Do you find materialism satisfying? I like it but if it's not your cup of tea there is much in philosophy, religion, and spirituality to consider

Your argument fails because you have to balance the claims of the NT with all the other miraculous claims of the ancient world. The NT was written by Christian believers. The NT is generally reliable except the virgin birth, the giving of authority to the apostles, and the resurrection. It makes perfect sense to say these were made up after Jesus's death by his followers

Physics seems flawed to me in ways. It seems axiomatic that laws can't change because identical objects act identically. If they didn't physics would be impossible. But what we are measuring is questionable. Are we really measuring a multiverse? When laws seem to change, are the true laws coming to the front of a filter? Also, if you have Newtons laws and say they were 75% sure they were accurate, and then have Einstein's and say it's 95% possible it's accurate, is it really at 95% considering that the 75% guess was wrong? Physicists get excited by new theories but don't consider this

Here's someone who does think they have found the nature of reality, and along very Buddhist lines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS3mMZblq0U

By primate, I meant a gorilla ect. Those beings

I agree abortion seems wrong, but so does killing a primate. Unless we define exactly what is human life and then what exactly is personhood, the safe position seems to be vegetarianism to me

My conclusion from your post is that we can say Jesus was an enlightened person, understanding theology and philosophy. The part about his virgin birth and the authority given to the apostles are most likely added to the historical record. If someone finds Jesus in their heart, that is different from saying the apostles had authority to write the Scriptures. I associate more with Socrates than Jesus, but they are both solely historical people

I've discussed why Christianity is an immoral system in detail on this forum. My words are only for those who are interested in Christian apologetics

I respect you as an elder but I have a few javolins which I know take down Christian apologetics. In fact I have many. I see no reason I can't use them. That gained virtue is greater possessed virtue is the fundamental tenet of my philosophical beliefs

Well if you don't want to learn that is on you

Yes I do. Aquinas is fun to read but he is a sophist. I am concerned about people hiding their guilt with the Jesus story if I know them. On this forum it is an academic pursuit

I don't know what your getting at. I refuted Christianity

I don't have enemies. I argue these matters with academic interest

Christianity says the explanation of the world is that three people were given all goodness by reality. I find it a ridiculous philosophical tradition. Achilles may have had virtue, which since it was gained, would be superior to the God's

If people have guilt and don't believe there is some true ontological cure for it, i see them as hopeless. Christianity says it's indeed hopeless except for Jesus. Sowwy but Jesus is dead.and won't give you anything true and curing

As I said, it's fantasy

At the library once I searched a bunch of articles on Descartes and animals. It seems unclear whether he held they had no thoughts whatsoever or only lacked a simple soul

Christianity just ties people in knots over their guilt. Catholics believe even when your repentance is not enough to eradicate guilt, confession magically effects this. Such is ridiculous and immoral, but sure people say they feel clean for a minute after confession. That's why they do it. Christianity won't fix anything deep rooted. It's fantaay

The only historical evidence of Jesus having super power comes from his disciples and Josephus, who also was a Christian. Every religion claims miracles. That's almost what a religion is.

Christianity is actually about what you call "magical salvation" . In the court of justice you can't substitute one person's act for another. In the court of mercy, maybe. But Christianity is just about assuming saying the name Jesus, going to confession or baptism, magically bestows mercy. It's all meaningless

Christians judge all the time. Instead of judging Jesus as not existing, they judge the atheists for being non-believers. Their faith is one out of thousands. It's not special, but they treat it as if it's unique

It's rooted in either something that happened to you or a chemical imbalance. So figuring yourself on this is first key, and if that doesn't help and you feel stuck Zoloft or ketamine infusions can help.

The key is to avoid depersonalization disorder (see Google for symptoms) as one travels the spiritual path

I think the further we go back in history (studying texts), the less likely it is that we are really understanding the language because language changes constantly. I doubt anyone knows what the Bible really said for example

materialism is an illusion. — Olivier5

Where's your evidence?

