|
Kyrie eleison posted:Here's the thing. If you have both heterosexual and homosexual tendencies, and you want a monogamous life partner, aren't you going to have to choose a gender? And, considering how important this choice will be on your life, shouldn't this be a rational choice, involving weighing the pros and cons? People generally chose to marry, you know, people, not just "someone of a given gender". They do this generally because of love and not the sense of duty you seem to assume motivates most actions. OP, what was your intention in starting this thread? Because the first post doesn't seem to designed to convince anyone of anything, especially that you weren't trolling (which would be fine if you were, this is the internet).
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The Scripture is irrelevant. Hmm. Yes. That sounds like an adherent to a religion. 1. Yeah, sure. 2. Religions are not as monolithic as you seem to believe, not are their tenents derived unambiguously from scripture. As someone who professes some form of Christianity, you must be aware of this. People in this thread aren't necessarily getting upset because you want to date white people, they are just somewhat confused as to why your ends in doing so appear to be "have a child that looks as much like me as possible". Are you truly that good-looking?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Putting KE's weird hangups and obvious trolling to one side for a moment, a serious question: How do afterlife-y types square the existence of a soul with brain damage and disease? What about the few occasions where someone has recovered from sever brain damage but lost a load of memories or suffered a severe personality change? Does some sort of integrated, optimised version of the guy get to go to heaven? Unrelatedly, if your God is timeless, how does he "think" in any meaningful sense? Thought is a process, yo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Right because language cannot escape the issue of universals. The "transcendental realm", the spiritual, is a fundamentally related to our use of symbols, ideas, and language and what we consider ideal. Unlike some other people in this thread, I am sufficiently versed in the pretentious to parse this sentence. And... nah, you don't need "universals". Words point to (possibly blurry edged) categories in your mind that are close enough to the ones in other people's that you're usually understood. You have roughly the same categories because you've got roughly the same brain as other people, live in the same world and spend a lot of time talking to other people who will correct you/ act confused if you're too far off.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Censorship is traditionally supported by the Church, in cases of obscenity or heresy. Also an essential Platonic idea, and by essential I mean he thought it was absolutely necessary that media and ideas be tightly controlled to encourage the strength of the nation-state. Anti-censorship is a modern liberal value, and it contributes more than anything else to cultural decline. Without reference to your religion, what is this "cultural decline" of which you speak? Most forms of violence are at or near historic lows (per capita) in most of the western world, arts and sciences are chugging along nicely, fewer children are dying, what more do you want?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is incompatible with Free Will. I hate to defend anything Kyri says, but this is fine. "Free will" never really meant much in the first place and having someone outside the system who can see all variables that you can't measure doesn't make it mean any less.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
To the various Christians and pseudochristian trolls in this thread: if you're going to go full Plato, does your God not end up being timeless and unchanging? If so, how can it think, or have opinions on whither dicks should go?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:God can't just see "all the variables" though, he can see the exact and only choices you will make in your life from birth to death and it is impossible to deviate from the 'choices' he knows you will make. A choice of only one option isn't a choice at all, and so there can be no free will. Well yeah, but that wouldn't affect the rest of us who aren't gods. We're still unpredictable as far as we're concerned. Yeah, it does seem a bit crazy for a guy to be looking at a still image of wavy lines and then getting annoyed because one of the lines "decided" to zig rather than zag. Especially if he drew the lines himself. (Also see my previous question about how he could "get" anything)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:We cannot know his motives, only that he loves us enough to have sent his Son for us, so that we might have eternal life. Sorry, that wasn't really my point. If god is unchanging, it doesn't think. So it's not really a person in any meaningful sense. Your god can't have opinions, nor motives, it can't become angry or disappointed. It's an inert slab with some rules engraved on it; you might argue that they are the right rules, but the slab can hardly be said to have an opinion on this (or any other) matter.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Oh sure, we appear to have free will but do not have it in actuality. I'm not really sure what "having it in actuality" would even look like. Can someone explain how "free will" is a meaningful concept in any conceivable universe?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:No I am not. The answer to this question is: personal experience; attend Mass; live a life of prayer. Come to the Father through Christ and you will find the truth. All modern religions can say this. They're really good at prompting feelings of profound whatever in their congregations, that's why they're still around. What does your particular flavour of Christianity have over the others? P.S. Kyrie: you still haven't explained how a timeless God can think.