|
Pseudointellectualism at its best.
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Oh god, he's caught whatever it is that makes Brandor and Eripsa post the way they do. It's spreading! Drugs?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:I dont think Im playing word games. the god, word, logos, knowledge things is in the bible. Of course if your not into the bible and the history of religion which is basically the history of mankind then yeah. its all word games. but if theres any part of the bible worth talking about then I believe that's part of it. I mean, if the bible is directing mankind to develop morally and technologically then that really changes the discourse between Christians and secular people. You're playing word games between words in different languages, it's literal nonsense. You're reading passages translated into English, and then taking select Greek words like logos and treating them like proper nouns that have special meaning, because they are written in a different language and mean nothing in English. You said that the Egyptian sun cult was related to the Jesus cult because sun god sounds like son (of) god. Do you think sun and son are homophones in Egyptian, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek? You don't need to be a linguistics expert to appreciate religious history, but if you're going to create elaborate theories based on linguistics, you should probably have at least a vanishingly small understanding of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Prism posted:Drugs? While at first glance massive bong hits do seem to play a part, there's a consistency and determination present in each of their forms of badposting that you generally don't get from burnouts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:Im sure gods benevolence isn't entirely determined by whether people are happy but its a good starting point. But I think if you traveled the world and asked them if their more happy or more unhappy. Whether they would rather not exist(even if evolution prevents them from committing suicide). I would wager that youd find an overwhelming happy response. Go to the DPRK, or Palestine, or the slums and China and ask those people how happy they are. Ask the sweatshop workers in India and South America how great the progress that you enjoy is. Fly down to any of the many war-torn nations in Africa and inquire what it's like living a day sitting between numerous competing warlords. gently caress, head into Detroit and ask one of the many homeless people how they feel. It's not just some unheard of tribe in the middle of the Amazon, there is still misery over a majority of the world and just because people don't want to actively kill themselves doesn't mean they're happy. You have an incredibly naive view of the world, my friend. And please, my posts drip with disdain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:so angry... I'm not angry, it doesn't take anger to tell a bullshitter. quote:he might think Im a bullshitter. But when I think about how people lived 2000 years ago, how many people were at that level of suffering, poverty, hunger. And then I think about how high the average has risen Im quite optimistic. Also Im not sure you and I really understand how badly people lived back then. Ive seen movies of what poor people in the middle east used to lived like. And Im not convinced they are catching the full poverty, filth, suffering involved. You think people live better now? Please explain to me how a refugee from the Syrian civil war has it better than a slave from 2000 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:Its not possible to demonstrate those things. the closest I can come to demonstrating that is IF god exists then presumably we are his creations. Well that's great, so you don't have anything apart from those vague 'ifs'? In the grown-up world, you file those under 'stupid crap no one should waste time on'. To be honest, I can't even see how would you demonstrate we are god's creations if we assume it exists. Please try. logosanatic posted:And if that's his doing then great. If your happy then IF god exists then he is benevolent. Hey guys, if god's real then god's real, checkmate athetits
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
grate deceiver posted:Hey guys, if god's real then god's real, checkmate athetits He isn't even clear on his definition of 'God', he just throws word salad around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:You're playing word games between words in different languages, it's literal nonsense. You're reading passages translated into English, and then taking select Greek words like logos and treating them like proper nouns that have special meaning, because they are written in a different language and mean nothing in English. Im taking the words directly out of Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos It says right there how logs, or the word was used in Christianity and Judaism. As far as I can tell it very clearly says god = knowledge = logos there are tons of Egypt jesus connections. The book Christ in Egypt by D.M. Murdock is 500 pages of Egypt, Christian connections.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:Im taking the words directly out of Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos It says right there how logs, or the word was used in Christianity and Judaism. As far as I can tell it very clearly says god = knowledge = logos Logos is the ideals that support an argument, but you've provided zero supporting ideals to your argument, and depended mostly upon a word salad of pseudointellectual word salad and trying to appeal to topics that you yourself have admitted you don't even understand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:You said that the Egyptian sun cult was related to the Jesus cult because sun god sounds like son (of) god. Do you think sun and son are homophones in Egyptian, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek? You don't need to be a linguistics expert to appreciate religious history, but if you're going to create elaborate theories based on linguistics, you should probably have at least a vanishingly small understanding of it. The idea that Judaism was inspired by Akhenaton seems hard to prove but does make a certain amount of sense. As for the question of increasing material suffering, while we have a long, long way to go it seems like we have the tools we need