, crime, child rearing advice and lots of other stuff all nicely wrapped up in a kiddies TV show.

But no one counts Fred or Barney as gods.

Look at it philosophically, i.e objectively for a moment, and notice the rise of the god like celebrities, action heroes, sporting icons etc. — david plumb

What freaking god like characteristic does the kartrashian clan have?
What godlike quality does does David Beckham have?

They are in no way worshiped as gods.

After laughing in the Christ film I now understand why you have such a problem recognising the subliminal reasoning behind the super heroes. — david plumb

I doubt that you understand, because I don't have a problem recognizing subliminal reasoning that does not exist. If it did, you would be able to provide some sort of evidence of its existence. You would pint to a new temple being built to house the Spiderman cult, or the secret sect of Hulk worshipers.
But the only thing that you could possibly point to is a bunch of that go to Comic-Con events dressed as their favorite scifi character. While I agree that some of these people do go beyond reasonable obsessiveness, if you ask them about their hero being a god you will probably be laughed at.

Superheroes do not, have never, and never will take the place of gods because the do not serve the same purpose in any society. If you read a bit of history you will find that heroes and gods have lived side by side for a very long time. Some of them were heroes because they defied the gods, other because they fought for the gods, and some even stepped in to help when the gods would not.

Hominins were obviously much more able than housecats in both of these areas, dimensional awareness and linguistic expressiveness, but excelled most with dimensionality. — Enrique

Could you please demonstrate this by jumping around and walking in dangerous places as cats do. I think that while cats do not have the ability to tell you about dimensionality, probably because of your lack of understanding their communication methods, they are certainly better adapted to spacial perception than humans.

Their spatial reasoning could craft effective tools of many kinds, they could figure out how to catch most available prey and adapt clothing to varying climates, essentially utilizing wilderness environments technologically such that a correlated decline in biodiversity throughout the hominin range is revealed by paleontology. — Enrique

Spatial reasoning? How does that help with the development of tools?

Their phrases and maybe sentences, while probably not a humanlike train of thought that can spout fluent and complex verbal reasoning for hours, must have been more detailed in its expressiveness than housecats and somewhat syntactical, for they had the facial physique for humanlike speech. — Enrique

Most of speech is not in the facial physique but in the throat, a person can still speak even without the lips and teeth. Monkeys have similar facial physique, but I have not heard many of them speaking.

It is subsequent to this that the first evidence of ecology appeared, particularly cultivation of the Amazon rainforest, and eventually civilization. — Enrique

How are you using the word ecology here? I am not sure exactly how the first evidence of it could appear.

Oh it’s real... but I confess that I plagiarized a bit from a movie that I watched the other day. — praxis

Real, from a movie. :chin:

:smirk: OK, I believe you.

I seriously doubt that any of that is real, but it makes for a good ready. :rofl:
I would have just said that his knickers were showing.

And anyway you fool, you're obviously supposed to be focused on his ass. — Hippyhead

Her ass might have attracted my attention, but I was actually more interested in the technical part of the animation. I have experimented with the programs you mentioned, but never had the time to actually do anything with them. Maybe after I retire.

:lol: :lol: I remember going to see that, we laughed so much they actually asked us to leave. That was one hell of funny film.

I remember sitting in the pub later an discussing the guy asking his daddy WHY he had to die while all the while implying that he had known about the whole plan from the beginning.

Thanks for the memories.

An excerpt from a chapter I'm writing on the origins of human consciousness. — Enrique

Before you say anything else, you should define what you mean by consciousness. Because the rest of your writing does not follow the title of the thread. Do you think that consciousness came before speech? Did they not have consciousness before they spoke?
Was speech the first method of communication used by the "hominins"?

I would certainly be interested in the research that backs up your statements about this, would it be possible to see some of it?

The hominin mouth, throat and mind became reconfigured for the expressive artistry of primordial speech. — Enrique

Artistry? How did you reach that conclusion? The way you say this is as if the body just suddenly changed and speech appeared. Did cavemen actually practice the art of speaking? Exactly what is the difference between a homo sapiens speech apparatus and that of a ape's? There is actually little difference, mostly in the tongue, what is different is the neuron-control system of those body parts.

What God movies have you been watching? I remember watching one where this guy was literally crucified and asking God for help. He didn’t help. — praxis

I remember that one, the guy hung there there for a day and died from it. Most of the others that got the same treatment stayed alive for days suffering. What a wimp.

I want to delete my account. — Konkai

Why would you want to delete your account? If it is because you don't want to come here any more then just don't come. If it is so that you cannot come here when you want to, then it useless because you will just make a new account.

People that want their accounts deleted are mostly drama queens that think someone will try to talk them out of it. Good look with that.

I will give you my piano
One of my legs
And my wife — Mayor of Simpleton

I for one definitely decline to try and prove it, I have 2 legs and I wife already. And I am tone deaf.

My definition of a closed mind, Mayor of Simpleton, is a mind that has made its mind up and then closes that mind to anything that may challenge the closed mind. — david plumb

So you are very closed minded in your belief the the superheroes of today are the equivalent of the gods of yesterday. Without any evidence to prove your point.