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Also nobody wants you to accept anybody's truth (not even Kyrie), as has been stated like thousand times, it's your decision and your decision alone to lead your life the way you want, and if you feel anybody is pained over your choices, that's just some sort of delusion. steinrokkan posted:Why are you so concerned about what makes him happy, and that he's made one choice if the other choices are supposedly equivalent. Is it because his choice doesn't fit a particular political conviction? (I don't mean to single you out, stein, you were just the most readily quotable poster in the last few pages.) Earlier in this thread, people were getting annoyed by people playing silly buggers with the meanings of words, something like this is happening again. Most of the atheist contingent in this thread quite reasonably treats "I believe in X" and "I think X is true" to be synonymous and for them both to mean "X is real" or "X actually happened/ will happen", depending on what X is. So they are understandably confused as to your objections here, as they are not asking anyone to justify how they act or what makes them happy, but rather why a person apparently thinks a certain statement is true. (as such "anybody's truth" isn't a phrase that makes much sense to them (or me), "anybody's views" or "...opinions" would work, without so much baggage. After all, at most one religion is actually right) Now, among the (apparently) religious, "believe" and "think is actually true" often have quite different meanings (along with "I am a member of such-and-such religion"). This is fine, I guess, but they should probably make sure to spell that out, lest they be misunderstood. The problem arises when the several meanings of "believe" are switched in and out at will, to allow the poster to continue claiming that they're right.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The potential for fertility only exists between a man and a woman. It is clear and obvious to everyone that men and women were designed to go together sexually for the purpose of creating children.  So heterosexuality is good because it's clearly natural and thus what God intended, but every human brain is secretly a bit gay, and God... had nothing to do with that? Kyrie eleison posted:You are trying to compromise on basic moral issues by making a consequentialist argument.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms This is indeed what Plato said. It does not support the point you are making, Platonic "forms" are not "ideas" in the sense that you (and people speaking English generally) mean. (Edit: and I'm fairly sure you know that) I asked before, but why all the Plato? I mean, he's an interesting philosopher, but why are you acting like everything he said was necessarily true? Unrelatedly: from where does this duty to have children come? I thought that you thought that people would ideally be celibate. Would you still object to homosexuality if some technology were developed that allowed them to have "normal" children (i.e. with an equal proportion of each parent's chromosomes and mitochondria from one parent, obviously with some way of ensuring the kid gets at least one X chromosome)?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I am and that's the fantastic thing isn't it. If you're going to use words in a way that is unusual for your intended audience of people on this forum, who are not in general scholars of Christian theology or anything similar, then please try to be up-front about your terminology. Otherwise people are going to suspect you of playing some sort of shell-game with your definitions. While most of what you say can be understood, with some effort, you could be writing so as to be understood easily. Please do that. steinrokkan posted:It hasn't shut them up, but the notion that anything postmodern, or indeed just based on idealism, is worthless and not worth paying attention to, is in my opinion prevalent not just in general society, but even in academia or amongst experts dominating practice within their field. I have encountered lots of educated people from the humanities and social sciences who plain and simple refused to acknowledge that there could be anything worthwhile besides the "realist" branch of whatever they were studying. Often anything that can't be repurposed within a positivist framework is either completely ignored or taken as a humorous idiosyncrasy of few fringe loonies, or of abominable ivory tower intellectual (who are paradoxically in the ivory tower because nobody bothers to listen to them). Though maybe I'm tainted by moving amongst international relations people who tend to be relatively conservative.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:These being? I'm rather sympathetic to Popper-like falsificationism/postpositivism, personally.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Popper's rationalism is a reform of positivism - it can hardly be called a radical departure, in my opinion. It maintains the same procedural approach to knowledge creation, enriched with a critical bend, but still fundamentally entrapped in the same issues. This is a bit of a derail, and I don't feel like typing out an entire David Deutsch book, so I'll just say "it* still treats things you can't directly observe as real, and has a means of differentiating theories that predict the same results, which I thought were the main problems". (*"it" here being more modern reformulations of the same sort of idea that I've read, which are probably better than Popper's own)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Why are internet crazies so fond of putting Capitals on Words that don't Need them?