it wasn't Ignoredreddituser's writing, it was Steven French's. — T Clark

Nevertheless, I find the OP quite confused. For instance, Steven French is not presented, nor is his argument FOR eliminativism of tables. Instead the OP goes straight into some putative objections to French's thesis, but how are we to make sense of the objections to a thesis we know next to nothing of?

I think Wayfarer's criticism was that I wasn't responding in the terms that the OP laid out. — T Clark

To OP is extremely confused, and responding in the same terms would only add more confusion.

Folk don't like it when you point this out.

Oddly, even many of those who profess to be faithless. — Banno

I wonder sometimes if we live in different universes. Most folks I know don't care about St Augustine or even know who he was. Count me in too: i've never read his confessions and probably never will.

Wayf's quote i took as showing that literalists have been an embrassement to Christians right from the start. One could say that Jesus himself was fighting off Jewish literalists.

Just as it is ridiculous to hold up Biblical literature as a failed empirical science, it's just as lame to claim that science 'proves' or 'shows' that such literature is false, as the Dawkins of this world are so easily prone to do. In other words, if you've never believed that the mythological narrative is not literally true, then the fact that it's *not* literally true is hardly news. — Wayfarer

Yep. It's hard to see who's more of a dork, between a religious literalist and an atheist proselytiser.

Most welcome!

Christians mostly believe that the words in the Bible, the resurrection and Jesus' divinity are historical facts. — Tom Storm

You'd have to tell me where in the Bible does it say that Jesus was a god.

If Christians were to accept that Jesus was just an itinerant preacher who was killed and left on the cross to rot (as per Professor Bart Ehrman's work) and that the New Testament is essentially a series of whoppers, attempting to depict that preacher as a superhero, hen faith would largely collapse. — Tom Storm

Maybe. Most Christians are only vaguely committed to the actual teachings nowadays, so you may be right. They have made Jesus into yet another empty idol.

But others would recognize in the itinerant preacher who was killed something holly, something obstinately glorious, something radically novel, like they recognize as an important saint John the Baptist -- another itinerant preacher who was killed at about the same time (and not resurrected).

I was once on an interfaith christian-jewish dialogue internet board. Not much dialogue but much dispute happened there, the christians were mostly douches. But I the ex-christian turned atheist, kept interest in a few of them zionists and haredi and another more mystic Jew called Old Bear. They would all know the Talmud very well.

So as they explained, in the Talmud written in the 2nd to 4th century, there are bits and pieces about Jesus here and there, that compose the image of a poor yeshiva student, unruly and temperamental, who turned magician, a miscreant who was killed by hanging on a stick just before Passover. It's a sort of anti-gospel designed to protect Jews from christian proselytism. And of course all my interlocutors took the Talmud as authoritative.

And yet, now and then when I would post a parable or another from the Gospels, Old Bear would crack: "What a beautiful Jewish thought!"

In spite of their anti-gospel, the message was still resonating in him. In spite of loathing anything christian, he could openly admit to seeing deep, spiritually meaningful compassion in some of those passages.

Jesus is a resilient philosopher. You could say he is not so easily buried. :-)

I'm not.

Historically some Christians have taken the resurrection as figurative, ie Jesus showing himself to his followers but not in the flesh, rather as a vision. These folks' religious beliefs did not include literal resurrection, and yet they were still reading some gospel or another...

In contrast, modern historians will have nothing to do with faith. They don't intervene in theological disputes. So the idea that the historicity of Jesus constitutes some sort of Achilles's heel of Christianism is ill-founded. In the current state of evidence, it is not an important or fruitful historical field. If additional evidence come to light -- eg archeological evidence -- then it may become a more interesting and fruitful historical subject.

In the meantime historians will study the historical data they actually have, pertaining to other topics than Jesus, Buddha, or Socrates, on whose lives we have very little evidence. For instance the Qumran community is a hot historical topic right now because of the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery and study. New evidence came to light, and historians started to study it. That's how it works. If we found a throve of 1st century Christian writings hidden in a cave somewhere, you bet that the field would open up.

As we have seen throughout history what people think the message is depends on who is reading. If — Tom Storm

That applies perfectly to Socrates and Plato too. In fact it applies to quite a few philosophers.