It does exist as an experience, but yes nothing doesn't exist. This is why an afterlife is possible

I would never call the world Maya, although we may never know it in itself. However, for what it's worth, i'd say that truth and consciousness are really nothing. They have no substance, no inner core at all; they are undistinguishable from pure nothing. They are pure nothing. Pure nothing experiences the world thru the body and never knows it truly either. This might be more Buddhist than Dennett-esque, but it's what makes most sense to me

Less concrete. He sounds like a Zen Buddhist to me

I think Dennet is saying that qualia is substance -less. It is not in a simple soul and not a power coming out of the body. Feelings are nothingness felt by biological cells. Powers don't emerge from these cells like a magic soul of matter. What do you guys think?

Hegel thought everything, history AND thought, moved by way of syllogism. Everything was logic, leading to the ultimate conclusion known as the Absolute. Everything on the way to this Omega Point (to use Teilhard's term) was only partially true, a semblance or shadow of the absolute.

I was listening to Bertrand Russell on Bergson. Bergson renounced reason to an extent and promoted philosophical intuition. I don't know how this related to post monernism, but ye there is a lot to read out there

We assume consciousness is a substance, an entity, when it may be a nothingness

I think anyone who reads Hegel is remarkable, in the same sense that I think anyone who voluntarily wears hair shirts is remarkable. It's as if one is doing penance in the hope of being rewarded sometime, if not in heaven then perhaps in 19th century Prussia during the reign of Friedrich Wilhelm III, its earthly equivalent.

But I suspect context could provide some clarification, if the author deigns to supply helpful definitions for the more obscure words and phrases or if the reader is already familiar with the jargon. When that's required in order for an author to be understood, though, I don't think it does him/her any credit. — Ciceronianus the White

Reading Hegel is like a game. You have to try to figure out what he is getting at all the time. He hardly defines his terms, ever. So I enjoy it. His thought that all truth besides the Absolute truth is only a semblence of truth sounds like post-modernism, except that the latter denies Hegel has proven there is an Absolute truth. I don't see post-modernists as relativist. They seem to doubt much, yes, and like Sextus Empiricus, may doubt even that they doubt. But in that situation you ask yourself "then what am I doing?" Back to Descartes, see? For post modernism, there is only a semblence of truth, and only a semblence of truth in post modernism FOR post modern thought. However far back you take it, the whole series is eclipsed by semblence. There is no absolute objective truth, but then again post modernism is no full blown relativism (which is inconsistent). I don't see post modernism is self-inconsistent

Most of what I hear from Wittgenstein is trivial. So far I haven't seen a strong, solid idea from him

If I'm not mistaken, Wittgenstein would say every word is translatable from one language into any other. He says the private experience of the word is known only on an individual basis, but language is a game we all play. Post modernist deny that all words can be translated. They told me tis in college in my cultural anthropology class. And Mexican people have told me they have words there is no way to translate into English. I tried to press them "is the word something good, bad, referring to something, ect." They just say it's a cultural barrier

Does not the private language argument amount to saying everything can be expressed in language. "It depends on the language, culture, and biology" is the post modern response. I'm open to criticism in this

Wittgenstein wanted to find a universal algorithm for human language. Herder of Germanycenturies before post modernist thinkers had already told the French such was impossible. I notice how some are willing to entertain Humean doubts, also, but not when they are voiced by post modernism. I think post modernism will morph into something else and dramatically change the West. I don't see it going away.

I've seen these kind of objections to Hegel, but the more I read him the more I don't see it. I'd bet if you read the post modernist in context, it can be seen they are not just playing games. I look forward to reading much of them in the future

When you take your first breath you accept life with all its consequences. Einstein said the foremost question in philosophy is whether the world is good or not. The quote I found in the book The Secret. The book is about what religious people swear by: faith can move mountains

It seems to me post modernism wants to root language and knowledge in biology and culture, which might put too much pressure on Wittgenstein's position for it to hold. I am interested in post modernist conceptions about physics, since much of the latter seems to me to be philosophy

Are there like 8 or 9 types of pancychism?