Introducing a new topic by articulating how it links to the current one generally makes for a good post. I'm sure that you've noticed that staying strictly on topic doesn't happen very much here, even within the focused exegesis of reading groups. I believe it's partly a combinatoric problem; there's too many divergent ways of taking something as an obvious consequence of something else. Absent strong constraints on seeing what is relevant to a topic, discussion regarding it tends to slide into tangents and tangents on tangents.
— fdrake

Yes, I have noticed in this forum a topic can easily slide into a related one. There also appears to be many females here.

I wouldn't call this male or female, it seems to happen regardless of circumstance. You maybe see it as male, though, in that move where discourse itself is seen as following male archetypes and standards.
— fdrake

I now regret giving up the book explaining how written language made cultures more male dominant. Especially in the west that favors linear logic over wholistic logic. This male dominance is intensified with education for technology and specialization and "expertise". Before this education, we educated for well rounded individual growth and avoided being narrow-minded. The Conceptual Method of education preparing the young to be independent thinkers and the Behaviorist Method teaching them to react like we train dogs to react to commands.

Despite all the differences in perspective, differences in what people find obvious, and differences in what people find relevant, I believe that when people discuss in good faith, they partake in the same norms of expression and rationality; even if there's no common ground, people speaking in good faith are still disputing the same terrain (usually).
— "

Not exactly so. In the past women were less apt to organize their thinking with formal rules, such as the rules of thinking essential to science, a college education, business, and legal transactions. The difference in their thinking was called domestic thinking and it went with strong emotional reactions involving the care of others. The point is, there are different modes of thinking and different ways of experiencing life dependent on our roles in society. My granddaughter appears to have the mothering instinct of a cuckoo bird. The cuckoo bird lays its eggs in other birds' nest and leaves the adopted parents to feed and raise their offspring. While one of her coworkers stopped coming to work because the work is so high risk they can not risk being with their children. Of course, this difference is about how they were raised and their understanding of social expectations. Our use of language and emotional reactions are not hard-wired as is so for other animals.

fdrake
— " — Athena

Wholistic logic can be quantified to some measure using linear logic. Even though it is extremely hard to quantify feelings, it is technically possible.

Extremely complex systems (such as wholistic logic) can be sampled (such as the sampling rate used to digitize sound so that it can be put on a compact disc for music) and have equations applied using mathematical subjects like linear equations.

In some ways wholistic logic has similarities to post-modernism.

The point i'm trying to make is its hard to argue who is right with wholistic logic. One could almost say once someone embraces wholistic logic, why not just discuss wholistic logic with only people who believe strongly (strongly) in it. Or you can evangelize people to it.

All decisions people make are based on alot of information or a little bit of information but never a complete set of information, so the winners of history are not always the people who were the most rational.

Its one of those things, "only time will tell"

If we do not turn our love of self to our hate of self, we are bound for our near extinction.

Science has shown that the good in us, our love side, is dominating us via our selfish gene.

Science is also showing us that we are in a major extinction event that may well include a vast number of people. I doubt that our full extinction will come to pass, but we will be reduced to such small numbers that we will likely revert to a less sophisticated system and city states.

If we do not turn our swords into plows, and devastate the worlds populations with war, our environment will do the deed and near extinct us.

We love our governments and gods. That is why we have let them bring us to the brink of extinction. We follow them so closely that we all have our heads stuck into the ground.

I think, given the incompetence of all governments and gods; we should let our great love for what leads us and turn it to hate, as we should, to insure the survival of people right here and right now. Start to hate the systems that got us all to this pitiful place in time.

We presently elect our incompetent governments and gods for a variety of reasons. We are all tribal and belong to a religious tribe or a government tribe. We all follow their ideologies, theologies or philosophies. We are all the same in this.

Surely, given that we are basically all humans, who wish to love more than hate, can hate those things that are putting us all in peril long enough to do something about our head long leap to near extinction.

The environment is under political control and they are killing our bodies. Our bodies harbor our souls to the physical world where our children live.

I think it is time for a god to take over.

I don’t care if it is a pedophile protecting Pope or a united Christianity, or newly elected Khalif of a newly united Islam, but a god must step up, as our political side has failed humankind completely.

Our politicians are not uniting the world and should be made to step down so that some form of religious system, chosen by the masses, so that we can try uniting under a newly elected god.

Jesus prophesied that that would become a necessity, and so did Socrates before him. Both were right in thinking that such a system would be the best possible end for political theories.

I urge the vast majority of the world, the religious, to have a final battle in the ongoing god wars, which involves our political gods as well. Let their hate out by debate and elect a new god of peace so that our current incompetent batch of leaders might find the best one.

My love of the religious has let loose my hate against our incompetent political leadership and I think we all should, elect a new god and save us from our own near extinction.

We have the means; do we have the will?

