|
vessbot posted:He would obviously have to have something like our nervous system (oh yeah, and Y chromosome) if he has emotions, reactions, intentions, and speech acts like the ones produced by ours. But in "necessary" form instead of physical I am laughing at your robot brain.
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
Miltank posted:Mankind being made in God's image is widely (if not universally) understood to refer to something like sentience or self perception. It's so tiring to see you keep saying what the universal Christian position is while excluding that silly, fringe minority of y'know 1/3 of Americans who believe fervently otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Even they will tell you God doesn't have a human body with a nervous system and poo poo. It's basically only believed by Seth McFarland atheists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I am laughing at your robot brain. Where do you think my argument is flawed? Please be specific.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Where do you think my argument is flawed? Please be specific. It is the flaw of autism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
So you're full of poo poo, understood.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Beliefs are beliefs. We do lovely things with them (or alternately they use us to do lovely things). Christianity has a hell of a a lot to say about this. Some of Jesus' metaphors seem to indicate a rather strong opinion about it too. There is also the whole cross thing, Openly anti-theistic people still do the lovely things they blame on religion. Beliefs are beliefs. This is an appropriate thread to point that out in. An absence of religion doesn't remove the problem. We are all brothers and sisters. Still the best response to the problem. But the reaction to people who genuinely live that, it hasn't changed either. The story of the life and death of Jesus and what he had to say still matters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
vessbot posted:He would obviously have to have something like our nervous system (oh yeah, and Y chromosome) if he has emotions, reactions, intentions, and speech acts like the ones produced by ours. But in "necessary" form instead of physical Thank you for being direct. That is an interpretation I just now heard the first time ever. I've never come across a church that teaches that the "created in the image of God" means anything like that. I have no doubt there might be individual people who think so but I've not ran into any of those either. I'm confused about why you are arguing as if that interpretation was shared by a significant portion of Christians. For clarity, usually "image of God" has to do with stuff like sanctity of life, having a connection with God, being created for eternity and having a consciousness. It's not about what God is like but about the relationship between Man and the rest of the Creation. edit for Wikipedia: quote:Interpretation Valiantman fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Miltank posted:It is the flaw of autism. Am I the only one who is getting really tired of seeing this get tossed around as a casual slur? The worst part about it isn't the insensitivity, but how it's used as an easy argument-ender. "What, you value inductive reasoning, spirituality or other intangibles less than I do? Clearly you have a broken brain and are simply incapable of understanding my deep wisdom."
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Am I the only one who is getting really tired of seeing this get tossed around as a casual slur? The worst part about it isn't the insensitivity, but how it's used as an easy argument-ender. "What, you value inductive reasoning, spirituality or other intangibles less than I do? Clearly you have a broken brain and are simply incapable of understanding my deep wisdom." Kinda like folks that preach faith, eh?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Valiantman posted:Thank you for being direct. That is an interpretation I just now heard the first time ever. I've never come across a church that teaches that the "created in the image of God" means anything like that. I have no doubt there might be individual people who think so but I've not ran into any of those either. I'm confused about why you are arguing as if that interpretation was shared by a significant portion of Christians. I'm not saying that any church teaches that or any believer believes it. I'm saying that the belief logically entails it. Does it not?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
vessbot posted:So you're full of poo poo, understood. He is sooooo full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
vessbot posted:I'm not saying that any church teaches that or any believer believes it. I'm saying that the belief logically entails it. Does it not? If no one believes it, why argue against it (or use it as a part of your argument)? That belief might appear logical for you but apparently that isn't the case for pretty much anyone else. You assumed it's a traditional Christian view but it really isn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Valiantman posted:For clarity, usually "image of God" has to do with stuff like sanctity of life, having a connection with God, being created for eternity and having a consciousness. It's not about what God is like but about the relationship between Man and the rest of the Creation. Can't ignore that it also has something to do with Jesus as archetype for humanity. You are right that It is about about humanity and the rest of creation, but It is definitely about what God is like. But not the Father. It's about the Son. Look at what you quoted , this part specifically: "The desire to repair the Imago Dei in one's life can be seen as a quest for a wholeness, or one's "essential" self, as described and exemplified in Christ's life and teachings." It's about the essential nature of each of us, and it asserts that the example of Jesus is that essential nature. It's a really radical assertion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Can't ignore that it also has something to do with Jesus as archetype for humanity. You are right that It is about about humanity and the rest of creation, but It is definitely about what God is like. But not the Father. It's about the Son. Look at what you quoted , this part specifically: "The desire to repair the Imago Dei in one's life can be seen as a quest for a wholeness, or one's "essential" self, as described and exemplified in Christ's life and teachings." Sure, I accept that part of it. For simplicity's sake I didn't go there since I felt it isn't relevant to my point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