If Jesus is not the son of god and was not resurrected, his message collapses in the eyes of most followers for whom the promise of everlasting life is the central attraction. — Tom Storm

But these points have all to do with religious belief and nothing to do with historical facts, so I don't see the relevance. An historian is not going to come out tomorrow with a paper proving factually that Jesus' DNA doesn't match his putative Father.

We agree that materialism doesn't matter, then.

Although one could perhaps stress its historical significance as a standard element of Marxism and other 20th century ideologies, and therefore indirectly as a cause of many deaths.

The method is what matters, not the biography. We can't really say the same about the Jesus stories. — Tom Storm

Of course we can. The historicity of this or that philosopher is a matter for historians to debate. What matters to the philosopher is the message. One can read the Gospels for their message only.

The electric currents on the neural lightning form an idea of materialism. — Cornwell1

Okay, so materialism is some kind of electric current in your brain. Fair enough. But why should my brain's electric currents care about your brain's electric currents? Maybe your electric currents are malfunctioning, or maybe they mean nothing whatsoever. If materialism is a sort of electric glitch, why does it matter?

“a broken clock was working and we once believed it” ? — neomac

By definition, a broken clock doesn't work, so your proposition makes no sense. A proposition equivalent to "it was raining and we thought otherwise," would be more like: "the clock was broken but we didn't know it, and we wrongly assumed it was working."

I think I don't love you anymore
She told me yesterday
It burst in the air
Like a gunshot
I think I don't love you anymore
She threw out yesterday
Between the cheese and the dessert
Like my corpse into the sea

I think I don't ​love you anymore
Your skin is like sandpaper
Under my fingers
I look at you and I cry
Just for nothing, like this
For no reason I cry
I cry in big gushes
Like in front of an onion I cry
Let's stop here

Lalala lalalalalala
She said
Lalala lalalalalala
She said

I think I don't ​love you anymore
Get up, get up
Don't blow your nose in my dress
Not this time, get up
You have no smell anymore
Your lips are the marble
Of the tomb of our love
She told me -- her blood was cold --
When I make love to you, I think of him
When I make love to him
I don't think of you anymore

Lalala lalalalalala
She said
Lalala lalalalalala
She said

I think I don't love you anymore
She said yesterday
It burst in the air
Like an old thunderclap
I think I don't love you anymore
I look at you, I see nothing
Your footsteps leave no trace
Next to mine
I don't blame you
I'm not mad at you anymore
I just don't have a fire anymore
In the belly -- it's like that

Lalala lalalalalala
She said
Lalala lalalalalala

So I turned off the TV
I couldn't find the courage
To throw myself out the window
I'm well past the age to die of love

. Is a feeling or a smile worth less if it's made of material? — Cornwell1

What material is your materialism made of? Wool? Iron? Silicon?

Is your materialism liquid at ambient temperature, or gaseous, or solid?

How much does your materialism weight, in kg?

Is it culture or gender? — L'éléphant

Gender is a cultural concept anyway. The corresponding biological concept is called "sex".

the Hubble produced thousands of iconic and spectacular images, if the JW is tuned to infra-red radiation, will it be producing images that are visually meaningful — Wayfarer

You bet.

Note that many astronomy pictures, including from Hubble, are in false colors, eg colors code for certain wavelengths rather than be the real colors one human eye would see. To the human eye, most cosmic objects are white. Through the lenses of my very basic telescope, the Orion nebula looks like this:



Not like this:

. It seems that a man, when he gives, does so from a position of strength, whereas a woman does it from a position of weakness or "self-sacrifice".

It's this latter motivation that makes their gifts so bitter. — baker

That's not my experience. It takes some strength to give life for instance, and that's no small gift.

My vote is for Bernie Sanders. — javra

I like him too, mainly because he has managed to remain honest and resist the lobbyists and other temptations in Washington. But he never was 'in power' much so he is not a valid counter example to the corruptive effects of political power.

To give the impression that we're in a democracy — baker

And why does looking like a democracy imply term limits and separation of powers?

None of those were goody two-shoes prior to their ascension to power. — baker

Okay. Name any politician who is in your opinion a 'goody two-shoes'.