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

So you are saying if we don't have a unified world government we'll go to war? My assumption based on previous posts, you believe this unified government should be a pseudo capitalist/socialist combination similar to modern China or just socialist?

How do you feel about movies like "V for Vendetta"? I only use a movie for an example because your plan lacks the question of "who is watching the watcher?" from George Orwell.

Everything either costs money or effort, or restrictive laws or great impedence to daily comfort, or all of these at the same time.

Ofcourse we should have some preparations for plagues and any given possible bad event.

However people only have so much they can handle in terms of effort or money expenditures, and we are all going to die some day anyway.

Its a matter of balance.

Which political party gets to decide how close to the threshold of 99.9999% no risk of plagues/catastrophe, that we should go to on that spectrum?

We're so lucky to have someone enlightened like you
— christian2017

I do not see a denial.

Don't be an ass hole, if you can help it.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

its a struggle.

lol

I am intensely aware of how painfully difficult it is for me to participate in male dominated forums. I know I am thinking on a different level and that I am not conforming with the male idea of what is important. I have been banned enough times to know that it is a risk to go against male control of forums. All this seems to make a discussion of gender differences, and how our thoughts are shaped, very important.

Abigail Adams prodded her husband John Adams to think of women when he was working on the constitution. History has said John Adams considered his wife to be an excellent advisor. Hopefully, we all know Franklin Roosevelt also considered his wife to be someone to listen to, and that Elenor Roosevelt played a strong role in his decisions and national policy. That clearly is not the case for Ivana Trump who is the worst first lady we have had in a long time and the tyrannical rule of Donald Trump.

In the back of my mind is the Haudenosaunee and their a matriarchal society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_roles_among_the_indigenous_peoples_of_North_America
And the Etruscans who were contemporaries with Athens and Rome.
https://www.nytimes.com/1972/12/30/archives/etruscan-women-had-womens-lib.html

Is it possible that women may think fundamentally different from men, unless they are pressured to think like men, and that that difference is important to humanity? What if it is our potential to be more like bonobo (female domination) and less like chimpanzees (male domination)? — Athena

If two people are debating an important issue (assuming both people are not post modernists), with the exception of logic and/or mathematics and/or article comprehension and/or definition of terms, how are the two sides going to debate anything or try to convince others?

If we aren't willing to expand our minds, what is the point in debating in the first place?

I'm sure you would agree some things are true and some things are false.

If two members of the opposite sex are arguing, shouldn't the one who embraces reasoning best in their argument, be the one who is declared more reasonable, regardless of sex?

I find that many exploratory conversations often degrade into logic and reason arguments.

Both sexes are known for envy and jealousy. Friendly conversations are usually friendly and non-friendly conversations are often not friendly.

I understand friends get jealous of other friends.

Perhaps at one time to be an atheist or agnostic was being a rebel, however in this day and age such people are dime a dozen. The two main characters in the movie "Juno" describe most people who come out of high school in America.

But i should say being a rebel or different doesn't neccesarily equate to being an ethical person.
— christian2017

I agree that it's no longer rebellious to be irreligious. I'd say that the dominant religion has simply changed. It's all on the front page of the culture war. The trans issue (to name just one) is a 'theological' problem. People were once terrified of being called atheists and are now terrified of being called racists, homophobes, etc. At the same time, someone like Jordan Peterson (who remembers him now?) could become almost instantly famous by casting himself as a rebel against the 'rebellion.'

I have seen Juno, and I agree with what I think is your implicit criticism of a certain predictable persona. I follow pop culture, and certain themes and heroes have been repeated, repeated, repeated. At the same time, godlessness is a difficult path, even as it becomes more common. The young, beautiful, and rich are living in the high-tech garden of delights, so they are exceptions perhaps. — jjAmEs

"godlessness is a difficult path"

Based on your response you would agree godlessness (what you mean by godlessness based on the context) is a spectrum. Simple example: many Christian people are godless.

Until this country embraces true fiscal conservatism (overly-simplified: need to modify building codes)(not just raise taxes or lower taxes), it will be hard to be a moderate godless person or any person who can percieve other people's problems to a certain threshold.

Our generation has been wiped out by lazy & war mongering politicitians, suicide, a subset of Republicans who don't know what true fiscal conservatism, and as well corruption in the domestic sphere which is atleast indirectly the result of a corrupt church.

There are infact alternatives to suicide.

#Shark_Fighter_Nation

or

#Fight_A_Rattle_Snake_With_A_Pair_Of_Garden_Shears

Have a great week Sir!

I've been thinking about it for my whole life, like most people. I found some answers. And i wanted to share them with people. After i found some answers. My thought about the god and the creator has changed. Now i believe in god but not in the creator. It may not make sense. But let me explain. The god that i believe was not created. But it also didn't create. It was always there. There is no beginning of its existence. And there can't be its end. Because it is existence itself. Existence can not exist without non-existence. It's like darkness and light. Like sound and silence. These things are opposite of each other. So they can't exist without one another.

