Say you went to mass after a long hiatus and you listened to the words in a different way.
One of my favourites is "Jesus and Mary and Joseph assist me now and in my last agony. "
You could die very pleasantly.
Another one is "do not consider what we truly deserve but look on the faith of your church"
Surely it is high time for a new metric. And what do we truly deserve? What did we do to deserve it?
The Church does not change doctrine to align itself with fashion or popular opinion.
Quote from: Orior on September 30, 2016, 10:07:38 AM
The Church does not change doctrine to align itself with fashion or popular opinion.
How long can you receive communion between confessions?
I always thought it was 4 weeks when I was frogmarched up to confessions on a monthly basis, but was talking to a friend about this, regular receiver of the sacrament and she told me she goes to confession about every 6 months.
What are the guidelines?
Quote from: johnneycool on September 30, 2016, 10:32:20 AM
Quote from: Orior on September 30, 2016, 10:07:38 AM
The Church does not change doctrine to align itself with fashion or popular opinion.
How long can you receive communion between confessions?
I always thought it was 4 weeks when I was frogmarched up to confessions on a monthly basis, but was talking to a friend about this, regular receiver of the sacrament and she told me she goes to confession about every 6 months.
What are the guidelines?
is confessions still going on?
Quote from: Orior on September 30, 2016, 10:07:38 AM
The Church does not change doctrine to align itself with fashion or popular opinion.
Why have hell, purgatory, limbo, indulgences, the Six Commandments of the Church, fast days, self flagellation, etc, disappeared from the narrative, then? Limbo officially abolished, I think and the others just not mentioned any more. What was the motivation for these changes, if not aligning with the zeitgeist? Unless there was some peer-reviewed research that discovered limbo didn't exist after all, like it was discovered that Pluto isn't a planet anymore?
I forgot about the torture. That's not big in fashion or popular opinion right now.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 30, 2016, 10:35:27 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on September 30, 2016, 10:32:20 AM
Quote from: Orior on September 30, 2016, 10:07:38 AM
The Church does not change doctrine to align itself with fashion or popular opinion.
How long can you receive communion between confessions?
I always thought it was 4 weeks when I was frogmarched up to confessions on a monthly basis, but was talking to a friend about this, regular receiver of the sacrament and she told me she goes to confession about every 6 months.
What are the guidelines?
is confessions still going on?
I think so, the wee girl had her first one last year.
What breed is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on September 30, 2016, 11:02:44 AM
What breed is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?
Dunno, but he appears to be deaf.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
grant us peace.
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on September 30, 2016, 11:02:44 AM
What breed is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?
Slow to anger and rich in mercy. It must be some sort of Suffolk
When you are asked to reject satan, his works and all his empty promises should dome sort of laminated sheet be passed around outlining these works and promises? Surely it is wrong to dismiss men without considering them?
When the bloke in the dress stands in front of a grieving family who have lost their child recites the line "God in his wisdom took him/her ...." I think they should outline the nature and benefit of his particular brand of wisdom
Excommunication? What are the rules on that one? Sleep with someone of the same gender wand they want you out.
Abuse a child and get sent to Uruguay or the philipines. No excommunicated for many.
Facilitate an abuser and stay, work on to retirement age, keep your title and full pension. No excommunication
Hide assets so abuse victims cannot claim compensation and well, we don't talk about that one. No excommunication
Anyone who agrees that these outcomes are just or moral hasn't the right to dine with the humans
First confession should be re-labelled First & Last Confession
Limbo left in limbo now. Real shame.
'Our lady of perpetual soccer' - 2,000 years ago they predicted expanded Uefa competitions.
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 11:27:00 AM
When you are asked to reject satan, his works and all his empty promises should dome sort of laminated sheet be passed around outlining these works and promises? Surely it is wrong to dismiss men without considering them?
Satan and all his empty promises always remind me of Rupert Murdoch
the antisemitism in the doctrine is very subtle as well.
those effin Pharisees
And why did Judas get such a bad rap? Wasn't he just fulfilling Scripture? If he hadn't done it we would not be destined for Heaven. Give the man a break.
Quote from: Hardy on September 30, 2016, 11:06:09 AM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on September 30, 2016, 11:02:44 AM
What breed is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?
Dunno, but he appears to be deaf.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
grant us peace.
