True, but teaching them Christianity was a first step in seeing them as human, so the first abolitionists were Christian missionaries and members of sects that prohibited slave ownership (like Methodists).
2 hours agoReplyOptions
12

As a christian i see this as a huge plus but i don't feel anyone should feel obligated to live a long long life of crap just to meet some non Biblical theological standards in order to "maintain their salvation". — frank

Interesting point. Wile's proof of Fermat's last theorem involves maths that most folks don't and won't understand (so it's said, nor do I disagree). So the proposition is true, as true as 2+3=5, just wa-ay more difficult. The best most of us can do, then, is take it as a fact, something historically conditioned, and present the available evidence in support of it - which of course is not the proof itself - and appeal to the weight of the evidence. One difference: in the case of the proof, we know so, in the case of the fact, we suppose so. — tim wood

Not mathematical, except in some poetical sense that doesn't work here, where clarity is what we're after. What I think you're missing is that you cannot demonstrate that FP was a president from NH. You can present evidence that argues in favour of and supports that conclusion, and sensible people will acknowledge it. The math, on the other hand, is demonstrable, is rigorously provable. One is provisional, even tentative, and granted on the basis of evidence presented, the other is complete in itself and compulsive. — tim wood

Um, no. Providing you understand the terms, you can always demonstrate that 2+3=5. Facts you can never demonstrate. You can exhibit supporting documentation, or make probabilistic arguments, but never more than that. To be sure, many facts are called "true" and accepted as such, but they aren't; "true" in this case meaning, pretty much, generally accepted and that bets can be settled in accordance with. — tim wood

More closely, can you not see a difference between 2+3=5 and "President Franklin Pierce was born in New Hampshire? — tim wood

The vast majority of slaves transported in the Atlantic slave trade were male and were brought from the interior of Africa to the west coast by Moors. Apparently controlling them wasn't too difficult for the Moors because we know they weren't paid much per slave. They probably just chained them to one another.

Plus Egyptian depictions of massive numbers of conquered slaves should be enough to dispel the notion that most slaves in the ancient world were female. That's just not true.

But I think your goal was to show some biological basis for slavery in an ancient sex-slave trade. Your only backing for this is a mistaken notion about the difficulties of holding male slaves.

I'm not persuaded. — frank

Really? How? Why? Under what understanding of the meanings of the terms? I confess to a lack of patient understanding myself, but yours seems to me ignorance preening and congratulating itself for having said what is a piece of stupidity. In your defense I observe that stupid gets a lot of the world's work done, but not this, here. — tim wood

There is, of course, an entire entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on this question. And if you read it, you will quickly find that you are unlikely to get a group of random philosophers to come to a consensus on the matter.

I'll take it upon myself to cast the deciding vote then: A fact is a true proposition. Nothing more or less.

|>ouglas — Douglas Alan

(Imo) you're exactly right. I'll add a refinement that likely you had in mind but that I'll just make more explicit. Truth and fact are different animals. Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon is a fact. 2+3=5 is true. — tim wood

The problem with this is that she'll want a guy who loves to lift weights. And I prefer to sit in front of this infernal computer and debate inane topics on the Internets. — Douglas Alan

Argument A: Infinitely many possible universes
Let us take a mathematical variable x and assign to it values from the set of natural numbers {1, 2, 3,...}
For x = 1, one possible world exists. Let's call it A1. Now, x = 2 can't exist in A1 because that would entail the contradiction x = 1 and not x = 1 (where x = 2). So, x = 2 must be in another possible world A2, and so on, ad infinitum

Argument B: Omniscience is impossible
U = a thing about which nothing can be known
U is possible because there's no contradiction in positing a U. So, it is possible for U to exist in one of the infinitely possible worlds (argument A)

Imagine now an omniscient being O. What does O know about U?

Either such a thing as U exists or not.

If U exists then by definition nothing can be known about U. So, O is not omniscient because there exists something about which nothing can be known viz U.

O can't know U doesn't exist because there are an infinite number of universe O must check before O can determine the nonexistence of O. That's not possible because infinity has, by definition, no end. So, O is not omniscient.

Therefore, O, an omniscient being, cannot exist.

Is my argument sound? Is there a simpler proof for the nonexistence of an omniscient being? — TheMadFool

I'm thankful for coffee. — Banno

Thanks for the offer of scripture, but no thanks. As for ending it all in what would be perceived as an accident, I prefer to just tell myself, I can always jump off a bridge tomorrow. There's no rush to get it done today. #Tomorrow_Not_Today

As for finding contentment, I'm hard at work on that. It can be a challenge, however. Especially when people who told you that you would always be "my best friend and greatest love", make a bee line for the exit when you hit a rough patch.

