Christianity a fake! - new shit has come to light!

[BikerDude]

I am not a theist apologist.

I am a logical philosopher who doesn't believe in "logic except when it's not logical to me."

Evidence proves or disproves.
A lack of evidence does neither.

I'll take it one step further and say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  Therefore any claim not backed by fact and evidence is both illogical and nonsensical.

Ding!
We landed on the moon. We found the Higgs Boson. Some day we might cure cancer.
But oops I forgot that actually might have just been in my own personal reality created in my extra body mind thing which as Deepac Choppra somehow seems to know is just a part of a universal "Super Brain" that constitutes reality Bla bla bla bla

[DudePatrick]

I'm gonna play Devil's advocate, not because I disagree, but because it's part of the process.

Einstein so miffed the scientific community by turning Newtonian physics sideways that when he won a Nobel Prize, it was for the photo-conductive properties of certain materials.  It wasn't until we could launch high-orbit satellites and produce asininely accurate instruments that we could prove some of what he had theorized, even though we pretty much knew at the time he was right, and some consequences (he predicts black holes and gravitational waves, for example) were viewed until much later as aberration or just abnormalities, even though some theoretical physicists made careers out of modeling what a black hole might be without even being able to prove they existed.

His claims were not illogical or nonsensical.

That is not to say I think religion has it right at all.  That is just referring to your idea.

[Rev Paddy Cakes]

The best debates are the ones that get "silly." Especially these ones where you cannot prove that you are right or wrong, no matter how many theories / great thinkers / -isms you evoke. Something I have done as well. Personally, "winning" an argument for me means you can walk away afterwards with a smile on your face. Without getting pissed off or trying to prove someone else wrong.

I do want to highlight what I said above though. All these arguments from specific philosophers and -isms are one way of knowing things. We always cycle through these things and they are always changing for us. One moment we may be illogical and the next logical. We may be a follower of Descartes on the can, and an Idealist when sipping a Caucasian. We are not static or simple things, even if we strive for them sometimes. Proving God is kind of like proving Love, or Pride. They exist because we have named them and debate them on a Dudeist forum. There are more ways than one to know them. Impulses in the brain. The feeling we get. The poetry we read or write about them.
Being illogical does not equal bad all the time. Good or bad are dependent on the language you are using at the time.

[BikerDude]

The best debates are the ones that get "silly." Especially these ones where you cannot prove that you are right or wrong, no matter how many theories / great thinkers / -isms you evoke. Something I have done as well. Personally, "winning" an argument for me means you can walk away afterwards with a smile on your face. Without getting pissed off or trying to prove someone else wrong.

If I misinterpreted I apologize.
In my experience the points you made in the context of a discussion of faith are put forth in the interest of rendering the entire discussion
"unwinnable".  A transparent attempt to derail things with smoke and mirrors.

[BikerDude]

The best debates are the ones that get "silly." Especially these ones where you cannot prove that you are right or wrong, no matter how many theories / great thinkers / -isms you evoke. Something I have done as well. Personally, "winning" an argument for me means you can walk away afterwards with a smile on your face. Without getting pissed off or trying to prove someone else wrong.

I do want to highlight what I said above though. All these arguments from specific philosophers and -isms are one way of knowing things. We always cycle through these things and they are always changing for us. One moment we may be illogical and the next logical. We may be a follower of Descartes on the can, and an Idealist when sipping a Caucasian. We are not static or simple things, even if we strive for them sometimes. Proving God is kind of like proving Love, or Pride. They exist because we have named them and debate them on a Dudeist forum. There are more ways than one to know them. Impulses in the brain. The feeling we get. The poetry we read or write about them.
Being illogical does not equal bad all the time. Good or bad are dependent on the language you are using at the time.

I can't help it.
You just insist on regurgitating the SAME exact things that just annoy the crap out of me in these discussion.

Proving God is kind of like proving Love, or Pride. They exist because we have named them and debate them on a Dudeist forum.

NO!
This is the same thing I've hear over an over. I mean cmon! You know that love and pride are human emotions. They only have a physical manifestation in that they cause actions. God conversely is generally put forth as the creator of the universe. That is categorically dissimilar to any human emotion. This is word play number whatever straight out of the same old handbook.
If a discussion about the existence of God starts it is simple to divert criticism by adopting a less tangible definition of God.
This is just childish nonsense. IMO.
God is "all powerful" and "hears prayers" and whatever. Real tangible things TILL you challenge his existence then he becomes like love or Pride.

[Rev Paddy Cakes]

A transparent attempt to derail things with smoke and mirrors.

