Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 129

Thread: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

  1. #31
    Banned thelastgreatman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The Wasteland (LA)
    Posts
    12,821

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    As far as omnipresence making no sense--tell that to gravity.

    PAUSE: I have to go do some work for a couple hours, but we're continuing this when I get back, you illogical douchebags.
    Quote Originally Posted by schoolofruckus View Post
    Look, your parenting is yours and Randy's business alone.
    Fans of TheLastGreatMan Accessory Shop

  2. #32

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    Quote Originally Posted by RotationSlimWang View Post
    Say goodbye to that acid, Greg.

  3. #33
    Coachella Junkie jackstraw94086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,413

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    Quote Originally Posted by thelastgreatman View Post
    ... a convincing argument that there's actually something behind it all? Meaning a convincing argument for God's existence? Well I mean, Descartes proved it in Meditations a long ass time ago, as I'm sure you've heard me already recount on this board already. But the basic proof goes like this:

    1. Man has imagination, but his imagination is limited to things of which he possesses a priori knowledge. He cannot conceive of anything which he has not experienced with his five senses already. Man thinks up a unicorn, he can only do so because he has already seen (a) a horse and (b) a horn, then he combines them.

    2. Throughout all human history (that we can examine, at least) man has been compelled to conceive of gods.

    3. The nature and quality of God(s) almost always includes several aspects which do not exist anywhere in nature. Only in the conception of gods does a quality like omniscience or omnipresence appear.

    Therefore: man must have at some point experienced sensory interaction with God(s) to create an a priori basis.
    dear or dear

  4. #34
    Coachella Junkie jackstraw94086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,413

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    Quote Originally Posted by thelastgreatman View Post
    2. Throughout all human history (that we can examine, at least) man has been compelled to conceive of gods.
    There's a perfectly sensible explanation for the ubiquity of "god" in every and all cultures and it derives from man's primitive animal origins. Michael Shermer's explanation seems reasonable to me, the Type 1 and Type 2 error. An animal that suspects a will behind inanimate objects will generally be better off than an animal that has no fear of natural phenomena. The cost of an error in assuming intent and there being none is minimal. The cost of not assuming an intent while there actually was one is huge. Once brains became large enough for crude reasoning, natural selection tended to create "superstitious" (for lack of a better word) animals. Extend this forward and you have humans whose brains, while far more complex, still have the hard wiring to be infer will and meaning where there is one. And at this point it's not just because Type 1 errors are less costly than type 2, but also because ambiguity makes humans (and all other animals) anxious. Assuming a reason for that which you don't understand makes one comfortable. As civilization progresses we push god's responsibility further and further away, but inevitably there's a portion, if not most, of any civilization who will never be comfortable with open questions and will conjure a god to take responsibility for all the dangerous crap he doesn't know about.

    Quote Originally Posted by thelastgreatman View Post
    3. The nature and quality of God(s) almost always includes several aspects which do not exist anywhere in nature. Only in the conception of gods does a quality like omniscience or omnipresence appear.
    Well that's just the definition of a god. If a god's attributes are natural then he's not a god.
    Quote Originally Posted by thelastgreatman View Post
    Therefore: man must have at some point experienced sensory interaction with God(s) to create an a priori basis.
    I'm with John(I'm assuming). I don't buy this "if we can think of something it must exist." nonsense. I can think if perhaps infinite things that do not and cannot exist, and you can too (in fact you already did).

  5. #35
    Coachella Junkie SoulDischarge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Vampire State Building
    Posts
    16,119

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    Randy's feeling philosophical, someone flicked on the jackstraw signal, I think we can seal this one up fellas.
    Quote Originally Posted by guedita View Post
    Thanks for giving us the opportunity to not give a fuck again.

  6. #36

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    Quote Originally Posted by jackstraw94086 View Post
    Well that's just the definition of a god. If a god's attributes are natural then he's not a god.
    That's not necessarily true. Some cultures, such as Native Americans, worship the Earth as God. The definition of God is a power greater than us.

    Anyway, carry on.
    Oh look it stopped snowing...

  7. #37
    Dark Lord mountmccabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Mission
    Posts
    12,010

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    My phone can do things that I cannot do. Therefore it is a power greater than I. Therefore it is god. Kneel down before the god in my pocket, puny humans.
    Quote Originally Posted by SoulDischarge View Post
    See how wrong you are, Tommy? Randy is agreeing with you.