to make it so that everyone on Earth has a reasonably comfortable and secure existence; while this would probably be more spartan than we have in the West if evenly distributed, it wouldn't necessarily be a "lack" of anything vital. We eradicated smallpox and are a good push away from eradicating polio. If society collapsed tomorrow and nobody released the smallpox samples at those labs, there would just not be smallpox any more... hardly trivial I'd say. Small fruit for our pretentiousness, perhaps, but fruit nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Logos is the ideals that support an argument, but you've provided zero supporting ideals to your argument, and depended mostly upon a word salad of pseudointellectual word salad and trying to appeal to topics that you yourself have admitted you don't even understand. from wiki quote:Logos is an important term in philosophy, psychology, rhetoric, and religion. Originally a word meaning "a ground", "a plea", "an opinion", "an expectation", "word", "speech", "account", "to reason"[1][2] it became a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge order and knowledge quote:Logos in Hellenistic Judaism[edit] word creating heaven bond holding all things together word creating the universe quote:Christianity[edit] logos = word god = logos god = word putting it all together Im seeing god = the word = logos = knowledge/reason
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:from wiki Here's the problem though: while words can have multiple meanings they do not have simultaneous meanings*. *generally, but this is not one of the exceptions
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think that's a line from Zeitgeist actually. theres a dry, boring book showing 500 pages of connections between Christianity, jesus, god, mary, john Baptist and Egyptian culture Christ in Egypt by DM Murdock CommieGIR posted:He isn't even clear on his definition of 'God', he just throws word salad around. Im trying to be clear about "my" definition of god. God is the word the word is logos logos is knowledge logos is creation of universe God is knowledge. hes the physics behind the universe. the basis for the big bang
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Here's the problem though: while words can have multiple meanings they do not have simultaneous meanings*. Im taking the meanings directly out of jewish and Christian sources. So the meaning Im using is the one used by the bible
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:Im taking the meanings directly out of jewish and Christian sources. So the meaning Im using is the one used by the bible Except what you are trying to imply is outside of the Jewish and Christian sources intended meaning. Once again: You think you sound intellectual, but in reality you just throw words together and make implications beyond the scope of the words intended meaning. Someone else is really good at that too! http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
grate deceiver posted:Well that's great, so you don't have anything apart from those vague 'ifs'? In the grown-up world, you file those under 'stupid crap no one should waste time on'. To be honest, I can't even see how would you demonstrate we are god's creations if we assume it exists. Please try. when it comes to religion there is no concrete anything. We all know that. In the grown up world you file those under stupid crap no one should waste time on? Except 80% of of adults on the planet waste time on it. There are some adults that dismiss religion completely and Im ok with that. If it doesn't pique your curiosity then that's fine your the 20%. Ive given my reasons why the idea of god interests me. That was the human brain, mankinds trajectory morally/technologically. The bibles focus on love/knowledge matches with the human trajectory of morals/technology. The fact religion covers the planet and encompasses 80% of human life. that a god is more interesting to me as pre big bang than nothing pre big bang I think that's all I got logosanatic fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Jan 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:The fact religion covers the planet and encompasses 80% of human life. At one point or another, 80% of people likely thought that disease was caused by 'bad air'. So, the majority does not make something valid or 'real' Also: Nobody thinks that there was nothing before the Big Bang, there's a lot of hypothesis, but is far far safer to say we don't know existed before the big bang.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:Im taking the meanings directly out of jewish and Christian sources. So the meaning Im using is the one used by the bible The definition of logos as god, sure, but the definition of logos as knowledge is wholly separate and not a simultaneous definition. When it's used it is used to mean one or the other. You're making false equivalencies, which is a fallacy. e2: False equivalence isn't the best term, I believe, but you're still erroneously trying to say a word has two different meanings from two different sources at the same time which is a fallacious argument. -EDIT- logosanatic posted:when it comes to religion there is no concrete anything. We all know that. In the grown up world you file those under stupid crap no one should waste time on? Except 80% of of adults on the planet waste time on it. There are some adults that dismiss religion completely and Im ok with that. If it doesn't pique your curiosity then that's fine your the 20%. Appeal to popularity. Also a fallacy. logosanatic posted:Ive given my reasons why the idea of god interests me. That was the human brain, mankinds trajectory morally/technologically. The bibles focus on love/knowledge matches with the human trajectory of morals/technology. The bible also focuses on murder, conquering of peoples, and that slavery is good and just. Jesus himself even tells slaves to obey their masters, which is grossly immoral. logosanatic posted:that a god is more interesting to me as pre big bang than nothing pre big bang There is no "pre" big bang, and such a concept in nonsensical. you've been told this half a dozen times now. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Jan 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Except what you are trying to imply is outside of the Jewish and Christian sources intended meaning. its directly inside the jewish/Christian sources meaning. Its very clear, precise that god = word word created heaven and universe word = logos so the only thing left was to read what logos means and it means 2 things as far as I can tell logos = a way of philosophy logos = knowledge of those 2. God = philosophy and philosophy created the universe doesn't work for me as well as. God = knowledge, knowledge created the universe. All that aside. What different things mean in Christianity change constantly. That's how we go from ancient Judaism to jesus changing everything to catholic church trinity to 1000 forms of Christianity drinking snake venom and muslim faith. Jehovahs witnesses read the words in the bible and dissect their meaning to a high degree. Im continuing that tradition. here is another angle. If we pretend that the bible was inspired by god. Then it HAS to mean different things to primitive man than it does to modern man. It has to have the ability to morph from understandable to cavemen to understandable and useful to modern man. For example. The genesis story, primitive man had no ability to understand evolution. But when I read the genesis story Im seeing the big bang and evolution. Darknes to light to formation of planets to oceans to plants to land animals and man. Same story different meaning to primitive man and modern man. Same deal with god/logos/word/knowledge. Im reading it different than primitive man with a more technology, moral knowledge angle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:its directly inside the jewish/Christian sources meaning. Its very clear, precise that Keep streeeeeeetttccchinggggg. logosanatic posted:its directly inside the jewish/Christian sources meaning. Its very clear, precise that Equivocation fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The definition of logos as god, sure, but the definition of logos as knowledge is wholly separate and not a simultaneous definition. When it's used it is used to mean one or the other. You're making false equivalencies, which is a fallacy. jews and Christians got the word logos from somewhere. they didn't create the word, it was borrowed. What did they mean when they said logos? they obviously said god is logos. What did logos mean to them? their trying to say god = something (logos) so then we have to look what does logos mean. So what does it mean to you and what did it mean to them? why are you so certain there was no pre big bang? Scientists dont know what was pre big bang but your confidentally asserting that there was nothing. What do you know that they dont? My brain doesn't understand nothing existing and then matter is created comes into existence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
My question is why you're assuming that Jewish and Christian sources and theories on the nature of God are necessarily going to be the correct ones. I mean if nothing else you should at least go look at the Muslims too. I hear they have religions in Eastern Asia as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:why are you so certain there was no pre big bang? Scientists dont know what was pre big bang but your confidentally asserting that there was nothing. What do you know that they dont? My brain doesn't understand nothing existing and then matter is created comes into existence. Look, just stop trying to put meaning into things that you already acknowledge you know nothing about. logosanatic posted:jews and Christians got the word logos from somewhere. they didn't create the word, it was borrowed. What did they mean when they said logos? they obviously said god is logos. What did logos mean to them? their trying to say god = something (logos) so then we have to look what does logos mean. So what does it mean to you and what did it mean to them? Self-importance in their own beliefs, they no doubt adopted the word to emphasize their perceived value in their own religion and God. Either way, not the meaning you are trying to imply.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:At one point or another, 80% of people likely thought that disease was caused by 'bad air'. So, the majority does not make something valid or 'real' agreed the majority doesn't make something valid or real. But the majority opinion does actually have a statistical track record of picking the right answer even if it does get it wrong sometimes. its just on my list as one reason why the religious thing interests me. And on a topic where concrete reasoning is few and far between I'll take that one it is safe to say theres no god(no evidence) and nothing before the big bang(no knowledge). but its far more interesting to have something rather than nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:agreed the majority doesn't make something valid or real. But the majority opinion does actually have a statistical track record of picking the right answer even if it does get it wrong sometimes. its just on my list as one reason why the religious thing interests me. And on a topic where concrete reasoning is few and far between I'll take that one  Its far more interesting to make poo poo up than accept the cold reality and just saying 'We don't know' logosanatic posted:But the majority opinion does actually have a statistical track record of picking the right answer even if it does get it wrong sometimes. No, it doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Look, just stop trying to put meaning into things that you already acknowledge you know nothing about. I dont have to know what was pre big bang. Im curious why someone would be so confident there was nothing pre big bang. And then get huffy that I wouldn't accept that so what meaning were they going for. You said they picked the word to add value. What value did logos have to them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:I dont have to know what was pre big bang. Im curious why someone would be so confident there was nothing pre big bang. And then get huffy that I wouldn't accept that We are confident we don't know. That's it. logosanatic posted:so what meaning were they going for. You said they picked the word to add value. What value did logos have to them? They picked the word to emphasize the 'importance' of their god over all others. It doesn't mean they felt their god was knowledge, it mean't that knowledge of their god was all that mattered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