Or:
Lord have mercy
Lord have mercyChrist have mercy
Christ have mercyLord have mercy
Lord have mercyWhat's the difference? The midway change of foot could be detrimental, where Lord is hacked off that you hopped off to Christ and then Christ is annoyed you went back to Lord?
The more you analyse it, the more pitfalls you find.
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on September 30, 2016, 11:49:10 AM
Quote from: Hardy on September 30, 2016, 11:06:09 AM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on September 30, 2016, 11:02:44 AM
What breed is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?
Dunno, but he appears to be deaf.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
grant us peace.
Or:
Lord have mercy Lord have mercy
Christ have mercy Christ have mercy
Lord have mercy Lord have mercy
What's the difference? The midway change of foot could be detrimental, where Lord is hacked off that you hopped off to Christ and then Christ is annoyed you went back to Lord?
The more you analyse it, the more pitfalls you find.
Are they not one and the same person?
I never did get that holy trinity thing, even with the Shamrock analogy!
Quote from: Hardy on September 30, 2016, 10:37:08 AM
Quote from: Orior on September 30, 2016, 10:07:38 AM
The Church does not change doctrine to align itself with fashion or popular opinion.
Why have hell, purgatory, limbo, indulgences, the Six Commandments of the Church, fast days, self flagellation, etc, disappeared from the narrative, then? Limbo officially abolished, I think and the others just not mentioned any more. What was the motivation for these changes, if not aligning with the zeitgeist? Unless there was some peer-reviewed research that discovered limbo didn't exist after all, like it was discovered that Pluto isn't a planet anymore?
I have no idea chief. I was only quoting what a priest once told me.
We would need a member of the clergy to answer these questions. Do you mind if I post these on a catholic church discussion board?
Hail, holy Queen, Mother of mercy, hail, our life, our sweetness and our hope. To thee we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.
All of this stuff fits the thread title.
The whole mercy thing. Why do we need mercy? If we were born sinners because we came via vaginas and not the ether how is it our fault ?
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 12:34:13 PM
The whole mercy thing. Why do we need mercy? If we were born sinners because we came via vaginas and not the ether how is it our fault ?
Excellent point. Is the original sin thing exclusive to catholics or is the belief in it a wider chrisitian thing?
How do catholics justify it? Surely they know the garden of eden story is just a story? Without it where does orignal sin come from?
More importantly what was god doing impregnating a virgin (in a weird kind of way) to create a son, who was also him (in a weird kind of way involving a third spirity party) so that the son could be murdered (how fucked up is this shit??) so that we could be absolved (which apparently he could do anyway) of a sin that passes from a person that did not exist (and as the all seeing, all powerful creator he presumably knew this??).
The whole thing from premise to dogma to practice is batshit
To be very clear on this. It wouldn't be just Catholicism that is "batshit"
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 12:34:13 PM
The whole mercy thing. Why do we need mercy? If we were born sinners because we came via vaginas and not the ether how is it our fault ?
Excellent point. Is the original sin thing exclusive to catholics or is the belief in it a wider chrisitian thing?
How do catholics justify it? Surely they know the garden of eden story is just a story? Without it where does orignal sin come from?
More importantly what was god doing impregnating a virgin (in a weird kind of way) to create a son, who was also him (in a weird kind of way involving a third spirity party) so that the son could be murdered (how fucked up is this shit??) so that we could be absolved (which apparently he could do anyway) of a sin that passes from a person that did not exist (and as the all seeing, all powerful creator he presumably knew this??).
The whole thing from premise to dogma to practice is batshit
You start from the notion that sex with women is very grubby and unworthy
And you build it from there
Even though that is how the species survives but never mind
God needed some kind of USP
So it had to be a Virgin birth
Always enjoyed the paradoxical Tertullian quote on faith:
"And the Son of God died: it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because it is impossible"
The thing is, substitute God for your county at the beginning of every year and it would capture the faith of many a GAA fan.
Serious amount of trolls on this Board.I'd say everyone of you if hit by a bus would be asking for a priest.
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2016, 02:11:31 PM
Serious amount of trolls on this Board.I'd say everyone of you if hit by a bus would be asking for a priest.
Honestly mate you are the last person who should be talking about trolls..
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2016, 02:11:31 PM
Serious amount of trolls on this Board.I'd say everyone of you if hit by a bus would be asking for a priest.