  8. #38
    Coachella Junkie shakermaker113's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    san francisco
    Posts
    14,838

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    Quote Originally Posted by mountmccabe View Post
    2. Ahh, circular reasoning, my old friend. And for when you reword it, bullshit.
    Quote Originally Posted by thelastgreatman View Post
    2 is not circular reasoning whatsoever.
    no to belabor the point, but Randy is right. Descartes applies modus ponens. it's a mathematician's best friend. question Descartes' claims regarding man's imagination all you like, but his logic is sound.

  9. #39
    Dark Lord mountmccabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Mission
    Posts
    12,010

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    Quote Originally Posted by shakermaker113 View Post
    no to belabor the point, but Randy is right. Descartes applies modus ponens. it's a mathematician's best friend. question Descartes' claims regarding man's imagination all you like, but his logic is sound.
    I was going to leave this be because I was quibbling with his construction and it was clear he didn't understand what he had done and jackstraw posted a better response to the actual content than I could have, but fine.

    Randy attempts to prove that there is a compeller by

    Quote Originally Posted by thelastgreatman View Post
    man has been compelled
    asserting that there is a compeller. It's that simple.
    Quote Originally Posted by SoulDischarge View Post
    See how wrong you are, Tommy? Randy is agreeing with you.

  10. #40
    Coachella Junkie shakermaker113's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    san francisco
    Posts
    14,838

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    if it's just Randy's presentation of the argument you are picking apart, then fine.

  11. #41
    Dark Lord mountmccabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Mission
    Posts
    12,010

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    And yes, I am just responding to Randy, not Rene. And I was just picking at that one specific logical flaw in Randy's construction.

    But as I said I think jackstraw takes apart the substance of Randy's 2nd point well above. And I've already picked about his first point. And the third point.

    As you note logically valid constructions still need true premises.
    Quote Originally Posted by SoulDischarge View Post
    See how wrong you are, Tommy? Randy is agreeing with you.

  12. #42

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    Quote Originally Posted by mountmccabe View Post
    My phone can do things that I cannot do. Therefore it is a power greater than I. Therefore it is god. Kneel down before the god in my pocket, puny humans.
    Now look who's taking things too literally.
    Oh look it stopped snowing...

  13. #43

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    ...but I won't argue against the fact that your phone is more powerful than you. Good point.
    Oh look it stopped snowing...

  14. #44
    Banned thelastgreatman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The Wasteland (LA)
    Posts
    12,821

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    Quote Originally Posted by jackstraw94086 View Post
    There's a perfectly sensible explanation for the ubiquity of "god" in every and all cultures and it derives from man's primitive animal origins. Michael Shermer's explanation seems reasonable to me, the Type 1 and Type 2 error. An animal that suspects a will behind inanimate objects will generally be better off than an animal that has no fear of natural phenomena. The cost of an error in assuming intent and there being none is minimal. The cost of not assuming an intent while there actually was one is huge. Once brains became large enough for crude reasoning, natural selection tended to create "superstitious" (for lack of a better word) animals. Extend this forward and you have humans whose brains, while far more complex, still have the hard wiring to be infer will and meaning where there is one. And at this point it's not just because Type 1 errors are less costly than type 2, but also because ambiguity makes humans (and all other animals) anxious. Assuming a reason for that which you don't understand makes one comfortable. As civilization progresses we push god's responsibility further and further away, but inevitably there's a portion, if not most, of any civilization who will never be comfortable with open questions and will conjure a god to take responsibility for all the dangerous crap he doesn't know about.
    "An animal that suspects a will behind inanimate objects will generally be better off." Okay, I don't disagree with that at all. But logically speaking, shouldn't the brain just assume that the things they actually see are responsible? Imagining an anime to an inanimate object is certainly a delusion (unless it turns out to be true) that existed in ancient man. They ascribed personality to fire, to plants, etc. Which is all fine, because those are things they have actually experienced--imagining that inanimate things think is logical because we think, so neanderthal man would reasonably assume that other things must be like himself.