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:The church holds that we are more than just physical. But the soul isn't meant to actually influence anything physical, right? Otherwise we could detect it. So why should I care about this hypothetical non-interacting thing following me around? It doesn't really have anything to do with me; all my thoughts, emotions, memories and ways of thinking are demonstrably in my (material) brain. Is the soul a constantly updated backup, so God doesn't screw up and perma-kill someone?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Could God create weights so heavy, that even he could not lift them? Answer: no. Could God act as an oracle for a Turing machine, and if so, could he solve his own halting problem?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:Your concept of God is far too small and not supported by Scripture. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (human words with weaknesses ripe for logical scrutiny from unbelievers, no doubt) The Greek gods were anthromorphized fictions. A huge obstacle of belief in our world today is the defamation of God's character and a concept of God that is too small. If this thing's idea of wisdom and/or morality is so radically different to my own, why should I care?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:disagree. On average the standard of living has improved. Measured by things such as access to clean water, food, clothes, shelter, less disease etc And the prevalence of violence. Most crimes (per capita) are way down almost everywhere compared to most of history. Sorry, going to have to side with the troll on this one. The modern world is far from perfect, in fact it's arguably really poo poo, but the past was even shittier. Who What Now posted:No, I'm not confident there was nothing, I'm confident that the question is not valid to begin with.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Can you explain how you can have a temporal event (before) occur before time? I'm not saying you can't have GR mess up a finite time in the past, you can, and you're right, there's no consistent way for something to happen before that. I'm saying I neither know how gravity works at high energies nor the conditions of the very early universe. Do you?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
This thread is interesting. Everyone must know that Kizza Elizza and pink cow av are trolling, yet people keep writing long, effort-filled responses. To both "sides" in this: please stop conflating whether believing in this stuff encourages good or bad behaviour with whether or not it's true.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 12:47
|
|
|
Trent posted:
Well, indeed. So do I. But I didn't feel like trying to convince anyone here of that. I was primarily complaining about people running the implications in the other direction.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:
Yeah, this sounds p. hot.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
You do realise Plato wasn't actually proposing the stuff in the Republic as an actual state, right?Kyrie eleison posted:Plato was tapped into the same essential source of goodness as Christ. Oooh, I love this stuff. Kyri, do you have any opinions on Hermes Trismegistus?
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I'm not sure what I hate more: the wrongness of this statement, or the "You do realize ____, right?" phrasing of it. Probably the second bit, it's pretty condescending. So just how much of a renaissance neo-Platonist are you? The full "two revelations, book of nature" sort?
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:No serious student of philosophy thinks Plato is a "douchebag." Bertrand Russell?
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Causality is not a meaningful motion in quantum gravity, or in the quantum regime at all for that matter. Just the notion of asymptotic freedom alone is enough to demonstrate that point, You're going to have to explain how you've come to that conclusion. (And I haven't seen many people saying that quantum gravity could be asymptotically free, it might be asymptotically safe)
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:It's amazing how qualia make even the most basic of human experiences like the self-awareness of other people completely unfathomable to the human mind. I think we've found the best troll.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
No-one takes the Copenhagen interpretation seriously anyway. There's not some magical "measurement" phenomenon, there's just different states' inner products getting smaller and smaller as more variables become dependant on the result. (There is one thing that matters and it is Hugh Everett)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
rear end in a top hat Businessman posted:I might be out of my depth here, but Ive always thought applying quantum physics to the macro world (as people like Kyrie tend to do so they can justify their beliefs) is just a misuse of the theory and has no scientific basis. Quantum physics isn't the theory of everything, it's only a theory of the extremely small. Not very true. It's not practical, but QFTs work for everything except strong gravity right now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:What's your favorite thing about Jesus? I think it's that he's cool and loves everyone and wants us to go to Heaven. For a guy who wants everyone to go to heaven, he puts a lot of obstacles in the way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
Right, I think we've established quite thoroughly that all this stuff is rather silly. Next question: how do we get rid of it?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 23:34
|
|