The elements inside us, inside planets, inside stars or inside everything in universe are the same. There is countless thing in universe. But universe is one. And everything inside it are the same. So universe was always there. But it wasn't this way for the whole time. It changed and always keeps changing. In this situation, one thing must exists, everything to exist. And that is god i believe in. It wasn't created, and it didn't create. After some events it became the thing that we call universe. And we are part of it. We are out of it. What is us, what is everything in universe, and what is universe, are the same at the end, or at the beginning.

The main point is god is not a spiritual, merciful, angry, generous being or whatever people call it. The god that i believe is the one that I've explained you above. And I want to say that what caused me think all of these is Islam's or any religions understanding of god. I have found some answers for them too. Even without the explanations that I've made above. I can prove that there is no god the way they think. Let's talk about the way that Islam explains and accepts the god. I use Islam as an argument because i was a Muslim earlier. And it's the one that i know most about.

Islam says this world is an exam for us. To see what we deserve. Heaven or hell. But this exam is not fair from the beginning. If a person was born in a conservative Christian family or in any other conservative family that believes in another religion. It's quite possible that person to see Islam or other religions bad and see his religion the best. The Islam that's showed in the media is quite worse than it actually is. All Muslims are showed like terrorists. And a bunch of thing has been told people about Islam for a long time. In the world there are still so many people hate and afraid of Islam and Muslims. And there is so many Muslim that sees and thinks about other religions in the bad way. Because people can't see what is real easily because of the media and manipulations. If the god doesn't give them the opportunity to reach reality completely. Than this can't be a fair exam. And this would be a problem for Allah who orders justice and fairness.

To me people aren't born evil. Circumstances make them evil. If the circumstances are not appropriate for them to be good. They will be bad most likely. If you are fair, if you say that you are fair and tell people to be fair, you would prepare a fair exam for everyone. If you create a tree and tell a human not to eat that trees fruit. That person will eat it. And if you are fair you won't fire him from heaven and send him to world. And punish all humanity because of a man that ate a fruit.

I'm gonna stop here. And sorry if i made some mistakes at writing. My English isn't so good. — Anonim

I've been thinking about it for my whole life, like most people. I found some answers. And i wanted to share them with people. After i found some answers. My thought about the god and the creator has changed. Now i believe in god but not in the creator. It may not make sense. But let me explain. The god that i believe was not created. But it also didn't create. It was always there. There is no beginning of its existence. And there can't be its end. Because it is existence itself. Existence can not exist without non-existence. It's like darkness and light. Like sound and silence. These things are opposite of each other. So they can't exist without one another.

The elements inside us, inside planets, inside stars or inside everything in universe are the same. There is countless thing in universe. But universe is one. And everything inside it are the same. So universe was always there. But it wasn't this way for the whole time. It changed and always keeps changing. In this situation, one thing must exists, everything to exist. And that is god i believe in. It wasn't created, and it didn't create. After some events it became the thing that we call universe. And we are part of it. We are out of it. What is us, what is everything in universe, and what is universe, are the same at the end, or at the beginning.

The main point is god is not a spiritual, merciful, angry, generous being or whatever people call it. The god that i believe is the one that I've explained you above. And I want to say that what caused me think all of these is Islam's or any religions understanding of god. I have found some answers for them too. Even without the explanations that I've made above. I can prove that there is no god the way they think. Let's talk about the way that Islam explains and accepts the god. I use Islam as an argument because i was a Muslim earlier. And it's the one that i know most about.

Islam says this world is an exam for us. To see what we deserve. Heaven or hell. But this exam is not fair from the beginning. If a person was born in a conservative Christian family or in any other conservative family that believes in another religion. It's quite possible that person to see Islam or other religions bad and see his religion the best. The Islam that's showed in the media is quite worse than it actually is. All Muslims are showed like terrorists. And a bunch of thing has been told people about Islam for a long time. In the world there are still so many people hate and afraid of Islam and Muslims. And there is so many Muslim that sees and thinks about other religions in the bad way. Because people can't see what is real easily because of the media and manipulations. If the god doesn't give them the opportunity to reach reality completely. Than this can't be a fair exam. And this would be a problem for Allah who orders justice and fairness.

To me people aren't born evil. Circumstances make them evil. If the circumstances are not appropriate for them to be good. They will be bad most likely. If you are fair, if you say that you are fair and tell people to be fair, you would prepare a fair exam for everyone. If you create a tree and tell a human not to eat that trees fruit. That person will eat it. And if you are fair you won't fire him from heaven and send him to world. And punish all humanity because of a man that ate a fruit.

I'm gonna stop here. And sorry if i made some mistakes at writing. My English isn't so good. — Anonim

i believe in scientific determinism or determinism as it is called in this forum (nurture versus nature or dna versus compounded situations). I understand the dna we are born with is altered overtime due to various biological reasons.