I am just saying that power tends to corrupt those holding it, almost mechanically, by way of constantly availing opportunities to do bad things and profit from them.
— Olivier5

Do you actually know (of) any people with whom this was the case?

Have you known people before they've attained a position of power, so that you can now compare what they were like before and how they are now, when they have power? — baker

It's not sudden, it takes some time to take effect. Take Erdogan: he started as a democrat and ends as a tyran. Same with Bonaparte, or the French socialists in the 90s, or the Lula administration in Brasil.

Let me ask you and other doubters here: why do you think there are such things as term limits or division of power in modern democracies, if not to control for such a risk?

Artistotle, my man! — Raymond

Odd that he's mentioned only now, for a discussion that he started.

It's my opinion that it's a fact.

Although this infinite series of bangs runs into the paradoxes, it might be the most plausible option. Sir Roger Penrose seems to think so. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Aristotle started the trend by pointing out that the world cannot possibly have been created out of nothing, and hence must be eternal. Since then many philosophers and scientists have thought the same. The opposite idea of a begining to the universe has more often been sported by religious institutions. When Georges Lemaître started to speak of a cosmic egg in the 20's, some chalked it up to his catholicism.

Your opinion. — I like sushi

Sorry to bother you with it.

Studies about men in a certain cultural context may say more about the culture than about men. In nowadays culture nobody can criticize women without looking like an asshole. But in same culture, one does look good when criticizing men, so that's what the feeble minded do.

But then power/ability can be subcategorized into power/ability-over-other and power/ability-with-other: power-over and power-with for short. — javra

Not a terminology I am familiar with. To be clear, I am not saying that power is bad per se. I am not an anarchist, I recognise the need for leadership and discipline in the ranks. I am just saying that power tends to corrupt those holding it, almost mechanically, by way of constantly availing opportunities to do bad things and profit from them. Like Sauron's ring, it's a heavy burden. Hence the need for regular change at the top.

In context, I was trying to say that any difference potentially observed between men and women in terms of morality could be due in part at least to a lesser exposure historically to the corruptive effects of power. The corollary is that as women get more power, they will be exposed to more temptation to misuse such power.

If you want to test a woman's character, give her power.

Jane Birkin - Les clés du paradis



I've got the keys to heaven
I who have never got anything
I've got the keys to paradise
They're just a little rusty

I found them on the street
I know, it seems incongruous
They were just there lying
I pocketed them
I can't be blamed for anything
I'm not the prettiest of the lot
But I've got a great trousseau
The keys to paradise

I've got the keys to heaven
Of course, that makes me feel better
I've got the keys to paradise
The trouble is I can't find the door

Is it really worth my while to torture
Thirty-six billion locks?
It's hopeless, I'll gain nothing,
Just a good backache
I'm not the smartest of the lot,
What do I do with this trinket?
The keys to paradise

There's this guy who's as lost as I am
We go out together sometimes
He'd like us to live together
I answer him "get lost!"
I'm not the nicest of the lot
But hey, I leave him as a gift
The keys to paradise

It's the keys to paradise
No shit
It's the keys to heaven
I swear to you

Mais...où est le paradis? — Amity

According to some philosophers, paradise is here on earth; it happens when we treat each other right.

Si l'enfer c'est les autres, le paradis aussi.

An old Jewish story has it that one good rabbi from Riga was so righteous in the way of God that He granted him a wish. He sent an angel to deal with it. Our good rabbi made the wish to see heaven and hell, so that he could tell his community about them.

The angel first carried him to hell.

Surprisingly, hell was a luxurious garden. The rabbi walked around and reached a beautiful palace, in which he found people sitting on both sides of a long table loaded with all sorts of delicious looking food. But the people looked all sad, angry and emaciated. That's because both their hands were tied to long wooden spoon with which it was totally impossible for them to eat.

So our good rabbi thought (wrongly): "So this is hell: being constantly tempted but unable to satisfy oneself."

Then he was brought to heaven. There was the same luxurious garden, the same beautiful castle, and in it, people sitting along a similar table, with the same long spoon bound on their hands. But they were all eating, and merry, because they were serving each other food across the table with their long spoons...