    The point here is that religions are not man's way of constructing a bunch of illogical explanations for inanimate objects--they're man's way of constructing a bunch of illogical explanations for experiences people have where they feel something that doesn't make sense in the normal five senses. A vision, the sensation that someone you can't see anywhere is talking to you, the odd feeling of someone else being in an empty room with you, sensations of feeling the "spirit" of the dead, etc. Man experiences these things and, having no better explanation, assumes there must be some creature that does not have a physical body but exists nonetheless and does things that appear supernatural. Just the concept of a person/entity that exists without a physical form and can exert force through no visible means is something that has no a priori background.

    Well that's just the definition of a god. If a god's attributes are natural then he's not a god.
    No, that's one kind of god. Assigning qualities that define what is and is not a god is presumptuous and reeks of hubris, not to mention the extremely ethnocentric nature of the whole thing. I merely cited those qualities because they are relevant to Christianity, which is what we started talking about. "God" is whatever it is--not what we decide it has to be in order to qualify as God.

    I'm with John(I'm assuming). I don't buy this "if we can think of something it must exist." nonsense. I can think if perhaps infinite things that do not and cannot exist, and you can too (in fact you already did).
    No, you can't. I'd love to hear an example. But anything you can imagine is something you have constructed out of previous experience of your senses.

    Quote Originally Posted by mountmccabe View Post
    My phone can do things that I cannot do. Therefore it is a power greater than I. Therefore it is god. Kneel down before the god in my pocket, puny humans.
    For someone supposedly educated and smart, you're really preposterously silly sometimes.

    Quote Originally Posted by mountmccabe View Post
    I was going to leave this be because I was quibbling with his construction and it was clear he didn't understand what he had done and jackstraw posted a better response to the actual content than I could have, but fine.

    Randy attempts to prove that there is a compeller by

    asserting that there is a compeller. It's that simple.
    You're just horrible at logic, honestly, which is boggling to me because I would have to imagine that you took classes in it at some point. You can take issue with the notion that a priori experience is required to imagine something if you like--you'll never find an example to disprove it, but go nuts--and you can try to claim that God is not unique/unusual enough that man couldn't imagine it on his own.

    What you can not do is claim that this argument is circular logic.

    Endless instances of humans feeling an interaction with a force of a supernatural nature in different forms--sight, sound, touch, etc.--have occurred throughout history in all known cultures. I don't really need any help proving that humans feel "compelled." The reason this is not circular logic is that you have to also posit that man cannot conceive without a priori knowledge, which is how the fucking logic set becomes a properly formatted string of thoughts, not a circle.
    Quote Originally Posted by schoolofruckus View Post
    Look, your parenting is yours and Randy's business alone.
    Fans of TheLastGreatMan Accessory Shop

  15. #45
    Coachella Junkie malcolmjamalawesome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    In A Beautiful Place Out In The Country
    Posts
    16,495

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    Nobody has accused anyone of being educated and smart.
    Quote Originally Posted by ruetheday View Post
    I don't fucking care. I don't even know who the hell Dave Wang is.
    Quote Originally Posted by Devin the Dude View Post
    you used to be that guy that just Dave Wang's everybody. that guy. he's gone now, and whoever you really are showed up, and that was utter disappointment.

  16. #46

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    What do you think of the notion that all the feelings or senses humans have attributed to God are merely chemical reactions in the brain?
    Oh look it stopped snowing...

  17. #47
    Coachella Junkie malcolmjamalawesome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    In A Beautiful Place Out In The Country
    Posts
    16,495

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaks View Post
    What do you think of the notion that all the feelings or senses humans have attributed to God are merely chemical reactions in the brain?
    What I think is that you are an inarticulate boor.
    Quote Originally Posted by ruetheday View Post
    I don't fucking care. I don't even know who the hell Dave Wang is.
    Quote Originally Posted by Devin the Dude View Post
    you used to be that guy that just Dave Wang's everybody. that guy. he's gone now, and whoever you really are showed up, and that was utter disappointment.

  18. #48
    Banned thelastgreatman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The Wasteland (LA)
    Posts
    12,821

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaks View Post
    What do you think of the notion that all the feelings or senses humans have attributed to God are merely chemical reactions in the brain?
    I don't think that chemistry and spirituality are unconnected.

    Okay let's put it like this: suppose that God--and all spiritual/metaphysical phenomena--are a legitimate "sixth sense," but one that isn't constantly active. Or at least, it's not constant enough that we're as aware of its operation the way we are things like sight and hearing and touch. It's something that only gets stimulated periodically, perhaps even rarely--which is why its inherently hard to trust those impulses. If I saw a big bright light and a floating vision come to me, as a logical person in our current age of science I'd be inclined to write it off to a flashback, or dehydration, or some other form of brain misfire. And that might be entirely accurate.