Basically we are like cars, cars do what physics and particles cause them to do.

Without getting into theology, i would have to say many of your points are correct.

Are you saying there is no such thing as sexual crime? Could you clarify what you are trying to say?
Christians deal with the issue of sex in multiple ways. I can send you Bible quotes in a private message only if you want, but i'm not posting Bible quotes at this time due to forum restrictions.
— christian2017

Of course there are sexual crimes. Some worse than others. I think every sexually active person has done a sexual sin before, but probably also morally upright sexual acts. It's such a confusing act. Some parts of good, some others must allow evil to creep in. But Christians usually say "find one person and stay with that one person forever, and tell everyone else they have to do the same". That's the worse idea ever. It goes (in their minds) from always being a sin outside marriage to be a blessed act in marriage. It's not correct. Marriage has little to do with sexual morality — Gregory

if thats how you feel thats how you feel.

google or bing:
thailand + buddhism + temple prostitution
— christian2017

Sex. It inherently has a sinful side and a good side. It's completely paradoxical, and there appears to be no way to untangle them. Best to remind ourselves we are like the lions and the birds. The paradox of sex is like the paradox of liking butts. Butts are beautiful, but look what they do! However, take away the poop and the butt loses it's charm. The Christian way of dealing with this issue is absolutely absurd — Gregory

Are you saying there is no such thing as sexual crime? Could you clarify what you are trying to say?
Christians deal with the issue of sex in multiple ways. I can send you Bible quotes in a private message only if you want, but i'm not posting Bible quotes at this time due to forum restrictions.

I am intensely aware of how painfully difficult it is for me to participate in male dominated forums. I know I am thinking on a different level and that I am not conforming with the male idea of what is important. I have been banned enough times to know that it is a risk to go against male control of forums. All this seems to make a discussion of gender differences, and how our thoughts are shaped, very important.

Abigail Adams prodded her husband John Adams to think of women when he was working on the constitution. History has said John Adams considered his wife to be an excellent advisor. Hopefully, we all know Franklin Roosevelt also considered his wife to be someone to listen to, and that Elenor Roosevelt played a strong role in his decisions and national policy. That clearly is not the case for Ivana Trump who is the worst first lady we have had in a long time and the tyrannical rule of Donald Trump.

In the back of my mind is the Haudenosaunee and their a matriarchal society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_roles_among_the_indigenous_peoples_of_North_America
And the Etruscans who were contemporaries with Athens and Rome.
https://www.nytimes.com/1972/12/30/archives/etruscan-women-had-womens-lib.html

Is it possible that women may think fundamentally different from men, unless they are pressured to think like men, and that that difference is important to humanity? What if it is our potential to be more like bonobo (female domination) and less like chimpanzees (male domination)? — Athena

There are forums run by Women and some probably have section that if it isn't dedicated to philosophy it might, allow philosophy.

I got kicked off of www.christianforums.com and they had wierd sections for seekers.

I would be surprised if facebook didn't have several philosophy groups.

Or you can just stay on here and continue to argue with us.

Or you can change your name so no one knows you are a women.

I've never told people my race and i never intend to.

I'm guessing you've figured out my sex.

There are two different senses of "consciousness" we need to distinguish. One is a completely functional ("mechanical" if you like) sense, called "access consciousness", which is uncontroversially replicable by a machine. If you built something that could act and talk like a human being, including reporting on the states of its brain-equivalent the way that we can, that would be access conscious.

The remaining question besides that is about "phenomenal consciousness", which is just the having of any first-person experience at all. The robot described above might just be reproducing human behavior, without actually having any first-person experience of its own, at least so they say. My answer to that question of phenonemal consciousness is just, yes, everything has it, but the character of any individual thing's phenomenal consciousness varies with its function exactly like its behavior does. So anything that behaves exactly like a human, including in internal ways, has the same experience as a human does. Things that have very different, much simpler behaviors, like rocks, still technically have a first-person experience, but there is as little to say about what that's like as there is to say about its behavior.

Tying back to abstract stuff, on my account that having of a first-person experience is just being the recipient of a transfer of information. The interesting things about human conscious experience is the way that transfers of information loop around in complex reflexive ways within us: most of the notable aspects of our experience are experiences of ourselves experiencing ourselves experiencing ourselves experiencing... eventually, the rest of the world. But if we just experienced the world and then didn't do anything with that experience (like remember it, where memory is itself precisely such a loop of self-experience), we wouldn't have the interestingly complex consciousness that we do; we would just be like rocks, passively receiving information and not doing anything with it. — Pfhorrest

Based on your past 2 or maybe 3 posts, this sounds like collective conscience or collective soul, it is common to Hinduism, Buddism, Druidism, Witch craft, and New age.