The rabbi was amazed. Out of charity he asked to go back to hell so he could explain to those poor souls this very simple solution to their problem.

When he reached there, and told one man at the table of hell that he should try and feed the guy in front of him, and vice versa... the man replied: "I'd rather be hungry for eternity than feed this asshole!"

And then it sunk into our hero's mind that hell and heaven are just the way we treat each other.

Basically I'm saying the term 'power' has been 'corrupted' top suit the means of those who generally lack competence. — I like sushi

The phrase "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is attributed to Lord Acton who I suppose had his fair share of incompetence, but the phrase remained and IMO refers to something true. One could refer to Plato's Republic and its story about the ring of Gyges which grants its owner the power to become invisible. Through the story of the ring, Plato shows that an intelligent person would not behave justly if one did not have to fear any bad reputation for committing injustices.

If you have a lot of political power, you can hide your tracks to a degree, control the narrative. And then your bad deeds become invisible. So in the Republic -- and the Lord of the Rings -- the ring works as a metaphor for political power.

I mean power in the political sense: the power to direct and coerce other people. It can get to your head.

It remains a fact that power corrupts
— Olivier5

No it doesn't. I think we've been over this before though. — I like sushi

Yes it does and no, we haven't.

His song saved me when I was a kid, though.

otherwise we have development from infinite stillness, which is not much better than something from literally nothing. — Down The Rabbit Hole

A never ending future is reasonable though - — Down The Rabbit Hole

The past and future could be an infinite cycle if big bangs and big crunches for all we know.

we'll all make it to paradise, even me!
— Olivier5

Yep but not without a period of punishment. — emancipate

Not according to St Polnareff.

Michel Polnareff - On ira tous au paradis



We will all go to paradise, even me
Blessed or cursed, we'll go
With all the nuns and all the thieves
All the sheep and all the bandits
We'll all go to heaven

We'll all go to heaven, even me
Blessed or cursed, we'll go
With the saints and the assassins
The ladies and also the whores
We'll all go to heaven

Don't believe what people say
Your heart is the only real church
Let a little wave rock your soul
Don't be afraid of the color of flames in hell

We'll all go to heaven, even me
Whether we believe in God or not, we will go
Whether we did good or we did bad
We'll all be invited to the ball
We'll all go to heaven

We'll all go to heaven, even me
Whether we believe in God or not, we will go
With Christians, with pagans
And even dogs and even sharks
We'll all go to heaven, especially me

(1) The thing(s) making up the infinite past would have no reason or explanation for their existence (2) An infinite past is paradoxical. — Down The Rabbit Hole

1) You are assuming that some thing(s) "made up the past", an assumption which a) I don't understand as phrased -- what do you mean? -- and b) that may be unwarranted.

2) An infinite past is not anymore paradoxical than an infinite anything (space, set, whatever). Think of it mathematically. What is most paradoxical: a never-ending series of natural numbers from zero to, well, infinity, or a finite series of natural numbers stopping at some maximum value or another?

WTF happens if you take that maximum and add 1 to it?

Similarly, what happens one second after the end of time?

The human mind is not so much seeking the infinite as dreading it, I think. There is a vertigo of the infinite in us. But on the other hand, our mind -- mine in any case -- can not possibly square with the idea of a hard end to time and space. Our natural sense of time and space is open-ended.

A person without any power is merely useless as they cannot do anything. A person with power can do something.

Good people exist because they possess the power to do something not because they are inept. I could just as easily argue that refusing claims to power would make you a bad person because it could be framed as cowardice and refusal to take responsibility. — I like sushi

Sure. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that power corrupts and that men have more power than women in many societies. Therefore men tend to be more exposed to the corruptive effects of power than women, on average.

You can kill, rape, and pillage and still get to heaven just fine. — baker

That is correct. Contrary to popular belief, we'll all make it to paradise, even me!

Biologically speaking, males and females have important differences but morally speaking, I think they are the same beast, by and large.

I suspect that the moral differences people perceive between sexes are 1) possibly due to their own sexism, and 2) possibly due to a power difference between men and women in society. Power corrupts, and it is easier to remain a good person when you are powerless.

the same BBC that has previously devoted thousands of hours to climate skepticism — sime

Any evidence of that, or should we take your word for it?