    Now let's say that every time one of these sixth sense occasions occurs, it can be linked to the release of a particular chemical in the brain. There have been scientists--though I know one in particular who claimed to have developed a helmet that could induce a spiritual experience failed most of his peer reviews, including that douchebag Richard Dawkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet)--who have identified certain areas of the brain that do get activated when subjects are in a state of spiritual fervor of one kind or another.

    You could interpret things a couple different ways. You could say that these are hallucinations caused by this chemical being released in the brain, and that those chemicals induced a hallucinatory state not much different from psychedelic drugs, and that this is nothing more than a form of naturally occurring psychedelic experience (don't nitpick over words here, you get what I'm saying).

    Or, you could say that when one is visited by God it happens to trigger a specific part of their brain that is tasked with processing this extra sense, and that when it gets turned on it releases that chemical along with it, not unlike the way the brain releases dopamine when the sense of touch detects pain.

    You can also claim that if someone WANTS to experience God enough and works themselves up into a fervor state, they might very well straight-up will themselves into having a hallucinatory experience.

    I'm still saying, regardless of what the beginning of this point is... why did nature evolve our brain into a state where it regularly deceives itself with an imaginary sensation? I mean, all the senses are vulnerable to fault--you see something that turned out to just be a mistaken glance, you hear a voice that turns out not to be there. But if everything is just nature and science and God is all a massive delusion, where the fuck did it come from in the first place? And why did it appear EVERYWHERE? Just a handful of crazies in every culture throughout history had a hallucination about a non-corporeal being that feels immensely powerful?
    Quote Originally Posted by schoolofruckus View Post
    Look, your parenting is yours and Randy's business alone.
    Fans of TheLastGreatMan Accessory Shop

  19. #49

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Last

    Exactly. The visions of white light people describe after a near death experience are often attributed to the brain releasing DMT during the dying process. The descriptions of seeing white light, experiencing euphoria, etc have been consistent amongst many different people. It seems that our brains are hard wired to have what is universally interpreted as a spiritual experience. The chemicals could just be the vehicle for the the spiritual realm to reach us.
    Last edited by Squeaks; 12-14-2013 at 06:10 PM.
    Oh look it stopped snowing...

  20. #50

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    Quote Originally Posted by malcolmjamalawesome View Post
    What I think is that you are an inarticulate boor.
    What are you doing here? I thought your wife didn't let you play on the board anymore.
    Oh look it stopped snowing...

  21. #51
    Coachella Junkie shakermaker113's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    san francisco
    Posts
    14,838

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    well, it didn't even last a page before we forgot about Jesus altogether.

  22. #52
    Dark Lord mountmccabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Mission
    Posts
    12,010

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    Quote Originally Posted by thelastgreatman View Post
    What you can not do is claim that this argument is circular logic.
    I was not trying to claim that the entire argument is circular.

    Quote Originally Posted by mountmccabe View Post
    I was quibbling with his construction
    Or, put another way, your wording of your second point. My 1, 2, 3 were tied to your 1, 2, 3. Each one of mine was specifically responding to the corresponding one of yours.


    Quote Originally Posted by thelastgreatman View Post
    Endless instances of humans feeling an interaction with a force of a supernatural nature in different forms--sight, sound, touch, etc.--have occurred throughout history in all known cultures. I don't really need any help proving that humans feel "compelled." The reason this is not circular logic is that you have to also posit that man cannot conceive without a priori knowledge, which is how the fucking logic set becomes a properly formatted string of thoughts, not a circle.
    None of this is in any way a response to what I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by mountmccabe View Post
    it was clear he didn't understand what he had done
    ...and you still don't.

    If you are compelled there MUST be something doing the compelling. Your use of the word "compelled" there ALREADY assumes that there is a compeller and thus it is not proof of a compeller. I thought I already explained this clearly responding to Edward above, but hey, this is still not the most ridiculous thing you've said.

    Gah. Discussing this stuff with incredibly uniformed pompous amateurs is tiring.
    Quote Originally Posted by SoulDischarge View Post
    See how wrong you are, Tommy? Randy is agreeing with you.