To be honest with you it actually makes alot of sense and is atleast an alternative explanation to why there is feeling/awareness/awakeness/conscie... other than the traditional creator that is common to the old cliche "the west".

I was just responding to posts and seeing where it went. Back to the OP topic for a moment: ye I saw that website. What I want to know is what principles do theoretical physicists start with guide them as they look at the data. Why not just have date collectors? Anything else is interpretation of the data: aka, philosophy.

This thread is about religion AND science however. Gnostic Christian Bishop makes many great points. I think the vast majority of Christians (including Mormons ect.) in this country are fake as can be BECAUSE of their religion. If someone thinks they had a religious experience and are obsessed with sharing it with others, they clearly didn't have a real spiritual experience because a real one is personal. Duh! It's simply the most narcissistic group of religions ever created by animals (men). The world as we know it does not have its origin in the Abrahamic God. , Again, duh!! The Theravada school of Buddhism explicitly teaches that there is no supreme personal god. Them there are a much smarter group of people. Double boo to Billy Graham, William Craig, and the rest of the people who stared at their own souls all day

So the ancient texts are nothing but dead symbols. What's left but to do the "social game" (which includes doing philosophy, which I'm fond of) as we socially distance, and do more experiments in science! — Gregory

Lets start with, "why not just have data collectors?" Do you mean people who conduct and analyze scientific tests?

"Anything else is interpretation of the data: aka, philosophy."

Considering i have never worked for something like CERN, i couldn't tell you exactly what goes on there, but i would argue most of it is equations, proofs, and tests, and some philosophy.

I do agree alot of Pop science books perhaps portray theoretical physics as alot of philosophy and imagination. Things were different the scientific world during Einstein's time.

___________________________

I would argue Buddhism is roughly comparable to the Mormon church in terms of ethics. Here is an article if you would like on Buddhism in Thailand.

https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.bing.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2474&context=etd

or

google or bing:
thailand + buddhism + temple prostitution

i don't know if the first link will work considering its a pdf.

If thats how you feel about Abrahamic religions, well maybe you know something i don't. I do agree the modern christian church is trash though. I'm not going into a detailed conversation about that right now unless you want me too. Too put it simply it deals alot with tithes/offerings and also money in general.

Also Buddhism has holy books.

Yes i like science also. I do in fact believe in evolution.

I posted a thread about why Israel sends their children to concentration camps at such a young age, and whether it is ethical to do so.

It got deleted by jamalrob pretty swiftly.

I kind of treat this forum as a Hyde Park of sorts; but, didn't think an honest and genuine question would get deleted and upon asking why given a command not to post it again.

So, what's up in your world, jamalrob? — Shawn

I don't know alot about Israel. What are you talking about? I know they have forced conscription at adult hood for their military for 2 years.

A common, although perhaps inaccurate, definition of insanity is repeating the same actions, but expecting different results. If that is true, then wouldn’t philosophers certainly qualify as insane? If there is any consensus among philosophers, it’s that no single philosopher got everything right. We seemingly argue continuously with each other with usually no one really coming out ahead in any objective sense. Yet, we continue on using the same methods (logic, reason, and intuition) all the while expecting different results (getting everything right).

Now, I have my doubts that we are even capable of pursuing knowledge, or wisdom, any other way, unless you fancy revelation or divine inspiration as better methods. That being said, is it possible that we are doomed to always get it partially wrong? — Pinprick

yes we are all doomed to always get it partially wrong.

Theoretical physicists would have to understand matter in itself in order to come up with truth apart from experiments. I claim such is impossible. If something is not solely confirmed by experiments, it's theoretical PHILOSoPHY

I don't need to be there to know that a man, Jesus, cannot raise himself after he successfully suicides himself to test a myth and fail to prove it real.

His less intelligent followers should consider the immorality of their beliefs but of course do not.
— Gnostic Christian Bishop

Amen

Why do you say Wittgenstein was wrong?
— TheMadFool

This forum has all kinds of meaningful philosophical discussions which Wittgentstein would call "word games" for the sole reason that he personally hadn't the patience to think them through — Gregory

Gregory you are mixing forum topics, so if i join in on this i'll be deliberately swapping forum topics.

If you can successfully argue that all these things pertain to the OP relating to "Science and ancient texts" i'll reply to what you posted above on this particular forum topic.
-----------
Did you see the link i sent you concerning CERN or the CERN website? What did you think of the website? It relates to theoretical physics.

and thanks for reposting what the Bishop said, i've heard him say that 25 to 100 times over the past 6 months. If you would like to have a conversation with me on religion (not sure why you would) send me a private message or start a new OP or sift through 100s of previous posts to get your answer or to argue your point.