Celebrities are also the new gods, they perform the same cultural, psychological role . — david plumb

This is why I asked you to provide some sort of evidence. What are your reasons for thinking this? If they do not perform the cultural and psychological roles that I listed, what do they do?

You, know kinda like Catholic purgatory, it's better than hell. — Hippyhead

Do you base that on personal experience? :rofl:

Maybe I am the only one to think this, but Hippyhead appears to have more of a chest that a lot of the chicks I know.

But at least the people watching appear to be wearing masks.

A closed mind is a good thing to lose — david plumb

Maybe it would be a good idea to lose yours then, you seem pretty convinced that you are 100% right and no matter others say you will still be right.

If one were to say that superheroes have or are taking the place of gods one would have to show some sort of evidence to back up the statements. Thus far you have failed miserable to do so.
The fact that they are popular, even among religious people, does not make then a god. If that were true then Elvis, Humphrey Bogart, and Obama are also gods.

For any being to take the place of a god would mean that it would have to fulfill the requisites of that god.
1. would have to been responsible for the creation of everything.
2. would have to be the guiding force behind the destiny of mankind
3. would have to be the moral compass of mankind's morality
4. would have to be the object of devotion/ worship of humanity

In the space below please list the Super Heroes that fulfill at least 2 of the above.

If so, then these current movie gods resemble the Greek, Roman and Norse gods. — Mayor of Simpleton

Some of the characters are actually based on them, Thor, Loke.

Great choices for a moral base no?

We all have a moral base, we all need a moral base and when these morals no longer exist then evil occurs. — david plumb

So the evil of the world is now caused by the super hero movies? How does that make sense?

And the good behavior of these heroes is set as a moral base for the people that don't believe in a god?

I am beginning to think that you are making less and less sense with each post you make.

And please learn how to quote properly.

If the people are so stupid that they are substituting comic book super heroes for gods then I ask again, why do they imitate and try to be super heroes but have never imitated nor tried to be gods.
Yes some old time rulers turned themselves into gods, power trips, but the common everyday man on the street does not do it, why not?

When you are young this can cement itself in your mind and unless you are brought up in a religious family these super heroes substitute a God that you know little about. — david plumb

How young are you talking about?
If you see superman when you are maybe 5 to 10 years old you have little idea about what a god actually is. This is actually true for a lot of adults as well. What you would do is play at being him, as many kid falling of roofs trying to fly. You see him as someone to imitate, you try to act like him.
While, as you said, this can cement itself into their minds but they eventually realize that they can never become him or call on him for help because he is just a comic book or movie character.
God on the other hand can be asked for help any time you want to, and occasionally it comes.

The reality is that the bare bones of the God question is simply as a protector and no more to most people. — david plumb

Your reality. With so many millions of people throughout the world worshiping gods who are the creators of everything not many view their god as a simple protector.

To reach the masses in the government needs to then society has to be dumbed down and dismantled in a Derrida way which is what has happened. Popular culture now is dominated by celebrities ( God substitutes again). — david plumb

You maybe right about the leaders wanting to dumb down the majority of society, but the movies are only a very small part of that. If that was to be a criteria for calling something a god, then a smartphone has a greater impact than super heroes.

If you do not hold sacred the christian god, why do you capitalize the word?

I doubt if the audience being targeted are going to critically analyse the differences between Gods and super heroes. — david plumb

Not much analysis necessary. I doubt that they are watching these movies looking for a god substitute anyway.
Most of the people that are influenced by the characters in these movies want to be like the heroes, they want to be more than their pitiful human life lets them be. The rest are just looking for entertainment.

To this audience the super heroes replace the need for God/Gods and thus continue to negate the need for religion , much as the Frankfurt School intended. Dumbing down of culture is everywhere. — david plumb

If someone has a need for a god they will worship one, but not many superheroes are believable gods even for the dumbest. They might hero worship them and even try to act like them, but how many people really try to act like a god?

The fact that lots of people watch these superheroes does in no way negate the need for religion, more over it proves the need for them. People need something to look up to, to guide and inspire them. If it was just a continuation as you state, then it would definitely point towards a need for some sort of religion.

The heirs of our world! :rofl: — Gus Lamarch

And may the gods(all of them) have mercy on us all. :cry:

The current Hollywood super hero films - are they simply a continuation of the Gods theme that has been around for thousands of years? — david plumb

No, not really. The gods were not just the guides of human destiny but also the creators of humanity. The super heroes do not claim anything like that.
That part would go to the alien forefathers groups.

When you are young you have a lot of energy, and little experience of how the world works. Adding to that you are, just by virtue of not having had a lot of time to build up a something in the world, usually not in a situation where you stand to lose much... and so among the youth the conditions are right for developing a culture that wants to change things. — ChatteringMonkey

Have you noticed how old the youths are today? You see "kids" of 30 acting they just got let out of school.
A lot of them still live with mom and dad even.