But when life gives you lemons, buy a shotgun and use them for target practice.

|>ouglas — Douglas Alan

No. I'm a "G*D-wrote-the-program, and-observes-the-on-going-computation" kind of guy. I call my worldview, which includes a hypothetical creator/programmer, Enformationism. But, if you want a conventional philosophical name for this god-model, it's PanEnDeism : all-in-god. Hence, the creation is a part of the creator. Our world is an idea in the MIND of G*D. So, what we now call "Evolution" is actually a creative mental process, that we experience as Reality. Another term for such an abstract god-model is "the god of the philosophers". Look it up. :smile:

I'm sure this sounds bizarre to those with conventional religious views. But it's just a theory to explain the role of ubiquitous Information in the world. I was raised as a back-to-the-bible fundamentalist Christian. But, I have since concluded that, while all world religions have correctly intuited the necessity of some kind of creator/sustainer to explain the existence of our world, most of their specific beliefs are based on outdated science, and priestly propaganda. So I have updated both the traditional and scientific worldviews to suit my own needs for philosophical understanding. Those needs do not include worship & prayer though, because my abstract deity should have no need for such human sycophantic servility. :nerd: — Gnomon

So, I need to be invited to a special Discord chat, or something?

I'm never going to convert to Christianity, sorry. Perhaps Zen, but that's mostly just ancient wisdom for how not to go crazy and how to treat people decently. Or at least the parts of it that I care about are. — Douglas Alan

Christians, with their homophobic and misogynous teachings, would berate a gay or woman but not a straight male.

Thanks for the opportunity to show your garbage religion at work.

Gnostic Christians are universalists and would just ask for a redo regardless of sexual orientation or gender.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

So where does one find out more about this mysterious party? Google hasn't heard of it. Twitter hasn't heard of it. Duck Duck Go hasn't heard of it.... — Douglas Alan

Yes. Scientists have postulated a variety of rationales to allow the creation of something from nothing. But all are violations of either the Law of Thermodynamics, or the Law of Logic. And their belief system prejudicially excludes the simplest, most-intuitive explanation, because of the supernatural implications. However, I have concluded that the Big Bang theory a super-natural explanation. And the only viable alternatives are self-existent mindless Multiverses all-the-way-down, or a self-existent Intelligent Enformer.

That's why I had to invent an unlimited Law-Maker to handle the job. Of course, my Enformer/Creator is merely an enformed hypothesis, not a revelation from on high. And it only serves as an axiom for further development of the Enformationism thesis of Intelligent Evolution. No creeds, no worship required. :smile: — Gnomon

But thank your blessings that we live in the best of all possible worlds! — Douglas Alan

I stubbed my toe yesterday and it really hurt.

How does one give upvotes and downvotes on this crazy forum? I want to upvote you but I can't. What is a forum these days if you can't create a hive-mind that will downvote all dissent into oblivion?

Well, just another reason to be bitter, I suppose.

|>ouglas — Douglas Alan

In order to explain all the bad shit that happens in the world, Leibnitz's explanation is that this is the best of all possible worlds, even if it contains a lot of badness. I.e., it just can't get any better than this.

Well, if this is the best of all possible worlds, then it seems better not to exist at all!

Unless, of course, modal realism is true. Because if it is, then if you didn't exist, you'd just exist in an infinite number of even worse worlds.

Actually, if Leibnitz was right and modal realism is true, you do exist in an infinite number of even worse worlds. And this is just the best of all the infinite versions of your sorry existences, where all the other infinite versions of you are suffering even more. — Douglas Alan

To conclude this speculation, I have come to the idea (although I really haven't come to one as there isn't anything to come to) that the meaning of life is not the meaning of life if it can be expressed within time. So the meaning is without meaning/explanation and without meaning/explanation it has meaning. Both claims are correct. Would we call this the meaning of life? I am not so sure as within the gap between thought where you do not think is a realm where you do not exist, nor does life. Can the meaning of life be found where no life is? Are you even alive when you are empty of any concepts? I can only think that the meaning then is to become innocent and empty of thinking/biases/schemas. If this state becomes constant and incorruptible then surely this would be truth, as it is unaffected by time and space and doesn't exist, YET does exist as it can be reached within time. — Leviosa

Something. You get heaven. Or hell. Or reincarnation. Or something else entirely. Whatever. In some way, shape or form, you get to continue to exist. Congratulations. Problem is you now have what I've called the near-infinite prison dilemma. Imagine yourself immortal but stuck in an empty 8x8 cell. You'll eventually go stir-crazy. Let's change that cell to a 5000 sqft facility with a variety of things to do, entertainment and whatnot. You'll still go crazy, it'll just take longer. You can expand it further to almost infinite options, but the problem is no matter how big the "outside" is, you're still trapped with "you" and that will eventually drive you nuts. You'll probably be wishing for oblivion at that point. — runbounder

Numbers are names for quantities. — creativesoul

Voila! Just like magic.

That works for Pragmatic Purposes, but for Philosophical Pursuits it's pretty lame. — Gnomon

I personally am very bitter. — Douglas Alan

Ought we be thankful for wisdom(being mentally experienced in some set of all sets)? Probably the highest kind of self sense.

Is it a good virtue?
Is it sanity?
Is it intellectual judgement?

I think it's important to be thankful if you want to achieve overall success.

You can either respect or disrespect, metaphorically particiles capture and collide. This allows you to respect, or disrespect. The more you respect a moment the more within it's time frequency you are, the less respect you have, the less likely you are to cause a major shift.

If you want to show respect, you're thankful, this is just an experienced answer, and skillful use of mind.

Is thankful above love? Are we thankful more so during love?

Why are so many people religious then? Are they -secretly -thankful? — Qwex

You want to chat religion and philosophy after your log boring psychobabble B.S.

Go away and take your lies with you.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Sin was born with the egg. Only we didn't have bodies to make it or hearts to know it. Sin is a single cell. — ZzzoneiroCosm

You want to chat religion and philosophy after your log boring psychobabble B.S.

Go away and take your lies with you.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Jesus Christ is extremely smart and can predict everything.
— christian2017

Buddy.

You started with this flat out lie and you want to chat!!!

Stop lying and I am here for you.

No I did not bother reading your other lies. I am careful with mine and if you cannot be ------

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

How about a simple rule: anyone using the term "god" or anything like, has to make clear what he means by the word, in the sense of a good definition. My guess is that would take the oxygen out of the room. — tim wood

Fundamentalist Christians think it's more likely that we know what the writings from thousands of years ago really meant in those days, than that our scientific testing on rocks is accurate. That is an interesting debate — Gregory

Did sin enter the world through Adam, Satan or Yahweh?

Most, as well as scriptures, say that it was through Adam, even though Christians sing that Adam’s sin was a happy fault and necessary to Yahweh’s plan.

Given the necessity, Adam, from that, may not be the culpable one and his punishment would be unjust.

Satan had already sinned in heaven before being cast into Eden.

It can be truthfully said that she was the first sinner on earth if we ignore Yahweh.

Further, would you say that Eve sinned, given that Satan or the talking serpent deceived her?

That deception would take lies, and that is a sin, and that sin also preceded Adam’s sin.

Many do not see what the serpent says as a lie, which complicates things.

Was the initial sin, regardless of who did it, a happy fault and necessary to god’s plan like Christians sing in their Exultet hymn?

Did Yahweh lie when he told Adam that he would die if he educated himself with the knowledge in the Tree of Knowledge?

Why and how does knowledge kill us?

If it does, should we keep our children as blind to it as Adam and Eve initially were?

The Eden myth can get quite complicated, especially when Christians call it a fall, then say it was necessary so as not to derail Yahweh’s plan.

This last being what the Jews wrote into their myth and which they say is not the Original Sin of the Christian interpretation, but more like the Original virtue that the Jews call it.

The opposite of what Christianity says, if you ignore their happy fault view.

In terms of first sin, I see Yahweh, since sin was necessary to him as the first sinner, followed by Satan, Yahweh’s loyal opposition and teacher of humankind, and then Adam.

Why Eve at the end of Genesis 3 has to then be second class to Adam, --- he shall rule over you, --- would seem like Yahweh punishing the wrong party.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Are you saying electrons and atoms in actual human beings are not taking paths of least resistance? — Zelebg

Contrary to popular misbelief, I would argue that the main driving forces of men and women, at least in 1st world countries are "higher mental" wants rather than pure material wants (such as the distinction between "absolute poverty", as in famine in 3rd world countries, rather than "relative" poverty, which doesn't account for actual financial planning or expenditures but is rather solely based on fixed income comparisons, as per economists such as Jolan Chang).

As an example, assuming a person could physically "survive" in a homeless shelter and have all of their basic material wants needed, or even have children despite having no income, a person could potentially meet all of their most basic "material" needs this way, much as how a person spending life in prison could have all of those basic needs met as well.

However, in 1st world countries, most of our wants and drives, even those we take for granted, are higher mental wants, whether money, possessions, education(s), careers, pasttimes, and things of those and that nature.

Even modern marriages are arguably a manifestation of 'higher mental wants' as well, in the sense of monogamous marriages and people having fewer children today, are a manifestation of a desire for 'quality' in a marriage, a partner, a family and so on.

As opposed to 'quantity', such as polygamy in 3rd world countries with high infant morality rate, which is more pragmatically effective if the goal is simply to "have children" or "have as many children as possible".

This, of course, is one reason that reduction of life purpose solely to 'marriage' and 'raising children', or deeming a culture on the whole as either 'life' or 'death' affirming on the basis of aggregate number of children is a flawed metric in many ways, and even this would be taking much of contemporary society, even including religious institutions for gratned; given that monogamy itself is a prioritization of higher mental wants and/or ideals above the purely physical ones.

And the radical and/or logical extreme of this argument would be making a case for polygamy and 3rd world marriage and/or parenting practices. — IvoryBlackBishop

Now that you have a working knowledge on what The Wisdom of the Crowd means I would like to ask whether it can be used as an effective tool to gain knowledge or not?

For instance suppose we don't know the distance to a star. We can ask a group of people to make a guess and the average would be close to, or even exactly, the actual distance of that star.

We wouldn't have to argue anymore about what the truth is. A group of people guessing at random would settle all debates once and for all. Perhaps I'm missing something. Comments... — TheMadFool