I haven't talked to TheMadFool recently except several days ago. I don't remember having a sharp disagreement with him in the past several days. What was his conversation pertaining to? I could do a quick study of Wittgenstein, but at this point in time why would i do a "half butt" study of someone, just so i can form a partially formulated opinion. Do you have particular passage of his you would like to discuss?

next time i talk about consciessness i'll just eventually swap that word out with feeling/awareness because the definition of consciessness is:

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

I think most people will understand the relation.

That’s basically my view as well. Everything is just “mathematical structures” which is to say information. The physical world is the mathematical structure of which we are a part. Empirical observation of physical things is the passing of information from those things (which are defined by their function, what information they transmit in response to what information they receive) to ourselves, the output of their function becoming the input to our own function, our phenomenal “consciousness” or experience. Our actual consciousness in the useful sense, access consciousness, is in turn just a reflexive feature of our own functionality. Math, mind, and matter are all the same things, ontologically speaking at least. — Pfhorrest

So you would say the fact that you or i have feeling/consciessness is a product of something along the lines that the universe to some extent has feeling/consciessness. I'm not sure how information directly (as opposed to indirectly) equate to feeling/consciessssness.

I'll give you an example. If morse code is sent via telegraph in the 19th century and 2 page paper is sent that way, the only feeling/consciessness involved is the people who already have feeling/consciessness prior to the morse code/telegraph usage. The people would have had feeling/consciessness prior to the use of morse code. You could say the morse code altered the people's feelings but did not cause their feelings. The people would have had feelings/consciessness either way.

So what i'm saying is, what initailly caused feeling/consciessness billions of years ago, because information or signals doesn't seem to be the cause but you could say information or signals or stimuli does alter feeling/consciessness.

There are no supernatural entities in Gnostic Christianity.
— Gnostic Christian Bishop
Who was talking about "Gnostic Christianity"? Not me for sure. So why do you bring me in to these ramblings?

Gnostic Christians are not that stupid or brain dead.
— Gnostic Christian Bishop
I take your word for that. So surely you are not representing them?? — Nobeernolife

ROFL

did you see the 6 to 8 questions i sent you?

have a good day Bishop, perhaps something happened in your life to justify your anger. That is completely acceptable.
— christian2017

Yes, something happened to make me hate those who abuse others by their vile religious thinking.

I recognized that Christians were evil and worshipping Satan.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

We're so lucky to have someone enlightened like you.

(assuming there is a standard)?
— christian2017

If you are to do apologetics for Christianity, you might want to read the bible.

Jesus is clear that those who believe in him, or even have just a bit of faith, would be able to do all he did and more.

If you want to do apologetics, start with promoting their genocidal garbage god, Yahweh..

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Biblical evidence? Quote whole chapters at at time, its a bad practice to do otherwise. Quoting single verses screws up everything.

"IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING!"

I have written those words several times in this thread.

I am discussing people using the words "believe/belief" and "faith" IN THE CONTEXT OF A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT DOES OR DOES NOT EXIST IN THE REALITY OF EXISTENCE.

It really has nothing to do with your mother, Christian. Surely she is a fine woman...learned, educated...and not a crack-head. I hope she gets the job. — Frank Apisa

thanks she got the job! She is a cocktail waitress at the bunny ranch in Nevada.

It seems to me that faith and belief are closely related.
— 3017amen

I agree with this. They are related.

"Belief" (in the context we are discussing) is a blind guess about the unknown.

"Faith" is INSISTING that the blind guess is correct. — Frank Apisa

"i have faith that my mother will get the job"

Mom went to school for x years and got y certificates.

Mom is not a crack head

To some extent Mom is qualified for the job.

This type of faith (a very common faith) is not blind faith. not all faith is blind faith.

theoretical physics is not pure philosophy
— christian2017

Can you give an example of a theoretician combination several datas and not having to do an experiment to see if his hypothesis about them is right? If it all has to be tested, then my point stands — Gregory

https://home.cern/

check out this link. They aren't the only theoretical physics association but they are one of the more notable ones.

also check out genesis chapter 1 & possibly do a google translate of genesis chapter 2 for new arabic version NAV.

In any of the versions i mentioned before pay attention genesis 2:4 and i think maybe genesis 2:7 (not sure about 2:7 because its been a while). You should read the whole chapter.

Once again because you are a Christian this can't be classified as evangelizing.

I could have said "i accept evolution" or "i accept the theory of evolution" or "i accept that the theory of evolution is true".
— christian2017

Christian!

I get a sense that you are opposed to the dichotomization of creation and evolution. Can they co-exist? For instance, in a similar fashion, theoretical physicist Paul Davies has a theory about the concept of a di-polar God, are you familiar with that? — 3017amen

Since you are a Christian, i can't be accused of evangelizing and break forum rules so

Genesis chapter 2, KJV, ESV, New Arabic version, and also Hebrew all point to an old earth. Are you familiar with time dilation or special relativity?

Proverbs chapter 1 KJV says we need to embrace spectrum and also dark sayings (as in deep and heavily implicit statements).

