We're going to stick to this one topic instead of branching off to homosexuality which is its own separate topic. I want to get this done first then we can move on.↪ — Moses

Its not branching off to homosexuality, homosexuality is just one specific reason the bible gives for the death penalty. I dont need to discuss the morality of being gay, its not a moral issue to me.
So staying on the topic of murder in the bible, is your position that killing gays as prescribed in the bible is wisdom or if it isnt wisdom then how do you reckon this awful part of the bible with this “wisdom” you purport it has?

So murder in the bible is justified because the people in the bible or those the bible identifies as murder worthy deserved to die?
What about gay men? The bible calls for them to be stoned to death.
Also, you mentioned “in theory”, but we dont need to theorise because the bible is specific. Im not asking you about theory but the actual instances of the murder described in the bible.

I just meaning general. Whatever wisdom the book provides it also Condones slavery and murder.:.are you just ignoring those parts or…?

Fair enough I suppose.
So how do you reckon the parts of the bible that are awful with the parts with this wisdom you claim it has?

Well, it's faith + my reading and understanding of the bible. — Moses

Well it can’t be faith + your reading…it would have to be just your reading then right? Cuz faith isnt a reason…?

But the bible has moral wisdom that I cannot pinpoint the source of. — Moses

That is an argument from Ignorance fallacy. Just because
You cannot pinpoint the source doesnt mean you get to insert the one you want. All that can be concluded from your lack of pinpointing is that you do not know. The source of that moral wisdom could be anything, why is the answer god? I dont think it makes sense to answer faith so what factor does faith actually play for you?

You should question your sources because sources are human and humans are not unquestionable. For instance, lets take Sennacherib's assassination purportedly by his own sons in 681 BCE. We come to know this because of royal inscriptions and this is also mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (I guess word got around). Is it insane to think that a royal assassination may have been pinned on someone else? Wouldn't be the first time. — Moses

I can agree with that, Im a historical skeptic, further back the more skeptical I am. I am less skeptical when there is corroborated evidence to reinforce a historical fact. For example, the evidence that pyramids were built long ago is so strong ( “hey look, a pyramid!”) that it is foolish to think otherwise.
However, this level of evidence is still much much stronger than any case based on faith alone.

Faith is not a reason. It is a jump. I do not know that God exists, but I believe that he does. I may be wrong. — Moses

I don't think there is a real distinction between faith being a reason and a jump.
But ok, so your answer to “why do you believe in god?” Is NOT faith? What is it then?

We need to narrow down our discussion if we want it to be more fruitful: Do you wish to discuss faith in the context of believing whether a historical event occurred or reliability of a news story? These are separate and I don't want our discussion to get too convoluted. — Moses

I didnt want to not respond to your opening paragraph here, but it seems like you move on from it anyway…

In any case when it comes to history it's about what we consider good reasons/evidence to accept that an event happened. In other words whether you place faith in your sources. — Moses

I disagree that reasons and evidence that an event happened are based on “faith” in your sources. Its a figure of speech to say you have faith in a source, but that way of using the word “faith” is not the same as having faith in the religious sense of the word.

I was talking about utility in the realm of praxeology, i.e. human action - it allows us to basically cut off our thinking at a certain point and invites action. I agree that utility has no bearing on whether a proposition is true or false, nor should faith be a reason. I think another benefit to faith, if used correctly, is that it acknowledges our own very limited knowledge of this world. — Moses

Ok, so what is faith in the religious sense if its not a reason? Why when people are asked why they belief in god they say “faith”? I do not understand how faith isnt being offered as a reason in that common example.

You are using different meanings of “value” interchangeably. Im sorry but it makes it difficult to find a spot to engage with.

That doesnt really make sense. Its like saying “the reason for me walking to the store is reason itself”.
You gave a non-answer to my question.

utility is the value. it's necessary unless you want to remain a very serious skeptic your entire life. you will have to make jumps if you want to believe e.g. that certain historical events happened or that the news you read is accurate. — Moses

I don’t think this is true. Those are not leaps of faith, or faith based conclusions. Just because you trust the reliability of something doesnt mean you are taking it in faith. The opposite in fact is true, you have specific reasons for believing certain historical events happened or if the news is accurate. Not faith based at all, but based in the past reliability of historical research or news program.
Anyway, you said the value of faith is its utility. Its utility doesnt make it true or false, and when faith is given as a reason for belief it is a matter of whether its true or false not whether or not it is useful. Lies have utility too, but that doesnt mean they are true.
So I think you have made a false equivalence.