  23. #53
    Coachella Junkie shakermaker113's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    san francisco
    Posts
    14,838

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    Quote Originally Posted by mountmccabe View Post
    If you are compelled there MUST be something doing the compelling. Your use of the word "compelled" there ALREADY assumes that there is a compeller and thus it is not proof of a compeller. I thought I already explained this clearly responding to Edward above, but hey, this is still not the most ridiculous thing you've said.
    I am not sure why you are so caught up on this "compelled" example. it's quite distracting and not very interesting. if Randy worded something inaccurately then that's the least interesting part of this conversation.

  24. #54
    Banned thelastgreatman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The Wasteland (LA)
    Posts
    12,821

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    It's especially annoying because he's focusing on one very narrow way of interpreting the word which is a completely bizarre and unnatural way of interpreting that construction.

    John, if you say you're compelled to continue this argument, who are you "compelled" by?
    Quote Originally Posted by schoolofruckus View Post
    Look, your parenting is yours and Randy's business alone.
    Fans of TheLastGreatMan Accessory Shop

  25. #55
    Banned thelastgreatman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The Wasteland (LA)
    Posts
    12,821

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    But in short, your grasp of logic is about as terrible as your grasp of language.
    Quote Originally Posted by schoolofruckus View Post
    Look, your parenting is yours and Randy's business alone.
    Fans of TheLastGreatMan Accessory Shop

  26. #56
    Coachella Junkie jackstraw94086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,413

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    Quote Originally Posted by SoulDischarge View Post
    Randy's feeling philosophical, someone flicked on the jackstraw signal, I think we can seal this one up fellas.
    I'm sure all the "fellas" are proud of you.
    Last edited by jackstraw94086; 12-15-2013 at 09:00 PM.

  27. #57
    Coachella Junkie jackstraw94086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,413

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    Quote Originally Posted by thelastgreatman View Post
    "An animal that suspects a will behind inanimate objects will generally be better off." Okay, I don't disagree with that at all. But logically speaking, shouldn't the brain just assume that the things they actually see are responsible? Imagining an anime to an inanimate object is certainly a delusion (unless it turns out to be true) that existed in ancient man. They ascribed personality to fire, to plants, etc. Which is all fine, because those are things they have actually experienced--imagining that inanimate things think is logical because we think, so neanderthal man would reasonably assume that other things must be like himself.
    not sure where your'e going here but you seem to be justifying the man's propensity to project a will or spirit behind objects and phenomena that clearly have zero. 2500 years ago greeks thought lightning bolts were thrown by Zues who was fairly foundation to their world view, today we know it's just air masses rubbing up on each other greek myths are just quaint little stories. Man's ego historically projects manlike attributes and qualities and assumes reasons things that make comfortable sense to them and inevitably it always gets debunked and we find out the actual reasons that were probably counter-intuitive. The whole history of humanity is the ongoing discovery that shit doesn't really work like we first thought it did. To say "well folks back then didn't know better" and excuse their mistakes borne of ignorance and claim to have conclusive evidence of a divine will, and then go beyond that to claim to know how that divine will would like you to live your life is the absolute definition of arrogance.
    Quote Originally Posted by thelastgreatman View Post
    The point here is that religions are not man's way of constructing a bunch of illogical explanations for inanimate objects--they're man's way of constructing a bunch of illogical explanations for experiences people have where they feel something that doesn't make sense in the normal five senses. A vision, the sensation that someone you can't see anywhere is talking to you, the odd feeling of someone else being in an empty room with you, sensations of feeling the "spirit" of the dead, etc. Man experiences these things and, having no better explanation, assumes there must be some creature that does not have a physical body but exists nonetheless and does things that appear supernatural. Just the concept of a person/entity that exists without a physical form and can exert force through no visible means is something that has no a priori background.
    again, just because one cannot satisfactorily explain what's observed by their senses doesn't necessarily mean that there's someone out there. These things are just neural misfires to varying degrees from minor things like cross-firing short and long term memory creating deja vu, all the way to severe schizophrenia where your brain creates voices and makes you see objects that aren't there. We don't understand even a small fraction of what's going on in the brain but what we do know is that it can construct ideas and make you think you're experienced something that can objectively be proven to not exist. It doens't necessarily have to be a brain malfunction. As mentioned earlier your sensory experience of a "ghost" is probably just your brain creating that sense because of anxiety. You are operating on the assumption that your consciousness is 100% accurate and whatever you see and hear MUST be real and thus if you don't know what it is it must be metaphysical. Or maybe sometimes the sensory experience IS real, but simply not knowing what exactly it was doesn't qualify it as supernatural. Amputees will claim to still be able to feel a phantom limb still there. Their experience seems real to them but their reasoning eventually kills that sensory experience. The brain sometimes does not interpret natural stimuli accurately, and sometimes it creates thoughts that give you a false idea of reality.
    This idea that disembodied sprites or metaphysical conscious beings must exist because we can conceive of them is ridiculous. And what do you mean no a priori background? We have all the a priori knowledge we need to create notions of gods.