Job chapter 12 says "speak to the earth and it will teach you"

Job also says that God/Jesus Christ created the universe or earth with tremendous wizdom which would imply it took a long time or his thoughts raced through his head and he ran a ridicoulous number of scenarios to produce the wizdom to make heavens (universe) and the earth the way it is.

There is also the cliche verse from the new testament "a day is a 1000 years and a 1000 years is a day for God"

Then there is the verse out of the book of Hebrews that says if we do XYZ we can enter into God's 7th day which implies his 7th day isn't a 24 hour day.

One of the words for day in Hebrew is Yom, yom is not neccesarily a 24 hour day. I believe yom is used in genesis 1 and 2.

Back in my Yom (day), we had to walk up hill both ways and we didn't have shoes. Are you familiar with that joke or cliche?

Evolution while possibly might not be the reality of everything does not break whatsoever with either the old testament nor the new testament, unless you can prove otherwise.

So for the 101 student, what are people looking for to prove God's existence? What domains of Philosophy are appropriate? What domains of Science are appropriate?
— 3017amen

In a word: power. And that means prediction and control. We care about what can help or harm us. Feed the hungry. Foil the tyrant. Heal the sick. To an unbeliever like myself, religion taken literally looks like wishful thinking. I wish there was a benevolent god. It's such a nice idea that I'm amazed I haven't let myself believe it without evidence. The skeptical path is a dark one. It's a manifestation of elitism through a 'dietary restriction' (what the mind will accept as reliable.) — jjAmEs

Perhaps at one time to be an atheist or agnostic was being a rebel, however in this day and age such people are dime a dozen. The two main characters in the movie "Juno" describe most people who come out of high school in America.

But i should say being a rebel or different doesn't neccesarily equate to being an ethical person.

(and yes i do believe in evolution).
— christian2017

"Believe in" it, huh? — Frank Apisa

accepting and believing are both spectrums, and these are two spectrums with very similar meanings atleast in the case when they are used in certain contexts.

I could have said "i accept evolution" or "i accept the theory of evolution" or "i accept that the theory of evolution is true".

So organizations like Answer in Genesis argue against science with reference to ages past. Basically they say there could have been many forces acting back then that we don't know about that totally distort the scientific picture. "You weren't there" they say. Now I agree with this. Science for me is current medicine and making i-phones, not cosmology, or theoretical physics (which is just pure philosophy). The problem for the religious fundamentalist is that they are trying to have their cake and eat it to. This is because in order to know what an ancient text means, you have to go through the evolution of language from generation to generation all the way back to ancient times. This is absolutely impossible to do, so in reality we don't have any idea what ancient people were talking about. This is called historical skepticism, and it is true. Wittgenstein, despite his flaws, showed that we can't be sure what is going on in your brain is identical to what is going on in someone else's. We can communicate in the "social game". However, it's obvious that we have no social game with the dead past. So its secrets are completely shut off from us. Just look at Christians arguing over words: "this means justice", "no it means balance apart from punishment", ect unto nausea. So science wins the game in the end because it continues to do studies and refine knowledge of the present world of today, while ancient texts are just a bunch of dead symbols. Exciting! — Gregory

theoretical physics is not pure philosophy, many books on theoretical physics seem to be pure philosophy because the lack proofs and equations. Even though theoretical physics doesn't currently have as much practical uses at our present time, those people from CERN work with equations and mathematical proofs, as well as test results a great deal, for each day they are at work.

One way to look at it is that the language of the mystics will never square with that of those who are interested in the boundary between the possible and what have you.
For myself, the two registers are too far apart to have an argument with each other.
But others do not feel or think that way.
My point of view is not close enough to others to make an argument either way.
I accept the criticism that such a point of view doesn't try to sort out a lot of issues.
But I own that lack of clarity. I don't blow it off as unimportant. — Valentinus

i more or less agree.

On the contrary. More space should be given to individual experience without the need for explaining why. — Valentinus

Amen (the user) was saying he hypothetically might have saw God or diety, what is wrong with sharing that experience? I suppose you might say such things are so flippant that they aren't worth emphasizing by religionists.

i guess thats fair.

oh wait now i see. brb.

On the contrary. More space should be given to individual experience without the need for explaining why. — Valentinus

I honestly don't know what the subject you are talking about. I know it is common for most users to ask for a clarification, just to prove a point or something along those lines, but at this point in time i don't know the context of what you are saying.

More space for what type of house to live in or what video game to buy? I agree with that. If you apply that phrase you gave to alot of things i would agree? But perhaps not all.

What is the context that you meant?

We have had this discussion before but what the heck, let's try again. Maybe it will get better.

If you are having conversations with God, what is there to prove? The whole thing about proof, as something that people do, is to make something necessary beyond any doubt. If God starts talking to me in clear language that my tiny mind understands, it will be life changing and incommunicable to others. Other people don't want to hear about the good time I am having with God.