You'll see rhetoric which discounts the role of faith all the time. I could dig up quotes from the new atheist movement of the 2010s or with many atheists today. There are tons of quotes which discount the role of faith. I just don't see where we're going with this. It's an epistemological matter. I'm sure I could dig up some quote from Dawkins or Penn Jillette or Ricky Gervais... it's a constant theme. — Moses

People are dismissive of faith because they see it as a meaningless placeholder term, with no real value except to avoid accountability for a belief in god that has no other defense.
Maybe they are wrong though…what is the value of faith?

I dont think they do. Hope and optimism were part of 1, not 2 but you posted as though you thought hope and optimism were in 2 as well. So how did you get there?

So you want to discuss definition 1? How would that relate to faith as it appears in judeo christian tradition which is actually part of definition 2?

Exactly my point. How can having a body be definitive of being a human when all kinds of clearly non-human things have bodies?
So apparently it does need to be more complicated than that.

Cats have bodies.

T Clark was banned?

Sees so, but on the other hand how did it happen that, at least in the US, the most fragile delusional lunatic deems that is ok to say and what is not, while virtually all sane people cater to their demands. — M777

I wouldnt agree that its “”fragile delusional lunatic”, at least not just on one side of this debate. Sadly most people on both sides of any given debate in the US operate in this fragile deluded state. There are two opinions for most people stateside these days, your opinion and the opinion of your sworn enemies.
There is a complex answer to how that happened, but its the way it is.

Than again it is understandable, as a normal person would not spend his time trying to get those lunatics fired, while the lunatics might try doing it to the sane person. — M777

Well one of those people is an activist whose hobby it is to go after people and the other a person trying to navigate the treacherous waters the activist has created.

I'd say I am amazed by how easily seemingly grown up people would bend over backwards to cater to some hypothetical bullies. — M777

They are not “hypothetical”, it is a very real social concern. There are, right now, people waiting, searching, for anyone to “speak their mind” in the wrong way so they can met out social justice. You answer someone in the street today, maybe you end up jobless tomorrow cuz some self important douche appointed themselves the arbiter of opinions. Then they will say something along the lines “ freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from consequences” or something equally as blind and dumb.
You are right though, it is an act of cowardice.

:lol:
You took the time to write that comment. Lol
You never cease to amuse me you self important douche bag.
:lol: :lol:

Good explanation — Jackson

Thank you

I can understand that "a round square" is incoherent by juxtaposing the concepts round and square. I get that.

But I can't understand what a round square is. It's ununderstandable. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Right, there are two different things to understand. The sentence, and the concept of a round square.

Its not binary, you can both understand the sentence is that incoherent and not understand the incoherent bit at the same time. You are understanding the part that communicates something incoherent and recognizing that what is being communicated is incoherent. Its not either/or.

You would understand it is incoherent. Indeed, wouldn't understanding something be a prerequisite for knowing it is incoherent?

Well put

The thing of the inner sensations of "what it's like" is the thing to be explained. Evolution giving rise to "what it's like" doesn't explain why there is a "giving rise to what it's like", only the advantages to an organism for having it. — schopenhauer1

There are lots of things evolution created that we cannot answer in the same way as you describe above. I don’t see why consciousness is a special case.
Just because we cannot identify that “why” doesnt mean evolution isnt the answer. The way we find out is through science. Thats our go to for answers, reliable as it is.
Isnt the question why wouldnt evolution be the answer? It has been reliable and good enough for every other trait the human body has, why not that one?

More accurately, your imagination.

Obviously, but you are forgetting those lower dimensions. In 2D you dont even need the Planck scale hypersphere. Dark energy is the result of a 4D transmission of thermodynamical time from 3D AND 2D. Thus far your model hasn't accounted for that. With that addition you now get a recursive hyperbolic curvature which not only compensates for emergent 3D space and thermodynamical time playing hanky panky but also brings the Hickson-Ray variable to address the extra dimensions into perpendicularitude with each of the dimensions emerging after 3D space which by my count is 7D.
So indeed the question is, why 5D? And of course the answer is it isnt 5D, its 13D.

“Objection your honour, the prosecution is not responsible for the defences review of the charges.”

It was a back and forth of like, 2 posts. I cant help you if you can’t track an exchange that short.