As long as my smoke and mirrors are transparent, than my message is coming across. Yes, I am attempting to derail binaries of Right and Wrong, True and False, Winner and Loser, Logical and Illogical, Subjectivity and Objectivity, because I do not think these things are ever truly achievable. It may sound like a cop out, but it is what I believe and I think there is a lot of freedom in that. It is more fun to not be concerned with those binaries all the time. We are all "right" according to the argument and perspective we are coming from.
I am going to assume one thing though. I don't think my comments will end this discussion 
Keep on takin' it easy compeers!

[milnie]

I was going to suggest considering the works of David Hume and Kant regarding the perception of reality but I see the conversation has moved on so ... I know, like a kid walking in half way through

[BikerDude]

A transparent attempt to derail things with smoke and mirrors.

Yes, I am attempting to derail binaries of Right and Wrong, True and False, Winner and Loser, Logical and Illogical, Subjectivity and Objectivity, because I do not think these things are ever truly achievable.

Fair enough.
But it seems that attempting to inhibit PRODUCTIVE discussion on a discussion board is a bit counter productive. At least that is my perception of reality.

[Hominid]

Some binaries are non-essential, such as morals, right & wrong, things like that. But your desire to obliterate the others you mention just shows that you're afraid to commit to the real facts that all of us experience.  If you say that logic and illogic are dispensable concepts for instance, then you've abdicated the right to use deductive reasoning, so, you must stop typing right now.  ;-)

[cckeiser]

my horoscope specifically told me to avoid any philosophical discussions today!

Yep. One of the things I really liked about this Dudeism forum when I first joined was I believed I would no longer have to delve into any deep philosophy any more. Nope those days were over and I could just kick back with a White Russian or 2 and enjoy not having to think about much of anything....but maybe how the Dude made his money....and bowling.
So several years later and here I am back "into it" once again.

"...can the moon be made of cheese and rocks at the same time?"

I'm afraid it gets ever worse than that.

"The Moon does Not exist if we are not looking!"
http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm


http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page5.htm
Question:   Do we project reality?

Answer:   The evidence of physiology seems to indicate so. It tells us that our memories alter our perceptions and hence color our senses of the putative objective world. Hence the world we see appears according to our expectations. A change in expectations leads to a different view of the world. Since we can't get beyond our subjective views, we can never really determine what is absolutely "out there." Classical neurophysiology would say that our minds play tricks on us and in some sense distort the "true" objectivity of the world. The quantum neurophysiology returns to the shamanic or magical view that there is no "out there" until it's perceived. Both views suggest we must project in order to perceive.
 

http://www.modern-thinker.co.uk/9g-comment02.htm
"I think"

We, the human species, can and have argued ad infinitum over what we each think, with little to no consensus on just about anything. The history of human discourse gives testament to our solipsism, and the fact that after 5000 years of searching for The Truth there still is not a single point not in contention, attests to the elemental flaw in our endeavors.

Fundamentally we are all Solipsist within our own minds, and what we perceive to be The Truth we then assume must be The Truth for all. It is our own solipsism that has each of us trapped within our own minds creating our own Reality and blinding us to the essence of what The Truth really is. We assume the other creatures we perceive populating our Universe are part of our own Reality and therefore must also share in the truth that we ourselves perceive. We are then befuddled and outraged when others contest our perceptions of truth and Reality.

We cluster in cliques of entangled perceptions and wage war on those who would dare challenge our convictions. We not only think we are right; we know we are right.
So does the other guy.

There will never be Peace on Earth and Good Will to all Creatures until we accept the inescapable conclusion we each exists in our own observer created Reality, and no two minds have the very same perspective, and therefore cannot have the very same perceptions of Reality.

We are fundamentally solipsist in our own minds and create our own Reality to exist in.

What one mind see as fact, another mind see as fiction.


Reality is not only malleable, it is fundamentally interactive. It conforms to our expectations and our anxieties.
We cannot say one part of Reality is malleable and another part is not. We cannot exclude any part of Reality from being manipulate by our apprehensions.

Reality is Information processed by an Observer.
You are the Observer for your own Reality.


"It's up to you to choose grand beliefs, wondrous convictions, noble
purposes and lofty ideals. Then recognizing yourself as the final
source of all your meaning, belief and conviction will not degrade
into apathy and lack of meaning."
Gene Zimmer

Excerpt from: Reality, Belief and The Mind
by Gene Zimmer


The Topic is "Christianity a Fake! - new shit has come to light!"