And I don't blame them for their resentment. It is really annoying to have other people claim a relation to stuff that others don't feel, share, or understand.

What could make for a different outcome? — Valentinus

true fiscal conservatism, embraced by people who are supposed to like true fiscal conservatism. I'm only half joking.

i suppose the answer you are looking for is the cliche, "religionist XYZ should love their neighbor as themselves", and then more people would be open to embrace a particular religion.

Not in your life time buddy. :)

So for the 101 student, what are people looking for to prove God's existence?
— 3017amen

I think the concept of faith has changed dramatically from the way it was presented in ancient texts from the way we consider it now. We consider faith to be that unshakable belief that comes to us without any sort of empirical proof, arising out of a sense of wonder, the impossibility of offering other explanations, and hope, emotion, or whatever. Someone who believes in God because he saw God is not a man of great faith any more than someone who believes in trees because he saw a tree. You can't prove God by reference to empirical evidence because if you did, you would be misunderstanding the epistemological method for believing in God, which is through faith alone.

Kierkegaard wrote that he found Abraham's acceptance of God's request that he sacrifice Isaac to be the ultimate act of faith. Abraham didn't question, but he just went up the mountain to kill his son that he loved so dearly. I found that act not one of faith at all, though, not at least as we currently understand faith to be. The text shows that Abraham spoke directly to God, that God told him that his wife Sarah would bear a child at the age of 90, and then she did. If God told me my 90 year old wife was going to get pregnant and then she did, I would believe in God because of that, not because of any great faith.

My point being that when you say "God," and I think of the God of the Old Testament, I think you prove his existence in ancient times by seeing such things as his speaking the universe into existence, his warning of and then bringing a great flood, his having manna fall from heaven, his splitting of the red sea, and many other miracles. If that all happened back then, you didn't need faith. Today, you just gotta believe. Which means you don't prove God exists now, you try to offer people the advantages of belief, which is why converting someone to a religion is such a different process than convincing someone their house is on fire. — Hanover

Both Faith and scientific theories are spectrums. Scientific theories have been disproven in the past (and yes i do believe in evolution). Faith can be based on almost no real sense of reality, some partial sense, or faith can be my good friend said he would give me $10 tommorow, so i'm going to be feeling confident he'll give me the $10 tommorow.

Scientific theories are very often proven with test result of 90%, 95% apparent certainty, but once in blue moon a variable or angle of perspective was overlooked, and thus the equation (or sometimes equations) changes completely (including output), and the theory atleast to a significant degree is disproven. This happens sometimes.

If knowledge determines truth, how is value determined?

It seems to me that when we value something that one might automatically assume it is a good. In one of my other two threads I talked about the dangers of superfluous valuation of happiness. In yet another thread, I talked about how can one go about discounting what one already values to make room for coinciding wants that are separate from needs.

I take it upon myself to try and answer my own question. So, my take is that in general rational egotism might seem like the automatic choice here; but, hedonism does not precede the determination of worth.

Would anyone care to expand on this thesis, whether you agree with it or not? — Shawn

I would argue rational egotism is fully supported or subconsciessly (spelling) by everyone whether they are willing to recognize it or not.

I rationalize the extent to my narcissism because i like to avoid conversations about my narcissism with other people, thus i never have to fully analyze the extent to my narcissism. No joke.

Narcissism is a spectrum, which is why i hide it from people, so i can feel better about myself and thus be happy and/or happier.

On the main part of the forum topic, who ever in society or over the course of time is the most powerful, to some extent or to the complete extent defines value. Time periods dictate who is the most powerful and what each person's weight in a conversation is. Its like the Democrat's concept of super delegate in the primary election, some just have more say in the primary.

have a good day Bishop, perhaps something happened in your life to justify your anger. That is completely acceptable.

Stalin was an atheist.
— christian2017

So are most Christians and Muslims.

I am using the Jesus Christs standard here.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Stalin was an atheist.
— christian2017

So are most Christians and Muslims.

I am using the Jesus Christs standard here.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Why would christians act like Jesus Christ? What happens when a christian doesn't act like Jesus Christ? How close to perfect do we have to be? Who decides that standard? the church? Does the church decide the punishment for not meeting that standard or does Jesus Christ (assuming there is a standard)?

Considering you break forum rules all the time and try to get us to come to your form of christianity, i wonder if i'm allowed to do apologetics here. I guess in this case i am allowed so.....

However why do you say that the Bible supports misogyny?
— christian2017

Because it does. You know the quotes as well as I.

Like genocide, it is clear as to if we should consider your Christian views as satanic or not.

Who would use genocide? Satan or god, whoever you think those characters are?

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Once again you've backed me into a corner. You win again Bishop. Maybe i'll learn someday.

Did you see my questions i posted to you an hour ago? any clarifications needed?