It is not a non-sequitor, as it follows and relates to what you said about no longer allowing theists to bring their theism into institutions--even while at the same time suggesting that atheists should push their atheism into institutions. — whollyrolling

I didnt say that, you aren’t really listening. Most of what you said wasn't about me but some atheist bad actor you have in your head. Keep looking. I was trying to initiate an actual discussion but youre just here to trade snide talking points with snide atheists. Happy hunting.

Completely untrue. — whollyrolling

Yes it is, but I’m a sucker for numbered points so lets see what your refutation is…
1 “not all theists share their belief with others.“
I didnt claim all theists do. In fact if you actually read my post you will see I specifically account for the possibility of theists who aren’t interested in pushing their beliefs on others. I offered that you yourself might be one of these folks.
So no refutation here…lets keep going.
2 “theism can be a rational conclusion.“
I’m not sure about that, perhaps something to be discussed but certainly not a refutation. “Completely untrue” you said. So far, you have not supported this assertion.
3 “ theism is not necessarily associated with a specific religion, or religion in general.”
Sure, theism is belief in god. No necessary structure to theism. Agreed. Never said otherwise. When do you get to the part where what I said is untrue?
4 “ if theism is associated with a religion, or with religion in general, then a person is exercising their individual rights by making such an association and by practising it.”
What are you responding to? Are you sure its something I wrote? I never said anything about association or practice. Who you associate with and what you practice are not my business. The point I was making was it becomes my business once a theist inserts their beliefs outside those domains, specifically in the laws governing how we live.
5 “ theists are no more capable of tearing theism out of themselves than atheists are capable of tearing atheism out of themselves, and anyone who expects either of these outcomes doesn't respect anyone's individual rights--not their own, a theist's, or an atheist's--and could just as easily lose their own rights as remove them from someone else. ”

Depends on what you mean by tearing it out. Ive known both theists and atheists who have flipped their views. Again though, you are talking as though i made some contrary claim. I don’t think I did.
6 “ everyone has autonomy, an atheist can choose, an atheist is not some special category of human incapable of choice.”

Just another non-sequitor. Nothing you said supports your claim that what I said was “completely untrue”.
I think a civil person would apologize for such a clearly false disparagement.

That's because they have something to share. Atheists, on the other hand, don't. — Hillary

Your admission of guilt is noted, I rest my case.

The real atheists should not call themselves atheists or even engage in god debates. The real atheist just shuts up and lives life. — Hillary

If only that were true, but sadly theists have never been content to keep their willful delusions to themselves. As long as theists insist on bringing theism with them to courtrooms, institutions and in the actions of elected leaders then an atheist has no choice but to engage.
I’ll make you a deal though, if you are not that type of theist. You get all the theists to respect the separation of church and state and ensure no theistic inspired action affects people not of that particular theistic belief and Ill make sure no atheist ever talks about or engages about god ever again. :wink:

Is it possible you misinterpreted my words and drew an erroneous conclusion? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes of course its possible.

It becomes philosophical cuz you put the points in numerical order?
And yes, im making a judgement. Being judgemental. So?
I didnt judge you for being judgmental, you might say i was judging you for being self a righteous twat. In fact, i did.

Your judgement of Jackson. Jumped to conclusions about his character. He doesnt know how to be a person? He has an agenda?
All because his question didnt suit your own position, your own agenda.
Every post you’ve made so far reveals your self righteousness. The twat part comes from your dismissive attitude towards a mere question. Positions so easily threatened are seldom solid ones.
So ya, self righteous twat seems appropriate based on the evidence.

Well, its obvious you know how it feels to be a self righteous twat. So theres that.

Theism does not relate to atheism. Atheism relates to theism. Theism is not an attack on atheism. Theists defend theism from the attacks of atheists. Where's the hypocrisy then. — Gregory A

The hypocrisy I was referring to was a theist being offended by an atheist while at the same time constantly saying the same sorts of things about atheists, and of course more broadly speaking the religious have done far more offensive things to atheists than anything someone like Dawkins has ever done to theists. Its hypocrisy.
Because of this perceived “attack” in theism its impossible to have a real conversation across the isle when one or both parties come in with a chip on their shoulders.

Yes, egg. Im curious if your reasoning is the same as mine though. Care to share?

I suspect trolling is as common amongst theists as it is amongst atheists. That is, its hard to imagine they actually believe everything they are saying. My guess is they are angry because they feel insulted by atheists, which in itself is a staggering hypocrisy.