There is assertion about a shared essential fundamental reality that is being taken by the other side to be an assertion of same material existence. Eg. vessbot posted:Is God not supposed to be like a man? We were not "created in God's image?" He doesn't exhibit the properties of humans neurological make up like emotions, desires, planning, social communication, etc.?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Valiantman posted:If no one believes it, why argue against it (or use it as a part of your argument)? Because if it's false, and the Christian belief it's based on entails it, that belief is also false. Modus tollens. quote:That belief might appear logical for you but apparently that isn't the case for pretty much anyone else. You assumed it's a traditional Christian view but it really isn't. I didn't assume it's a traditional Christian view. I virtually said exactly that in my last post. ("I'm not saying that any church teaches that or any believer believes it.") For a rational discussion, that the entailment "might appear logical" or not, is of no consequence. But if one can demonstrate where the logic succeeds or fails, then we would have a sound argument. Could I just say that global warming doesn't appear logical for me and leave it at that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Sure can do: There are assertions about a shared essential fundamental reality that are being taken to be assertions solely about material existence. No, they do not logically entail what you think they do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Because if it's false, and the Christian belief it's based on entails it, that belief is also false. Modus tollens. The religious belief is that God created man to be like him, by having some qualities that imitate the "essence" of God. A thinking system doesn't need to be constructed of cells with phospholipid membranes and DNA and all of the other ways that biological life on Earth exists. If you copy a music recording from wax cylinder, to vinyl record, to magnetic tape, to CD, to .mp3, you are reproducing the musical essence without an exact duplicate of the physical medium. I'm an atheist and don't believe that God did any of those things, but it's both not what religious people believe, and not a logical necessity that God is a biological being made of carbon, with 46-48 chromosomes. Even if it was, the physical media that allow God to do what he does have no bearing on God's moral, intellectual, or spiritual nature, so it's doubly irrelevant. It's a strawman distraction, not even really an argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Brandor this is my routine reminder that you should learn to speak English. There are fundamental problems with the way that you write that move beyond the stylistic.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Brandor this is my routine reminder that you should learn to speak English. There are fundamental problems with the way that you write that move beyond the stylistic. I quite liked this post: BrandorKP posted:Beliefs are beliefs. We do lovely things with them (or alternately they use us to do lovely things). Christianity has a hell of a a lot to say about this. Some of Jesus' metaphors seem to indicate a rather strong opinion about it too. There is also the whole cross thing, Though it's a bit wordy, I can trim it down a bit: BrandorKP posted:Tautology. Bad things happen. Christianity has opinions about bad things happening, so does Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:It's so tiring to see you keep saying what the universal Christian position is while excluding that silly, fringe minority of y'know 1/3 of Americans who believe fervently otherwise. Who cares what a third of yankees think about anything? Even if the world was the USA, that minority wouldn't be able to influence much policy if the other 2/3 were as smart and rational as they constantly assert they are. If you are politically/socially defeated by idiots, what does that say about you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Who cares what a third of yankees think about anything? Even if the world was the USA, that minority wouldn't be able to influence much policy if the other 2/3 were as smart and rational as they constantly assert they are. It says that the system is rigged in such a way as idiots have an inordinate amount of power and/or the intelligent people have ulterior motives from one another.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Have you tried
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Have you tried It has been studied, and its harder to get people to think abotu things vs identity politics. A study done showed that its intellectually easier to be authoritarian and jingoistic than it is to be thoughtful and rational. Its hard to talk about the historicity of Jesus when the believe doesn't know a lot of the history in the first place, only what they are socially ingrained to believe and trust regardless of evidence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Sure can do: Why not? Provide your reasoning. How can God exhibit emotions, reactions, intentions, and speech acts like the ones produced by our nervous system, without something significantly like it? Infinite Karma posted:It's a stupid argument because it assumes that "like" God or "in his image" means "physically constructed in a similar way." That's a poor analogy, because the elctro-chemical nature of the signalling of our nerve cells has profound effects on how the system functions and the type of data it can carry vs. a digital one like CD. But even if I grant it to you, the musical essence itself is an accident of evolutionary history. No ape brain, no ape God. quote:I'm an atheist and don't believe that God did any of those things, but it's both not what religious people believe, and not a logical necessity that God is a biological being made of carbon, with 46-48 chromosomes. Even if it was, the physical media that allow God to do what he does have no bearing on God's moral, intellectual, or spiritual nature, so it's doubly irrelevant. It's a strawman distraction, not even really an argument. I didn't say that it's a logical necessity that God is a biological being made of carbon. I said "like the ones produced by ours. But in "necessary" form instead of physical  "(^-- predicted theist response: lay it at my feet to explain what I mean by "necessary" as if I'm responsible for keeping the terms and distinctions clear, where I'm just acknowledging their own make-believe metaphysical rubric) And you don't know what a strawman is. A strawman argument is where one ascribes a position to someone that they do not hold, and then attacks it. I did no such thing. Emphatically and for the third time, I'm not saying that any church teaches that or any believer believes it. However, the position they do hold entails the one I posted, and you've failed to show why that entailment is invalid. Lastly, you crucially said "the physical media that allow God to do what he does have no bearing on God's moral, intellectual, or spiritual nature." Really? Do you think the physical media behind our neurology has no bearing on our moral or intellectual nature? That's absolutely wrong. Black Bones posted:Have you tried Who cares? Just stop calling a view actually held by a very significant number of people a "strawman." ( <-- this is regarding a different claim than the discussion above.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:38