So let us address this directly: Is Christianity a Fake? Absolutely...in my Reality anyway. It wasn't always so. I was raised Roman Catholic...my middle name is Christian!! it took me over 40 years to rid myself of their christian mind fucking and I am still really pissed about it.
To me the christian faith is the most evil entity that ever existed....with islam running a close second. The Church has either destroyed history or corrupted it beyond recognition. Just about everything we know about the past before 300 CE and everything written since was corrupted by the church who for centuries had absolute power over what history would be written.
Look at christian holy days and temples....they were built on the ruins of the old gods and the people they "converted".

How did I get into all this? I just wanted to know "The Truth".
After many many years of searching I found it, but it sure as hell was not what I had anticipated.

Is there a God? It all depends on how you define "God". If you define god as the source of all Reality....then yes there is a god. It's just not the god you are looking for.
I do Not believe in a god of biblical proportions. There is no room for such an entity in my Reality.
What I have found is....Consciousness is god...god is right behind your eyes.
"I think; therefor I am".
What keeps popping into my mind when I talk of these things is the simple quote...."And the Truth Will Set You Free!"
All Religions are Evil simply because they hide the truth and enslave the minds of their "Believers".
And yes, Science Is a Religion. The Standard Model is a Monster they call Beautiful.

Now I am done and will speak no more on this.

So fuck it dudes....lets go bowling!

[BikerDude]

"The Moon does Not exist if we are not looking!"
http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

Quantum non locality.
It has been denied over and over by the foremost experts in the field. These things apply on the quantum level only.
Not the moon. I think it's called "Woo woo".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QORg1u2Hbqk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WA76VTq3O8

http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page5.htm
Question:   Do we project reality?

Answer:   The evidence of physiology seems to indicate so. It tells us that our memories alter our perceptions and hence color our senses of the putative objective world. Hence the world we see appears according to our expectations. A change in expectations leads to a different view of the world. Since we can't get beyond our subjective views, we can never really determine what is absolutely "out there." Classical neurophysiology would say that our minds play tricks on us and in some sense distort the "true" objectivity of the world. The quantum neurophysiology returns to the shamanic or magical view that there is no "out there" until it's perceived. Both views suggest we must project in order to perceive.

This is not projecting reality. It is interpreting reality.
Different interpretations or misinterpretations are not different realities.
There is an out there irregardless of if or how we perceive it.
Thor did not die when we discovered electricity. He never existed.
A person struck by lightning in the bronze age suffered the same fate as a modern man.
One simply mistakenly insisted that it was the wrath of the Gods.

[Hominid]

What DB said...

[Rev Paddy Cakes]

you're afraid to commit to the real facts that all of us experience

Ha, that is quite the assumption. Don't worry, I still pay my taxes (not necessarily on time) and bathe every once in a while. I am questioning and complicating the binaries, not obliterating them. My desire is to have a respectful dialogue about things that are sometimes taken for granted, or considered common sense. This is something that often happens in this forum, and one of the reasons I enjoy myself here. To say that illogical / logical, winner / loser binaries are relative, shades of grey, is really not that contentious.

Here is a statement that may make people happier:
I do not believe that the Christian God exists beyond the people who believe in him or his name appearing in a book.

I did not want to leave it at that. I'm pretty surprised at the reaction that got. I'm not sure what constitutes a "productive" debate about the existence of the Christian God, but I do not believe that my ramblings are invalid. Again, that is the beauty of dialogue. To really listen and be respectful of differing opinions even if we do not agree. All I know is that I'm still enjoying myself.

And here I am, no longer typing 

[Hominid]

I have fun too in this forum, so I don't want to come off as a dick making wrong assumptions... Hell, look at sig pic!  But I still do make the assertion that logical/illogical is a binary that exists.  You have to in order for anything to make sense, and be "interpretable" and discussable.

But, you know, that's just like my opinion man.

[BikerDude]

I'm gonna play Devil's advocate, not because I disagree, but because it's part of the process.

Einstein so miffed the scientific community by turning Newtonian physics sideways that when he won a Nobel Prize, it was for the photo-conductive properties of certain materials.  It wasn't until we could launch high-orbit satellites and produce asininely accurate instruments that we could prove some of what he had theorized, even though we pretty much knew at the time he was right, and some consequences (he predicts black holes and gravitational waves, for example) were viewed until much later as aberration or just abnormalities, even though some theoretical physicists made careers out of modeling what a black hole might be without even being able to prove they existed.

His claims were not illogical or nonsensical.

That is not to say I think religion has it right at all.  That is just referring to your idea.

The concept of a black hole is based on scientific principles. Einsteins theories were "proven" mathematically and experimentally in his lifetime. (Measurements of the bending of light from the Gravity of the Sun made during eclipse).
I'm not sure how the comparison applies in relationship to a bunch of Superstitions and Fairy Tales from the bronze age.