I gave my reasons why I prefer something rather than nothing. You didn't like the reasons but those are them group wisdom matters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:I gave my reasons why I prefer something rather than nothing. You didn't like the reasons but those are them quote:The idea of "the wisdom of the crowd" does not hold where the the knowledge is poorly defined. An exact outcome, such as the "number of beans in a jar" discussed above, is very well defined, but the results of the lottery (which Derren Brown cheekily tried to claim he predicted using the "wisdom of the crowd" method) isn't, and thus isn't subject to the method. Similarly, the Who Wants to be a Millionaire scenario works because the questions are on general knowledge, there are limited options and enough of the population will be expected to know the right answer. If the answer was more open-ended, subjective or far fewer individuals would be expected to know the right answer - so few that their contribution would be statistically significant - then the system would fail. The whole wisdom of crowds, therefore, falls short when the "crowd" in question is subject to groupthink or other biases, in including a lack of specialist knowledge. Its a neat idea, but it doesn't mean anything, especially not what you are implying. Also: Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Jan 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:But when I read the genesis story Im seeing the big bang and evolution. Darknes to light to formation of planets to oceans to plants to land animals and man. You do realize that both of the contradictory genesis accounts lists the order of creation in impossible orders so if you see the Big Bang and evolution in there you clearly don't understand either of them. And going by your other posts that does seem to be the case. logosanatic posted:jews and Christians got the word logos from somewhere. they didn't create the word, it was borrowed. What did they mean when they said logos? they obviously said god is logos. What did logos mean to them? their trying to say god = something (logos) so then we have to look what does logos mean. So what does it mean to you and what did it mean to them? The problem isn't the definitions, it's that you're trying to apply multiple definitions simultaneously. logosanatic posted:why are you so certain there was no pre big bang? Scientists dont know what was pre big bang but your confidentally asserting that there was nothing. What do you know that they dont? My brain doesn't understand nothing existing and then matter is created comes into existence. I, and all other scientists, are sure there is no pre-big bang because you cannot have something occur prior to time existing. We also don't know that matter was created and all the evidence points out that it cannot be, so saying that at some point there was nothing also doesn't make sense. So the reason you can understand there being nothing prior to the Big Bang is because it's doubly illogical. It's like asking "who's taller than the tallest man", by definition no one can be taller than the tallest man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:I dont have to know what was pre big bang. Im curious why someone would be so confident there was nothing pre big bang. Literally no-one is claiming this. ...why am I feeding this obvious troll?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:We are confident we don't know. That's it. who what now is confident there was nothing. Not that we dont know. he even got huffy about me not accepting nothing existed as the obvious answer Im willing to accept that jews said god= logos = knowledge of god. What are you basing that on? Because god = knowledge is more direct than god = knowledge of god
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
You've got this really werid notion that the world is significantly better nowadays just because the population has expanded sufficiently for you to be able to live in a society which contains more people than you could possibly hope to meet, and which is extremely well insulated from all the people who actually have lovely lives, thus causing you to believe that the entire world is actually really good. There are unfathomably vast numbers of people in the world whose lives are really rather lovely, you just never have to interact with them because you live in the modern day equivalent of the most wealthy sections of imperial Rome. Only nowadays it's whole countries and sections of society numbering in the millions, rather than a small section of a city. Mostly I would say that the main change over the past couple of thousand years is greater disparity of resources, rather than greater availability in general.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:agreed the majority doesn't make something valid or real. But the majority opinion does actually have a statistical track record of picking the right answer even if it does get it wrong sometimes. [citation needed]
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:Literally no-one is claiming this. literally, who what now claimed that the accepted obvious answer is that nothing existed pre big bang. I have no idea why your involved in the discussion. Do some soul searching.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:[citation needed] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You've got this really werid notion that the world is significantly better nowadays just because the population has expanded sufficiently for you to be able to live in a society which contains more people than you could possibly hope to meet, and which is extremely well insulated from all the people who actually have lovely lives, thus causing you to believe that the entire world is actually really good. disagree. On average the standard of living has improved. Measured by things such as access to clean water, food, clothes, shelter, less disease etc
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:who what now is confident there was nothing. Not that we dont know. he even got huffy about me not accepting nothing existed as the obvious answer No, I'm not confident there was nothing, I'm confident that the question is not valid to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
Not really? People not in first world nations still frequently have problems with all of those things. Hell a lot of people who are in first world nations don't have very good access to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:39
|
|