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I quite liked this post: It's not that I think Brandor always writes incomprehensibly, but that only serves to make it more  when he does.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:It has been studied, and its harder to get people to think abotu things vs identity politics. A study done showed that its intellectually easier to be authoritarian and jingoistic than it is to be thoughtful and rational. Anything worth doing is hard. Knuckle down and get to work, thoughtful yanks! Or don't, it's possible a relative decline of your country might be good for the rest of us. vessbot posted:Who cares? Just stop calling a view actually held by a very significant number of people a "strawman." ( <-- this is regarding a different claim than the discussion above.) I don't believe I ever said that. I'm saying that a minority of Americans do not represent the international majority, of which I am a member. I concede they are overly influential in said country and possibly others, which is too bad and they should be opposed and fought against.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Anything worth doing is hard. Knuckle down and get to work, thoughtful yanks! Or don't, it's possible a relative decline of your country might be good for the rest of us. I am I am! I'm going to attend a meeting about education to combat the religious fundamentalists influencing the policy
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:It has been studied, and its harder to get people to think abotu things vs identity politics. A study done showed that its intellectually easier to be authoritarian and jingoistic than it is to be thoughtful and rational. Oh, were people discussing the historicity of Jesus? I thought it was a lot of back and forth navel gazing over ownership of the abolition movement and some guy thinking he was logical. Yeah, the historicity of Jesus would be an interesting discussion to have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Miltank posted:It is the flaw of autism. Being autistic myself, you are correct. I really do know other autistics who make the exact same argument he does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Yeah, I wasn't kidding. A preposterous attack at the rationality of what is already recognized as irrational with some pseudoscience thrown in to boot. The idea that since we are made in God's image then God must ~logically~ have a central nervous system is something that a broken computer would come with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 01:07
|
|
Miltank posted:Yeah, I wasn't kidding. A preposterous attack at the rationality of what is already recognized as irrational with some pseudoscience thrown in to boot. The idea that since we are made in God's image then God must ~logically~ have a central nervous system is something that a broken computer would come with. Yeah. I mean, medieval theology has more than adequately dealt with that idiotic level of objection, which is not to say I think it's correct.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Being autistic myself, you are correct. I really do know other autistics who make the exact same argument he does. But I thought all autistics were smug atheists, and vice versa? Nothing makes sense anymore!
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Yeah, I wasn't kidding. A preposterous attack at the rationality of what is already recognized as irrational with some pseudoscience thrown in to boot. The idea that since we are made in God's image then God must ~logically~ have a central nervous system is something that a broken computer would come with. Still waiting for an answer to the objection. Disinterested posted:Yeah. I mean, medieval theology has more than adequately dealt with that idiotic level of objection, which is not to say I think it's correct. Then it should be a snap for you to find a link with an answer (detailed or summary)... e: still trying to figure out why "robot" and "computer" are supposed to be insults in a setting dedicated to logical examination of arguments and not writing poetry or exchanging valentines? What do you think the standards of the "debate" in "debate and discussion" should be? vessbot fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Starving Autist posted:But I thought all autistics were smug atheists, and vice versa? Nothing makes sense anymore! I'm just an outlier. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Still waiting for an answer to the objection. vessbot posted:He would obviously have to have something like our nervous system (oh yeah, and Y chromosome) if he has emotions, reactions, intentions, and speech acts like the ones produced by ours. But in "necessary" form instead of physical The answer is "no." He doesn't need a central nervous system, that makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
If you wanted to go far back in time, while the Hebrew god definitely did not exist alone in a polytheistic cosmological system, he most assuredly was not conceived as having a body and attendant systems. I think he probably was a mountain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Miltank posted:The answer is "no." He doesn't need a central nervous system, that makes no sense. Then how can God exhibit emotions, reactions, intentions, and speech acts like the ones produced by our nervous system, without something significantly like it? Berke Negri posted:If you wanted to go far back in time, while the Hebrew god definitely did not exist alone in a polytheistic cosmological system, he most assuredly was not conceived as having a body and attendant systems. vessbot fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
I can't tell if you are under thinking it or over thinking it
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 02:18
|
|