He behaved normally for a liar. He was confronted with a previous claim he made and his response was "I don't stand by anything."

If your worldview is so fragile that you have to rationalize every line of BS this guy spews to salvage it, it might not be worth salvaging.

Trump doesn't even make this claim. Have you considered asking for a cabinet position?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zFhYoBlZ2g

Again, many of those are not lies. You just want to interpret them in your own way, rather than the way they were meant in - that's called being uncharitable. — Agustino

Accusing a former president of wiretapping him? Lying about voter fraud? Lying about people being killed? Are you such an intellectual infant that you can't figure out which ones are big lies and which ones are little lies?

In the most general way of interpreting that statement they are correct. You can look at any specific statement and then, after the fact, change it slightly to fit your view. That's not what he does. Also, you picked one of literally thousands.

You seem to have no problem with a person who holds the highest office in the world telling lies at an unprecedented rate. The evidence is there. The mental gymnastics you perform to justify them is impressive. It's a shame you are such a partisan that you can't even seem to give an evenhanded report on him.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

Proves my point. A list of things which aren't even worth calling lies. — Agustino

Saying things that are wrong and can be verified as wrong aren't lies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

The media counts things like "it was the biggest crowd ever" as a lie - that's not a lie to me, and it's really insignificant - it's more of a way of speaking, as in "it was the biggest crowd ever". — Agustino

Wow. Lying is a only a way of speaking now?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

Ya, that's a bit out of my price bracket. — Sam26

The hallmark of a true sports car enthusiast is buying something they can't afford. :-$

I'll try one last time.

Billy lights a fuse attached to a bomb inside the bank. Unbeknownst to him there is a wet spot half way down the fuse and the flame goes out. Billy decides to not light the fuse again. Did Billy attempt to blow up the bank?

No, he was considering it, but he didn't actually try to do it. If he orders Mattis, and Mattis starts initiating the procedures, and then something goes wrong and they don't do it anymore, then he did order him. — Agustino

This is wrong.

And by the way, if Mattis refuses in such a hypothetical case, that is unconstitutional. The generals CANNOT refuse the President in such a circumstance. They can try to convince him otherwise, but if it's an order, it cannot be refused - that would be treason. — Agustino

Not strictly true. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42065714

And even if it were; better to die a traitor than live as a mass murderer.

Trump orders General Mattis to fire a nuke at NK. Mattis complies. Trump nukes NK.

Trump orders Mattis to nuke NK. Mattis refuses. Trump didn't try to nuke NK?

Backing off under threat of great consequences is different than a casual discussion about whether he should or not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-mueller-special-counsel-russia.html

Telling someone to do something isn't an action? He was talked out of the idea by having cabinet members threaten to resign so he didn't push it. That may not count as obstruction of justice per se, but it clearly shows that he attempted it.

Come on Agustino. Even the die-hard Trump supporter Sean Hannity conceded the point.

To the question in the OP I'd have to say no. I think broadening definitions has created a lot of problems regarding social issues. Words like rape, sexual harassment, triggered, Nazi, etc., are used by many in such a broad sense that their meanings are diluted and muddy. I understand the desire by those supporting the trans movement to use words that they feel adequately convey the hardships trans people face, but there are plenty of other words that can do the job without resulting in as much equivocation.

As to whether being trans is a mental illness, I think the question needs to be framed around harm and outcomes. If there is no treatment for trans people that helps them identify as their apparent biological sex and transitioning results in better health outcomes, that would seem to be the way forward.

Also, if there is a biological basis for being trans, that would make it less subjective and dispel other ideas such as transracialism.

Yup, this is a pretty fucking idiotic attitude to have. — Akanthinos

The fuck does that have to do with anything? — Akanthinos

Its the kind of shit attitude that bullies have. — Akanthinos

I don't think language can be violence, but if I did this would probably qualify.

but that doesn't seem right — unenlightened

It doesn't really seem right to me either. I can't tell if his argument is that transubstantiation is wholly subjective, or that it is objective, but the evidence for it is wholly subjective.

What is left, for an atheist, is nothing. But for a theist there is another possibility, which is that God sees it differently. 'In the eyes of God' there is a difference, that we can see as a moral difference. It is a real difference, because God cannot be deceived, and hence substantial, but not a physical difference. Thus it is rather in line with holy water, consecrated ground, testimony sworn on the Bible, or the union of marriage. Ritual does nothing physical, and yet transforms the moral significance of things, not merely in the eyes of the faithful, but in the Eyes of God, such that though it might be a virtue to wash one's socks, it would be a sin to use holy water for such mundane purposes. — unenlightened

This makes sense. If these things were presented as such, I doubt much debate would arise. It's when the doctrine wants to have its cake and eat it that it gets called into question.

To be clear, I don't agree with his assessment. I'm just trying to make sense of how this conversation has persisted in these fourteen pages since I left the debate.

Perhaps a more succinct version of MU's position would be something like this:

Transubstantiation occurs iff communicants believe transubstantiation occurs.
There is objective evidence that communicants believe transubstantiation occurs.
Therefore, transubstantiation occurs.

Maybe this is missing something? You can correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position . I'm not taking up the debate again. Just trying to clarify.

It is very clear that something tangible changes in transubstantiation, and this is the attitude of the people toward the items. As I said, "substance" is an assumption we make. So if the substance of the object changes, then this means that the people's assumptions concerning the object change. And that is what we see in the change of the people's attitude toward the objects. Therefore there is real tangible evidence that transubstantiation has occurred. — Metaphysician Undercover

Clearly the priest's act is performative, because it is by this act that transubstantiation occurs. And, it is also very clear that it is impossible that this act accomplishes nothing, because following this act the participants respect the items as the substance of Christ's body and blood, and proceed to take part in the sacrament. The act definitely accomplishes something. So you are very wrong on both counts here. — Metaphysician Undercover

It seems MU is saying the act of transubstantiation is completely subjective. By MU's definition, "substance" is an assumption. Therefore, the only things that change are people's assumptions.

You know what I mean Thoron. Yes, technically they are records found in history that claim to record things that happened in a period of history.
They are not a dispassionate account of things that took place. And they are full of discrepancies.

Let's not pretend the four Gospels are a historical record. They are narratives written by highly educated Greek Christians about uneducated (except Jesus) and illiterate Aramaic-speaking Jews, 35-70 years after the fact. They are full of discrepancies and contradictions, including the accounts of the resurrection. There are zero contemporary secular sources that affirm or even mention the event.

The amount deference given to "mystical experiences" in this argument is baffling. If the inability to disprove something claimed to be ineffable is grounds for respecting it, I guess we'd have no right to try talking a suicide bomber out of his belief in a glorious martyrs afterlife.

This is fascinating. Perhaps thinkers who deny or ignore god are worshipping and serving god as they understand god. Perhaps 'god' is a word for what is highest in human experience. — ff0

This brand of teleology is not uncommon in my experience. I have listened to sermons where it is explained that the central drive of people is worship; all things that humans pursue are in essence an act of worship. If this worship is not of god, it is a perversion of our built-in nature. This claim has the same quality to it as saying all things are hedonistic in that it is unfalsifiable.

True. Quoting a heretical non-saint like Tertullian doesn't help your case, especially as he doesn't reject the doctrine of the real presence in that quote. — Thorongil

Ah yes, the old heretic. Not heretical enough that the Catholic church doesn't want to claim his opinion for their purposes, though. I tried to explain that quotation, but if you don't see it there's nothing else I can say.

Biblical literalism is associated more with Protestantism than Catholicism. Personally I'd be a Catholic. Better buildings, among other things. — jamalrob

I'd rather be saddled with the history of Protestantism than Catholicism. Those beautiful buildings were paid for by indulgences.

So they do REALLY become the flesh and blood of Jesus. But that's not a physical becoming. — Agustino

So they become the flesh and blood, but not in any perceptible or substantial meaning of the word "become". A better name would be Transunsubtatiation.

I
If you're saying that transubstantiation is not physical in some sense, where the bread and wine actually become Jesus' flesh and blood, then what is the claim? And wouldn't that put you at odds with the above verse you just quoted where you implied that Jesus made the claim that they had to literally eat his flesh and blood?

Here's a quote from Catholic.com in an article called Transubstantiation for Beginners:

"The only possible meaning is that the bread and wine at the consecration become Christ's actual body and blood. Evidently Paul believed that the words Christ had said at the Last Supper, "This is my Body," meant that really and physically the bread is his body. In fact Christ was not merely saying that the bread was his body; he was decreeing that it should be so and that it is so."

Do you disagree with this?

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst."
(John 6:35)

“...The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe”
(John 6:63-64).

That verse is not about the Eucharist, and within the context of these two verses is clearly symbolic/spiritual.

Expound? Maybe expand. — Agustino

There. I fixed it. It's late.
Any thoughts on the actual quotations from the Bible or do you want to stick with early church leaders?

https://www.nature.com/news/2006/060828/full/news060828-3.html — Agustino

I'm sure they'd find the same things in the minds of Muslims or Mormons.

Transubstantiation is NOT a physical change, so it's much closer to a symbolic change, absolutely. That's what Orthodox and Catholics have meant from the very beginning. It is aimed at reproducing the effect of Christ's sacrifice, which was the divinization of the flesh (hence of bread and wine). — Agustino

Because some of the early church leaders decided it was somehow literal, it is not clear from the text itself that Jesus(if he said these things at all) meant it literally.
The Gospel of Luke says, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
1 Corinthians 11:23 does too. So clearly it is meant as a symbolic gesture.

Mystical experiences can be verified scientifically. — Agustino

Can you expound?

The above quotation of Tertullian is his response to Marcion of Sinope. Marcion was a proponent of docetism, which purported that Jesus had no physical body. Tertullian is emphasizing the body of Christ not in the bread and wine, but that he had one at all.

Read this again:
"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body."

Notice he makes a special note saying, "that is, the figure of my body."
The word figure, which is the translation used by the Catholic Church, also means "sign" or "symbol".
Tertullian would have no need of clarifying this if he indeed meant that Jesus was speaking literally of the bread and wine.

In the grand scheme, Tertullian's opinion is just one of many so even this doesn't amount to much. I doubt we'll solve a major theological schism here in the ShoutBox.

*Edit*

Another quotation of Jesus we could look at is John 10 verse 7:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep."

So Jesus is not only bread and wine, but a door!

Makes sense to me. You're just quote mining without respect of context. — Thorongil

I'm just getting to work so I won't be able to reply in depth, but the first part of the Catholic response is A) mumbo-jumbo, and B) confirms what I said.

"Indeed, both Tertullian and St. Augustine are emphasizing the fact that the Lord’s body and blood are communicated under the “appearances,” “signs,” or “symbols” of bread and wine. “Figure” is another synonym for “sign.” Even today the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the terms “sign” and “symbol” to describe the Eucharist in paragraphs 1148 and 1412.

In the case of Tertullian, all we have to do is go on reading in the very document quoted above to get a sense of how he is using the term “figure,” and it is entirely Catholic. Notice what he goes on to say:

Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body...

Tertullian’s point here is that Marcion’s “theory of a phantom body” fits with Christ “pretend[ing] the bread was His body,” because Marcion denied Jesus had a body in the first place. But the Christian believes Christ “made it His own body, by saying, This is my body.” The transformation does not take away the symbolic value of bread and wine, it confirms it."

not in a scientific way — Thorongil

Ok. The burden of proof still rests on the believer, and fuzzy feelings don't count as proof.

By "the text" I suppose you mean the Bible. It may be disputable, but I think the New Testament affirms the doctrine. And early Christians did believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. All Christians believe it is symbolic, by the way, but those who believe in the real presence don't think it's merely symbolic. — Thorongil

Are you suggesting that Jesus ate and drank himself with his disciples? I provided quotes of very early Christian leaders denying the physical presence of Jesus in the bread and wine. You care you cite some of the early Christians you speak of? I could cite many more to make my case.

In fact, the Tertullian quote affirms it quite strongly. — Thorongil

"...that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol."

You do not understand the theological implications here. This is Tertullian affirming that God was flesh, not that the bread became God's literal flesh and blood.

The doctrine assumes that what is real, indeed what is most real, is not the physical world. Trying to make sense of it while assuming some version of materialism, as you apparently hold to, is definitionally impossible. — Thorongil

So the Catholic Church asserts something that cannot possibly be verified in any way, but because it's religious doctrine, we should give it some credence? That seems absurd.

Transubstantiation is not at all explicit in the text itself. Many, if not most, of the early church writers did not see the breaking of bread and drinking of wine as anything other than symbolic. Protestants also do not believe in transubstantiation.



“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).
-Tertullian

“the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood“(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).
-Justin Martyr (110-165 CE)

Well, the quote is from Thomas Nagel - you may or may not be familiar with him, but he's a respected philosopher, a rare breed in today's world. His point is that he wouldn't like to think that there's a God. I don't really know why he feels that way, except that maybe it's like a feeling of having made a losing bet, as he's always been a professed atheist. So maybe it's like 'gee I hope I don't turn out to be wrong'. — Wayfarer

Yeah, I'm familiar with him. I wasn't sure if you shared his opinion on that particular part of his essay or not.

I think for many self-described atheists, the question of the existence of God is something that has been sealed shut. It's a box marked 'solved', with tape around it, and it sits safely on a shelf, with no further examination required. But if you suspect that it might not be, that it might actually be still a 'live case' then it causes a lot of further questions. It might not be a sealed box, but a Pandora's box, after all. — Wayfarer

I think for most atheists, the question they view as sealed is one about specific gods; e.g. the Abrahamic god. This of course is only a local atheistic view, not global. But once one has disposed of the more traditional conceptions of god, conjuring up a new, less involved version seems unnecessary.
Being open to the question is a fine thing, but what are the practical implications? Is it about a mental posture?
Maybe shelving the question entirely is a reactionary response to the ideological tyranny of the traditional gods; a fear that leaving the door open wide enough for a new one might allow the old ones to get a foot back inside.

This seems a bit off-topic now so I'll leave it. Maybe I'll start a topic on this later this week.

People who describe God do it in terms wherein its powers and intellect are unlimited, On that basis it is not possible to prove or disprove its existence. Investigations on reality can only be based on observation and possibilities that can be confirmed. So far these indications indicate that there is no necessity to posit the existence of a god.We have to settle for that. — Jan Sand

I agree with you, except with the caveat that a god could prove its own existence, so long as it conformed to some anthropomorphic idea we have of it.

My question to Wayfarer is an attempt to understand what he sees as an important distinction between a person who does not believe in god and hopes there is none, and a person who does not believe in god and is either indifferent or hopes there is one. My guess is(correct me if I'm wrong Wayfarer) he sees the former as having lost objectivity.

I'm also curious whether he finds the anti-god attitude problematic with regard to local atheism or just global atheism.

It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.

How do you differentiate the two?

Edit: In others*.

The most common philosophical questions are things like: why am I here? What is life all about? What purpose do I have in life? Etc. These questions all assume some intrinsic meaning or purpose to existence. Being designed, in a loose sense, means that you were created for some purpose, or at the very least you are not an accident. Most theology would tell you that purpose is to worship/serve god.

These questions probably made a lot more sense outside the lens of evolution, but even evolution could be construed as a convoluted means of design. Evolution might also be seen as a more artistic expression of design in that the artist doesn't necessarily know what the final product is going to be when they start.

The argument from design(clock comparison) has fallen out of favor in light of evolutionary biology. It's still used with regard to cosmology though.
The major underlying idea is a sense of meaning. It's unsettling to think that we're just floating in space making up purpose for our own lives.

I'm shocked my name hasn't been nominated for modship.

like asking us to tell you why we don't make Wosret a mod and then me spending the next few pages publically telling everyone why he sucks — Hanover

I'd read it.

In the larger, meta-metaphysical picture, are you sure that that distinction is meaningful? — Michael Ossipoff

I suppose that depends on which iteration of god we're talking about.

That's what I mean. Existence is one of the issues. Atheists think God has to manifest physically. Of course theists too believe that god intervenes in the world. However, the point is the atheistic insistence on existence being defined physically may be unjustifiably restrictive. — TheMadFool

A godlike being could exist outside our perceptual capabilities, but what would that mean for us if it did? The reason theists cite examples of a god intervening in the world is because that attempts to show a relational or somewhat involved god. A god who cares about the outcome here on earth. If there is no interaction/intervention we end up being deists. Deism is a fine idea, but it is impotent.