    Quote Originally Posted by thelastgreatman View Post
    No, that's one kind of god. Assigning qualities that define what is and is not a god is presumptuous and reeks of hubris, not to mention the extremely ethnocentric nature of the whole thing. I merely cited those qualities because they are relevant to Christianity, which is what we started talking about. "God" is whatever it is--not what we decide it has to be in order to qualify as God.
    alright convoluted arguments about what is and isn't a god is exactly what I was trying to avoid. I'm not claiming to know exactly what a god is. not worth engaging further on that.



    Quote Originally Posted by thelastgreatman View Post
    No, you can't. I'd love to hear an example. But anything you can imagine is something you have constructed out of previous experience of your senses.
    I've seen an elephant. I've seen the color pink. I can conceive of a pink elephant.
    I've seen a teapot. I seen evidence of the trans-martian astroid belt. I can conceive of Bertrand Russel's teapot floating around in the asteroid belt
    I've seen spaghetti and meatballs. I can conceive of a monster made out of them. And it flies too.

    These are all preposterous things created with things I was already familiar with.
    I can take information I've gathered with my senses, and use that to construct an idea of something that I have ZERO proof of (nor could ever prove).
    I might perform this trick to create an idea which comforts me. I could even create it in such a way that it couldn't be disproven. That's what religion is.
    Last edited by jackstraw94086; 12-15-2013 at 08:51 PM.

  28. #58
    Coachella Junkie fatbastard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pasadena
    Posts
    12,284

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    His birthday is coming up.
    Whiskey Sour

    2 oz blended whiskey
    Juice of 1/2 lemon
    1/2 tsp powdered sugar
    1 cherry
    1/2 slice lemon

    Shake blended whiskey, juice of lemon, and powdered sugar with ice and strain into a whiskey sour glass. Decorate with the half-slice of lemon, top with the cherry, and serve.

  29. #59
    Coachella Junkie malcolmjamalawesome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    In A Beautiful Place Out In The Country
    Posts
    16,495

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Last

    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaks View Post
    Exactly. The visions of white light people describe after a near death experience are often attributed to the brain releasing DMT during the dying process.
    Oh you people would just love that.
    Quote Originally Posted by ruetheday View Post
    I don't fucking care. I don't even know who the hell Dave Wang is.
    Quote Originally Posted by Devin the Dude View Post
    you used to be that guy that just Dave Wang's everybody. that guy. he's gone now, and whoever you really are showed up, and that was utter disappointment.

  30. #60
    Coachella Junkie malcolmjamalawesome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    In A Beautiful Place Out In The Country
    Posts
    16,495

    Default Re: Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatGirl View Post
    You don't often find a lot of God in church unfortunately.
    ThatGirl gets profound.
    Quote Originally Posted by ruetheday View Post
    I don't fucking care. I don't even know who the hell Dave Wang is.
    Quote Originally Posted by Devin the Dude View Post
    you used to be that guy that just Dave Wang's everybody. that guy. he's gone now, and whoever you really are showed up, and that was utter disappointment.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-09-2013, 12:36 AM
  2. Need lasts minute camping week1? We have room.
    By FerrisWheel in forum Camping/Lodging
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-12-2012, 08:30 PM
  3. PLEASE BE RATIONAL AND RESIST BUYING NOW
    By ludimali in forum Passes
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-12-2011, 03:38 PM
  4. Can you not have a normal conversation?
    By listitrist in forum Misc. Lounge
    Replies: 150
    Last Post: 01-23-2009, 09:58 PM
  5. A conversation with bugonyourlip
    By Stefinitely Maybe in forum Music Lounge
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-13-2007, 06:59 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •