Caesar's Messiah: "Christianity was invented by a little known family of Roman Caesars, the Flavians; and they left us documents to prove it"
Try this on for size:
http://www.covertmessiah.com/ (http://www.covertmessiah.com/)
http://disinfo.com/2013/10/christianity-ancient-roman-psy-op/ (http://disinfo.com/2013/10/christianity-ancient-roman-psy-op/)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/10/bible-scholar-christianity-invented-as-part-of-ancient-roman-psy-ops-campaign/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/10/bible-scholar-christianity-invented-as-part-of-ancient-roman-psy-ops-campaign/)
Dead religion.....
(http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/6575/iix3.jpg)
I'm sorry but I find it ironically funny when someone calls a religion 'fake'. What do you put in the word 'fake'? As in, artificial? Well all of them are. Each and every one of them was made up, written down and distributed for and by other people.
I'm gonna take a good look at this later on, thanks. Also, Jesus seems like a very chilled out dude. Which is why all the dogmas and rules of christianity don't dound like something he would preach, IMO.
P.S. It feels amazing to openly discuss my views on the matter that on any other social communication portal would have been either taboo or a reason for flaming. This is indeed a dudely place.
I guess I stand somewhere toward the agnostic side of this whole argument. As far as Jesus is concerned I, personally, have no problem with believing that Jesus once walked the earth spreading his philosophy any more than I have a problem believing that Abraham Lincoln or George Washington walked the earth at one time as well. I've also wondered whether Jesus, the Buddha, and Mohammed were one and the same and the written word of their visits changed according to where in the world one happened to be during the reading.
As far as a holy ghost is concerned, well, I find that concept a little more difficult. There's a question that I've asked a few Christians when they started to explain why they're so sorrowful that I haven't accepted Jesus Christ as my eternal lord and savior and assured myself a place in the kingdom of heaven which, according to them is the ultimate paradise that we should all aspire to. When this shit starts I usually ask them if heaven is such a great place and one should work toward getting a spot there then why do they look both ways before crossing the street? I mean if God's will dictates when we're going to be taken up and if heaven is the greatest of all things then why are they so afraid to go there? In a way their actions in terms of crossing the street and wearing seat belts belies their own lack of the faith that they insist everyone else should have. That was kind of a long winded way of saying that everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to do the one thing that's necessary to get there.
Maybe I'm being too hard on them.
Quote from: meekon5 on October 22, 2013, 08:14:56 AM
Caesar's Messiah: "Christianity was invented by a little known family of Roman Caesars, the Flavians; and they left us documents to prove it"
Try this on for size:
http://www.covertmessiah.com/ (http://www.covertmessiah.com/)
http://disinfo.com/2013/10/christianity-ancient-roman-psy-op/ (http://disinfo.com/2013/10/christianity-ancient-roman-psy-op/)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/10/bible-scholar-christianity-invented-as-part-of-ancient-roman-psy-ops-campaign/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/10/bible-scholar-christianity-invented-as-part-of-ancient-roman-psy-ops-campaign/)
Been hearing rumblings about this. Makes sense to me, as it seems no one is able to actually prove Jesus existed.
Quote from: Hominid on October 22, 2013, 03:41:40 PM
Quote from: meekon5 on October 22, 2013, 08:14:56 AM
Caesar's Messiah: "Christianity was invented by a little known family of Roman Caesars, the Flavians; and they left us documents to prove it"
Try this on for size:
http://www.covertmessiah.com/ (http://www.covertmessiah.com/)
http://disinfo.com/2013/10/christianity-ancient-roman-psy-op/ (http://disinfo.com/2013/10/christianity-ancient-roman-psy-op/)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/10/bible-scholar-christianity-invented-as-part-of-ancient-roman-psy-ops-campaign/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/10/bible-scholar-christianity-invented-as-part-of-ancient-roman-psy-ops-campaign/)
Been hearing rumblings about this. Makes sense to me, as it seems no one is able to actually prove Jesus existed.
I think he existed, but what many people claim about him is nonsense. That's just like my opinion, man.
There is not on shred of historical evidence to prove that Jesus walked on this planet. He is an allegory a made up man.
Quote from: Caesar dude on October 22, 2013, 07:15:06 PM
There is not on shred of historical evidence to prove that Jesus walked on this planet. He is an allegory a made up man.
Well, dude, we just don't know...........The extant manuscripts of the writings of the 1st century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus
include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93-94 AD, includes
two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18.Scholarly opinion on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate, a passage usually called the Testimonium Flavianum, varies. The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety,
it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation. Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.
;D
It don't matter to Jesus! - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus)
(http://thedroidyourelookingfor.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/jesus.jpg)
Quote from: Bullett00th on October 22, 2013, 12:20:18 PM
What do you put in the word 'fake'? As in, artificial? Well all of them are. Each and every one of them was made up, written down and distributed for and by other people...
Prove that statement conclusively please.
(please don't think I am disagreeing with you, but if you are going to make a statement as broad as that I'm sorry but I believe you have to back it up).
Quote from: Caesar dude on October 22, 2013, 07:15:06 PM
There is not on shred of historical evidence to prove that Jesus walked on this planet. He is an allegory a made up man.
There is a mention in the Dead Sea Scrolls actually.
So I'm led to believe (http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/article1.htm), but even this may be dodgy.
Josephus' accounts of Jesus were not in his original writings; they were forged in at a later date (4th century, by Catholics). And - Josephus wasn't born till 37 AD, so he wasn't even an "eye witness". This reference to Jesus is the ONLY secular reference to his existence, so in my books, he's a fake. So many other detailed historical references are made to countless other occurrences from that era, and yet all they can find about Jesus is one small shred of evidence, which itself is highly suspect? Doesn't cut the mustard for me!
If you look at the early christian church there was as many versions of the "faith" as there were disciples. In fact multiple versions of the multiple versions.
Also it is generally accepted that most of the new testament was not written until about eighty years after the fact, and usually reported third party not first person from the desciples.
It's only through some very clever elimination by the Romans that the Roman (and Orthodox, both Greek and Russian, being branches of the same) version of the christian doctrine became the dominant flavour. If you look at their destruction of the Coptic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Orthodox_Church_of_Alexandria), and Arian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism) churches, and any of the other smaller versions, in a bid to become dominant
Also there are the letters of St. Stephen that prescribe which texts will make up the new testament, excluding some in favour of others. Do also see the list of texts from the dead sea scrolls, a collection of Coptic Church texts, and witness the reference to the gospel according to Mary Magdalene and the gospel according to Thomas the doubter. Excluded as heretical by later "Editors" of the bible.
Quote from: meekon5 on October 23, 2013, 09:02:41 AM
Quote from: Bullett00th on October 22, 2013, 12:20:18 PM
What do you put in the word 'fake'? As in, artificial? Well all of them are. Each and every one of them was made up, written down and distributed for and by other people...
Prove that statement conclusively please.
(please don't think I am disagreeing with you, but if you are going to make a statement as broad as that I'm sorry but I believe you have to back it up).
I can't.
Same as none can prove that their religion was given to them by a deity or multiple deities. It's often either a messiah or just astronomical knowledge with personified celestial bodies.
There are always different realities. I am not talking about different dimensions or anything like that. What I am talking about is, at this point, it doesn't really make a huge difference whether Jesus was "real" or an allegory. Really, at this point, he is an allegory because of his representations in texts (many texts, rewritten and translated, selectively quoted, made to fit pre-existing political and religious agendas, etc) as are major figures in the mythology of other religions, political movements, and peoples' histories. One text is never the whole story, something that is impossible to achieve anyways.
If you adopt the stance of belief in many truths instead of one Truth, ignorance, and the abiding with the fact that no one is ever "right" or "wrong," there are big steaming piles of freedom and liberation you can jump into and play with. One of the reasons I love Dudeism so much, in spite of largely concentrating on one figure (our own sandaled, long haired "prophet"), it is not the type of ethos that says you may only look at one text, a Logos, that determines everything. I look for Dudely moments in everything: newspaper articles, movies, fiction and non-fiction (and the grey areas between), any and all religious texts, etc. And I may be doing the exact same thing that Christian authors may have done, but if you just say "fuck it" and Abide... we return to those big steamy piles we jumped into earlier.
And in spite of the generalizations of the statement ...
QuoteWell all of them are. Each and every one of them was made up, written down and distributed for and by other people.
... I am inclined to agree to an extent. Even if there were some sort of divine inspiration, every religion shifts with every person who embraces it, writes about it, talks about it. M5, I would like to know what you think about when you consider the alternatives of man-made religion.
And I'll close off the old rambling here.
Quote from: Hominid on October 23, 2013, 11:17:24 AM
Josephus' accounts of Jesus were not in his original writings; they were forged in at a later date (4th century, by Catholics). And - Josephus wasn't born till 37 AD, so he wasn't even an "eye witness". This reference to Jesus is the ONLY secular reference to his existence, so in my books, he's a fake. So many other detailed historical references are made to countless other occurrences from that era, and yet all they can find about Jesus is one small shred of evidence, which itself is highly suspect? Doesn't cut the mustard for me!
;D BULLSHIT! He was recently spotted preaching to the people on the lanes...
(http://i.qkme.me/3rwkbe.jpg)
DB: lol!
Rev Paddy Cakes: of course what you say is very true, from the standpoint of anyone viewing the whole scene objectively. But to any card-carrying holy book-thumping religious person (insert any religion here...), you'd be labelled a heretic, which is the inherent problem with religion in the first place. Given enough slack, these zealous religious people would take from you and me our freedoms and rights. It's religion that caused 9-11. It's religion that was behind the Spanish Inquisition. I could go on, but I think you get my point... this aggression should not stand! It's un-dude! They have no clue what bowling is all about... or drinking beer for that matter.
Quote from: Hominid on October 24, 2013, 02:33:34 AMThey have no clue what bowling is all about... or drinking beer for that matter.
;D(http://dudeism.com/smf/Themes/default/images/post/thumbup.gif) Beer School......
http://www.craftbeer.com/beer-studies/beer-schools(http://b.vimeocdn.com/ts/221/639/221639697_640.jpg)
Quote from: Bullett00th on October 23, 2013, 12:56:16 PM
Quote from: meekon5 on October 23, 2013, 09:02:41 AM
Quote from: Bullett00th on October 22, 2013, 12:20:18 PM
What do you put in the word 'fake'? As in, artificial? Well all of them are. Each and every one of them was made up, written down and distributed for and by other people...
Prove that statement conclusively please.
(please don't think I am disagreeing with you, but if you are going to make a statement as broad as that I'm sorry but I believe you have to back it up).
I can't.
Same as none can prove that their religion was given to them by a deity or multiple deities. It's often either a messiah or just astronomical knowledge with personified celestial bodies.
The point I'm making is, yes the abrahamic religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) claim their religion is given them by god, the Buddhists, and Taoists, claim no such thing, theirs is a vision of reality perceived without Deity.
Quote from: meekon5 on October 24, 2013, 06:20:06 AM
The point I'm making is, yes the abrahamic religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) claim their religion is given them by god, the Buddhists, and Taoists, claim no such thing, theirs is a vision of reality perceived without Deity.
Indeed, which is why I prefer to call them philosophies of life, rather than religions in the sense that we are used to.
However that doesn't change the fact that these philosophies were made by mankind. I understand and completely agree with your point. What I'm trying to say with mine is that none of these were 'handed out' by a deity or multiple deities. It's all the work of mankind's fascinating and vivid imagination that demands for an explanation to everything, even if it means personifying certain objects, places or events.
QuoteBut to any card-carrying holy book-thumping religious person (insert any religion here...), you'd be labelled a heretic
That is definitely a handle I would self apply. In fact, just a couple of months ago I talked to members of the Antioch Christian Ministries who applied that to me in a more roundabout way when I described my views to them. It was an enjoyable conversation for me anyways.
QuoteIt was an enjoyable conversation for me anyways.
Ya, I like a good debate with anyone willing to tangle with me as well. Heretics of the world unite!!!
The bottom line for me is this; to say that Jesus dude didn't exist is the same ole' problem of proving a negative, which is impossible. So to say the dude wasn't a real person doesn't hold too much water IMHO. All you can say is he might have and no one knows much about the dude.
Am I wrong, or just an asshole? 8)
QuoteAm I wrong, or just an asshole?
Well than I could be an asshole as well. I like the bottom line and believe it is essentially the same thing I was talking about in my convoluted post above. If we all agree that "no one knows much" in general, I think we're good.
Quote from: Rev Paddy Cakes on October 24, 2013, 01:07:53 PM
QuoteAm I wrong, or just an asshole?
Well than I could be an asshole as well. I like the bottom line and believe it is essentially the same thing I was talking about in my convoluted post above. If we all agree that "no one knows much" in general, I think we're good.
So then I say; fuck it, let's get us a lane after a dude like conversation at the bar about Jesus dude. 8)
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on October 24, 2013, 12:47:54 PM
The bottom line for me is this; to say that Jesus dude didn't exist is the same ole' problem of proving a negative, which is impossible. So to say the dude wasn't a real person doesn't hold too much water IMHO. All you can say is he might have and no one knows much about the dude.
Am I wrong, or just an asshole? 8)
That's absolutely true: you can't prove a negative (philosophy 101). So... my point here is that it is contingent on those who say he DID exist to prove it. Same thing as with God, or any fairy tale for that matter... extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof! I prefer to rely on evidence and fact...
And no, you're not an asshole: it was me not fully explaining myself!
Quote from: Hominid on October 24, 2013, 01:25:53 PM
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on October 24, 2013, 12:47:54 PM
The bottom line for me is this; to say that Jesus dude didn't exist is the same ole' problem of proving a negative, which is impossible. So to say the dude wasn't a real person doesn't hold too much water IMHO. All you can say is he might have and no one knows much about the dude.
Am I wrong, or just an asshole? 8)
That's absolutely true: you can't prove a negative (philosophy 101). So... my point here is that it is contingent on those who say he DID exist to prove it. Same thing as with God, or any fairy tale for that matter... extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof! I prefer to rely on evidence and fact...
And no, you're not an asshole: it was me not fully explaining myself!
That's just like a really good opinion, man. Fuckin' eh!
More beer.........
Quote from: Hominid on October 24, 2013, 01:25:53 PM
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on October 24, 2013, 12:47:54 PM
The bottom line for me is this; to say that Jesus dude didn't exist is the same ole' problem of proving a negative, which is impossible. So to say the dude wasn't a real person doesn't hold too much water IMHO. All you can say is he might have and no one knows much about the dude.
Am I wrong, or just an asshole? 8)
That's absolutely true: you can't prove a negative (philosophy 101). So... my point here is that it is contingent on those who say he DID exist to prove it. Same thing as with God, or any fairy tale for that matter... extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof! I prefer to rely on evidence and fact...
And no, you're not an asshole: it was me not fully explaining myself!
Actually this may be a bit of a cop out but I firmly believe that your universe (multiverse, whatever) is exactly as you perceive it, because it is all coming from in you anyway. From any individuals point of view they are the center of everything. If you believe in some deity then you will go about your business seeing his (or her) hand in all things, if you don't then you wont.
Applies for all things, ghosts, gods, pixies, alien abduction. just because you don't believe in any gods does not mean they are not real to me.
Quotejust because you don't believe in any gods does not mean they are not real to me.
Therein lies the problem. Things don't exist just because someone believes in them... Different "truths" cannot coexist; we all live in the same place. That's like playing tennis without the net, making things (and rules) up as we go along... If someone cannot prove the existence of something unseen, unfelt, unheard, and depends only on faith to explain its existence, then that doesn't cut the mustard IMHO. I agree that it is the individual's interpretation of reality that gives them an *opinion* of whether unseen deities exist, but that's only a function of our pre-frontal cortex. Perception and interpretation does not MAKE reality; that's the tail wagging the dog, is it not?
I know a lot of ink has been spilled trying to prove otherwise, but if the existence anything, including this universe, in its magnitude, size, and age, was dependant on some poor schmuck's imagination, then there would be no agreement - and hence - no cohesiveness in the universe whatsoever. It existed long before we did, and will after we leave, excluding Schrodinger's cat. ;-)
Quote from: meekon5 on October 25, 2013, 05:31:31 AM
Quote from: Hominid on October 24, 2013, 01:25:53 PM
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on October 24, 2013, 12:47:54 PM
The bottom line for me is this; to say that Jesus dude didn't exist is the same ole' problem of proving a negative, which is impossible. So to say the dude wasn't a real person doesn't hold too much water IMHO. All you can say is he might have and no one knows much about the dude.
Am I wrong, or just an asshole? 8)
That's absolutely true: you can't prove a negative (philosophy 101). So... my point here is that it is contingent on those who say he DID exist to prove it. Same thing as with God, or any fairy tale for that matter... extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof! I prefer to rely on evidence and fact...
And no, you're not an asshole: it was me not fully explaining myself!
Actually this may be a bit of a cop out but I firmly believe that your universe (multiverse, whatever) is exactly as you perceive it, because it is all coming from in you anyway. From any individuals point of view they are the center of everything. If you believe in some deity then you will go about your business seeing his (or her) hand in all things, if you don't then you wont.
Applies for all things, ghosts, gods, pixies, alien abduction. just because you don't believe in any gods does not mean they are not real to me.
Now you got me wanting to read up on pagan gods. ;)
I find the term heretic a bit un-PC. Can we call it religiously challenged? ;)
I don't like "challenged." Sounds like something I should do or need or have. But I proudly accept the labels heretic, infidel, nonbeliever, etc. ;D
Quote from: Hominid on October 25, 2013, 06:24:04 AM
Quotejust because you don't believe in any gods does not mean they are not real to me.
Therein lies the problem. Things don't exist just because someone believes in them... Different "truths" cannot coexist; we all live in the same place. That's like playing tennis without the net, making things (and rules) up as we go along...
So are you saying if I was colour blind I exist in exactly the same (experience) universe as you do. In fact take it further a deaf person does not exist in the same universe as a hearing person, they experience a completely different set of stimulus.
In fact I was referring to Descarte, and his proposition that I can not infer the universe directly only through my own senses, I can not experience the universe the way you do because I can not get inside your head. I have no guarantee that just because we both point at a colour and say it's red, we both see the same thing.
Each of us is our own universe.
(I'm probably not making complete sense here but what's different there).
Very true, personal experience is subjective, due to the practical limitations you point out... What I'm saying is that the "real" reality is far more than our own perceptions, and more importantly, our perceptions do not create the world around us. It was created before we were born, therefore it's contingent on us to interpret it as objectively as possible... like I always say, there's nothing more sacred than the truth.
Anyone want a peanut?
Answer me this please. Does the Mind exist in the Universe, or does the Universe exist in the Mind?
That is the difference between Realism/Materialism and Idealism.
What Descartes proved is there is no "out there". A reality independent of an Observer can Not be proved....it is an assumption only.
We do not really see with our eyes....we see with our mind. The same is true with all our senses. Sense input/data is transmitted to our mind...which then translates that input/data into what it believe/thinks that data should look like, sound like...etc. And there is no way anyone can prove that what their mind is perceiving it actually "out there" or if what they are perceiving has an independent existence external to their mind.
Idealism tells us it does not.
Realism/Materialism is a dead end....it cannot answer the Fundamental Question...."Why is there Something and not Nothing?" or Where did Thinkness come from. They will tell us the Big Bang, but cannot tell us what caused the Big Band. It cannot answer any of the fundamental questions.
Even Quantum Theory cannot give an answer to Origins.
I am an Idealist....a Skeptical Idealist actually.
I agree with Meekon5....no two minds see the very same Reality. We each view Reality from our own unique perspective...Reality is what we each perceive it is....what we each believe it is.
No two people exist in the very same Reality.
I need to quote Stanislaw Lem here from his story Solaris...."There are No Answers....only Choices."
I had come to that same conclusion back in 1999, and put that as the summation of my philosophy web site back then only to find that Professor Lem beat me to it by several years.
I'll say it again: these words and ideas we create from our pre-frontal cortex are just that: concepts and words. The universe as we know it existed before we were born, and will exist after we die. NASA, the Hubble telescope, every discipline of science all agree on the fundamentals of our physical environment, from micro to macro. Reality is not a construct of the mind. The mind perceives reality, though often in a flawed way.
Arguments/philosophy/opinions will cease to exist when you do. The earth will continue to circle the sun, as will our sun circle the milky way. If each individual created a different universe/reality, no two observations would agree. Not to rain on your parade, but that's the Achilles heel of that philosophy... There's what we *think* is real, then there's what *is* real.
Fuck, I need a beer...
Quote from: Hominid on October 29, 2013, 12:06:45 AM
...The universe as we know it existed before we were born, and will exist after we die...
I have a horrible feeling I am quoting Ayn Rand but:
"When I die, my universe dies with me"
(Actually Ayn Rand
"I will not die, it's the world that will end." (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/309519-i-will-not-die-it-s-the-world-that-will-end))
And the beautiful thing is that, from my viewpoint, nobody is wrong or right in this discussion. There is definitely value in debating facts, perspective, experience universes, and all. It helps us defend and reevaluate some potentially uptight thinking we may have had, to limber up the mind. But as a post-modern thinker, I do believe that there is no such thing as the capital "T" Truth. There are truths that are subjective to some extent and influenced by psycho-social-biological- spiritual elements of this big ramblin' thing we call life, and the human condition. I definitely disagree with the Modernist statement ...
QuoteDifferent "truths" cannot coexist; we all live in the same place.
... but would never fault anyone for having it, and would never be so cocky to think I had to prove it wrong. I can speak to my perspective and then sit back and have a laugh, possibly with a whiskey or an oat soda. Now that is a real debate.
One thing though I feel like I should address is the idea that ...
Quoteit's contingent on us to interpret it as objectively as possible
The beauty of thought and dialogue is really embracing our subjectivity. We are humans and supposed to be flawed, and that is where the laughter comes from. The excitement. And yes, maybe some shittiness. Striving for objectivity all the time denies this, and really doesn't sound like much fun in my lowly opinion.
Quote from: Rev Paddy Cakes on October 29, 2013, 10:36:40 AM
I definitely disagree with the Modernist statement ...
QuoteDifferent "truths" cannot coexist; we all live in the same place.
... but would never fault anyone for having it, and would never be so cocky to think I had to prove it wrong.
If what you guys mean by "different realities" and "different truths" is different interpretations, that's cool. But if you're saying that in your universe, 2 + 2 can be equal to 5, and the moon is made of cheese, then that flies in the face of physics and logic. Incontrovertible and fundamental truths - sorry - FACTS - do exist. Saying that the moon is made of both cheese and rock at the same time is fundamentally illogical. To say that both can co-exist requires a philosophical dance that only higher functioning beings utilizing abstract thought can perform. Otherwise, things are they way they are. The moon is made of rock, 2 + 2 =4, etc.
See, isn't this fun?!
According to one language, one way of thinking, I completely agree with the statement ...
QuoteIncontrovertible and fundamental truths - sorry - FACTS - do exist.
The beauty of being human is that we can
imagine other worlds where the moon is in fact made of cheese, and 2 + 2 = 5, and how much fun that would be. Or maybe, the moon could be made of spare ribs. Would you eat it? And we can imagine a young child being told the moon is made of cheese and believing it whole-heartedly until they pick up an Astrology book, told they are wrong, and know that it is made of rock. It's a fact. They could even go to the moon some day and pick up a rock and chuck it at a fellow astronaut just for fun. No, just me?
The argument I am making is there is different ways of knowing things. A flag is made of different coloured threads but when put together it
means something to people. They may hate it, love it, or light it on fire. It is more than the sum of its parts. And there are more ways than one to look at it.
My argument may sound stupid, because even though the child may have once considered the moon to be made of cheese, it
never was. It was always rock. But I do not think that is the be-all and end-all of knowing. Creativity and imagination allow us to play with the facts and constants of this world, and know, represent, and experience things in an infinite amount of ways. That's why life is so much fun, is it not?
While I enjoy this conversation, I am honor bound to point out that you never, ever prove anything through a lack of evidence. The most conclusive response to such a situation is in regards to its likelihood.
This can be applied to any major religion, just as it can be applied to any philosophical ideal. Descartes did not prove anything philosophically; he logically extended an argument.
The only way to prove something exists is empirically
empirical observation is subjective
I cannot prove anything, other than I experience.
I experience, therefore, I exist.
This is a formal argument, and is true ONLY if the premises are true. If, for example, I can prove something exists theoretically or if I can prove empirical observation can be objective, then "I cannot prove anything" fails to be true. Descartes, in fact, went on to inductively prove God. So that wasn't great.
If for example, we can determine what an individual sees by scanning their brain (not far off), it takes a good deal of subjectivity out of empiricism. We can still argue about the abstract relationship between brain and our concepts...whether you are seeing a real cat, or what others have identified for you (and what you self identify) as a cat.
To argue that a religion or a religious point of view is fake because of a lack of evidence is scientifically incorrect, and in fact the best we can say in such situations is "Well, that's your opinion, man."
I'm not talking about some god or another making a woman out of a rib. I'm talking about, as another Dude said with less words, proving the negative.
Carl Sagan had the right idea...once you start dealing with religion, which is a set of beliefs that could be true at one point in time or space, it becomes too difficult to prove or disprove to be a question of fact without being able to actually observe or measure every point in space.
This has gone in the silly direction that these discussions seem to always do.
IMO the belief in a god is pretty much always as a creator or at least as some sort of literal agent in the tangible universe and that is a specific claim.
But inevitably the discussion goes the "inner universes" and personal realities and in the process the whole of reality is dragged along for the ride as in the "the mind in the universe or the universe in the mind".
We've all seen this a million times. The reality is that most people believe in a god who hears prayers and cares if you are gay or not.
But once a serious discussion starts it's nothing to hear the discussion be about astrophysics and Descartes and any number of the typical litany of dodges that Theist apologists have in their bag of nonsense.
Non of that has anything to do with the bulk of belief that today constitutes real faith. That is faith and beliefs that influences people's actions.
The rest of it doesn't add up to a gnat fart. IMO.
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.
Quote from: cckeiser on October 28, 2013, 11:23:23 PM
Answer me this please. Does the Mind exist in the Universe, or does the Universe exist in the Mind?
That is the difference between Realism/Materialism and Idealism.
What Descartes proved is there is no "out there". A reality independent of an Observer can Not be proved....it is an assumption only.
We do not really see with our eyes....we see with our mind. The same is true with all our senses. Sense input/data is transmitted to our mind...which then translates that input/data into what it believe/thinks that data should look like, sound like...etc. And there is no way anyone can prove that what their mind is perceiving it actually "out there" or if what they are perceiving has an independent existence external to their mind.
Idealism tells us it does not.
Realism/Materialism is a dead end....it cannot answer the Fundamental Question...."Why is there Something and not Nothing?" or Where did Thinkness come from. They will tell us the Big Bang, but cannot tell us what caused the Big Band. It cannot answer any of the fundamental questions.
Even Quantum Theory cannot give an answer to Origins.
I am an Idealist....a Skeptical Idealist actually.
I agree with Meekon5....no two minds see the very same Reality. We each view Reality from our own unique perspective...Reality is what we each perceive it is....what we each believe it is.
No two people exist in the very same Reality.
I need to quote Stanislaw Lem here from his story Solaris...."There are No Answers....only Choices."
I had come to that same conclusion back in 1999, and put that as the summation of my philosophy web site back then only to find that Professor Lem beat me to it by several years.
What is your point?
This sort of annihilation is possible with everything. It serves no end.
We know what we know and if a person is intent on rendering that moot with the typical infinite regression then it simple is pointless.
At best it creates something unanswerable where people insist (either literally or through implication) to inject God or something else that they will contend is bolstered by nothing more than the very unanswerable question that they insist on creating.
In my opinion the world would be better off if people just learned to say "I don't know". That is in FACT the only true thing that can be said about these sort of fanciful exercises. We really just don't know. And a lot of things that can't be known. But that does not make knowing less important. Knowing in the typical 'ie' provable sense. Which in my opinion is the only actual knowing.
Quote from: DudePatrick on October 29, 2013, 03:37:19 PM
Evidence proves or disproves.
A lack of evidence does neither.
Exactly!
A lack of evidence does not even suggest anything.
Quote from: DudePatrick on October 29, 2013, 03:37:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Hominid on October 29, 2013, 03:46:06 PM
Quote from: DudePatrick on October 29, 2013, 03:37:19 PM
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
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 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.
Quote from: Rev Paddy Cakes on October 29, 2013, 04:11:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Rev Paddy Cakes on October 29, 2013, 04:11:23 PM
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.
Quote
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.
QuoteA 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!
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
Quote from: Rev Paddy Cakes on October 29, 2013, 04:32:59 PM
QuoteA 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.
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. ;-)
my horoscope specifically told me to avoid any philosophical discussions today! 8)
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.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm)
http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page5.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 (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! ;D
Quote
"The Moon does Not exist if we are not looking!"
http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm (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=QORg1u2Hbqk)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WA76VTq3O8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WA76VTq3O8)
Quote
http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page5.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.
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.
What DB said...
Quoteyou'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 ;)
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.
Quote from: DudePatrick on October 29, 2013, 04:07:43 PM
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.
It is based on math and logic. Neither of those are empirical. The whole issue of dark matter and the expansion of the universe are only answerable by mathematical speculation, and not the good kind. Physicists don't really like the "oh well, there must be all this dark matter we can't detect" answer. And like religion, it fills an observed gap. It may be vastly more logical, but it is still in function mathematical speculation. At quantum levels, math starts to break down and you are back to an obtuse form of empirical speculation.
In fact this conversation has shown me one thing - you are not interested in synthesis, you are interested in expounding why you hate religion and not in an actual discussion. Looking through your posts proves that, and that is empirically proven. I can get enough of that in high school, and so I am, as they say, out.
Good day, sir.
Quote from: DudePatrick on October 30, 2013, 09:38:02 AM
It is based on math and logic. Neither of those are empirical. The whole issue of dark matter and the expansion of the universe are only answerable by mathematical speculation, and not the good kind. Physicists don't really like the "oh well, there must be all this dark matter we can't detect" answer. And like religion, it fills an observed gap. It may be vastly more logical, but it is still in function mathematical speculation. At quantum levels, math starts to break down and you are back to an obtuse form of empirical speculation.
In fact this conversation has shown me one thing - you are not interested in synthesis, you are interested in expounding why you hate religion and not in an actual discussion. Looking through your posts proves that, and that is empirically proven. I can get enough of that in high school, and so I am, as they say, out.
Good day, sir.
I think what BikerDude is trying say is (and please correct me if I totally misinterpreted BikerDude) that these kinds of discussions, when they go on for too long, become sort of... maybe not pointless, but rather futile in their efforts.
The reason being there is no way to know whether these "truths" (in this case, Christianity) are, in fact, true. There's also no way to prove them wrong because, as we all know, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
I think this discussion has become more of a criticism on this type of discussion as opposed to religion. So I hope you're not offended DudePatrick. Your opinion is respected.
Quotethe absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
A unique way to put it. Yet again, I'll take it one step further by stating that extraordinary claims (of religion) require extraordinary evidence.
BD is taking it even one more step further and being quite pragmatic, by stating that it's the effect(s) of believing in sky people that we should worry about, not its roots. It permeates society, politics, and ultimately our behaviour towards each other, both as individuals, but more importantly, countries. Religion is the basis for most strife and contention, just look at 9-11.
Good way to put it, BrotherShamus.
In the end of the day these arguments do become futile. It's a touchy topic, but the farther we go, the harder it becomes to avoid. People start questioning what they are told instead of believeing it from the get-go.
I'm not saying everyone will become an atheist, but people who come to a certain religion by their own choice and conclusions made based on certain knowledge will be both less fanatical and less aggressive about the subject.
I only started the topic because I have had a pet theory that Christianity was used by the Romans to control Europe after the "Roman" empire declined (witness the fact that the Vatican is on the site of Nero's palace).
As usual (herding cats with an electric cattle prod) the conversation seems to have diverged into speculations about the very nature of reality and whether it's an absolute or not.
here i think we may just have to accept that there are some amongst us that have a very firmly held belief in one point of view or another.
I much like some others here come to the group with a Taoist Buddhist background, I also branch into Paganism (this would take quite a bit of explaining).
I have at moments of meditation experienced the drawing back of the veil (however you wish to call it) and reached a point of relative understanding, in a spiritual sense.
I then decided rather than getting me away to a monastery, to remain in the "real" world.
For those of you that are materialists (of which I am if you look at the contents of my house), this is all there is and that's it.
It is physical, measurable, quantifiable.
I am a poet, a philosopher, and and artist, for a living I work in ICT, I attempt to be the Renaissance Man that all of us would like to be.
You would be surprised how superstitious ICT people can be. like not ever saying anything is
"easy" or will "just" take a couple of minutes, i could go on with examples.
Also why do men name their cars/bikes if all they are is metal and wood and fabric?
There will always come a point in this type of discussion (what this thread has become) where the "realists" and the "non-realists" just end up banging their heads against each others to no avail.
To end this I have always said, the logical, realist, scientist, looks at a rainbow and see quite pretty diffraction of sunlight through water. The spiritualist, non-realist, see's Bifrost (the bridge between Asgard and Midgard), Jehovah's promise not to do that again (the flood), or the potential to go and try and find a pot of gold.
Delusional I may be, but too often have I had conversations with Gods, and Daemons, Devils and Angels, Spirits and Sprites. No matter how hard you shout at me I am wrong, no matter how hard you try to beat it into me that I am confused, reality continues to morph and change around me, and only continues to prove my point of view to me.
I now wish to draw a line before it ends in blows (or people spitting the dummy and leaving the forum under a cloud) and say we can only agree to disagree.
If it makes you happy all of this is real, on the other hand if it makes you happy all of this is not real.
As always this is all only IMHDO.
Lets get a lane and a beer.
Well said, M5 dude!
8)(http://www.jonathandoctor.net/images/facebook_like_button_big-small.jpg)
Ah, fuck it! 8)
Looks like we need to up the spam security...