Fair point nothing like a good ass pounding before leaving the mortal world, sorry it's just kids my mistake.
Do church still have an interest in women's menstrual cycles?
In 1944, John Charles McQuaid, archbishop of Dublin, wrote to Dr Conn Ward, parliamentary secretary to the minister for local government and public health, and informed him that at the "Low Week meetings of the Bishops, I explained very fully the evidence concerning the use of internal sanitary tampons, in particular, that called Tampax. On the medical evidence made available, the bishops very strongly disapproved of the use of these appliances, more particularly in the case of unmarried persons".
Surely there is still a danger than internal tampons could sexually arouse women, and in particular unmarried women, provoking themselves to do something immoral?
/Jim.
Did you read Fr McAllion's letter in Irish News yesterday.Who is the first person,with an impressive record of success the authorities turn to for Exorcisms?,Yes the local priest.As he says this is evidence of a divine being.
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2016, 02:22:39 PM
Did you read Fr McAllion's letter in Irish News yesterday.Who is the first person,with an impressive record of success the authorities turn to for Exorcisms?,Yes the local priest.As he says this is evidence of a divine being.
You read a lot of shite in the Irish News this weather, even makes the Bible believable.
Great Podcast here from Sam Harris ... reading from his book The End of Faith
https://soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/46-the-end-of-faith-sessions-3 (https://soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/46-the-end-of-faith-sessions-3)
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2016, 02:11:31 PM
Serious amount of trolls on this Board.I'd say everyone of you if hit by a bus would be asking for a priest.
That post is an example. I for one would not ask for priest any more than I was ask for a faith healer. Your evidence to the contrary is either the delusional ramblings of a lunatic or the klondyke of data you are about to unleash........
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2016, 02:22:39 PM
Did you read Fr McAllion's letter in Irish News yesterday.Who is the first person,with an impressive record of success the authorities turn to for Exorcisms?,Yes the local priest.As he says this is evidence of a divine being.
I didn't read it so enlighten me. Who are these authorities? Are they not be definition self selecting i.e people of faith. People of faith see a resolution in faith. People who do not believe in spirits do not see an explanation of the problem in spiritualism nor a spiritualist as the source of the resolution. So what is the point your spiritualism comrade was trying to make?
What is exorcism about anyway? Is it schizophrenia or are there really demons sent by the devil, whoever that is ? Why would the devil attack someone in Co Monaghan, for example? Is it like computer viruses?
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 12:34:13 PM
The whole mercy thing. Why do we need mercy? If we were born sinners because we came via vaginas and not the ether how is it our fault ?
Excellent point. Is the original sin thing exclusive to catholics or is the belief in it a wider chrisitian thing?
How do catholics justify it? Surely they know the garden of eden story is just a story? Without it where does orignal sin come from?
More importantly what was god doing impregnating a virgin (in a weird kind of way) to create a son, who was also him (in a weird kind of way involving a third spirity party) so that the son could be murdered (how fucked up is this shit??) so that we could be absolved (which apparently he could do anyway) of a sin that passes from a person that did not exist (and as the all seeing, all powerful creator he presumably knew this??).
The whole thing from premise to dogma to practice is batshit
You start from the notion that sex with women is very grubby and unworthy
And you build it from there
Even though that is how the species survives but never mind
God needed some kind of USP
So it had to be a Virgin birth
Seafoid,
Your just making things up again
Leonard,
Call it original sin, call it temptation, call it human nature, call it whatever you want. We have parts of our makeup that are contrary to what is good and right, such as selfishness, greed etc. We each have a choice whether or not to submit to them or take the moral path. Thats what original sin is for me, You dont have to Catholic to believe in it or Christian or even theist. Some people believe morals dont exist, tho your second paragraph on Jesus would suggest you do since "shit is fucked up". So presuming you do believe in them perhaps you would explain what you believe they are and where they came from and how we came about to have a choice in them?
How do you know its BS or do you just believe it is?
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2016, 02:11:31 PM
Serious amount of trolls on this Board.I'd say everyone of you if hit by a bus would be asking for a priest.
If i was hit by a bus I am more likely to ask for a doctor, but maybe that's just me? :-\
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 12:34:13 PM
The whole mercy thing. Why do we need mercy? If we were born sinners because we came via vaginas and not the ether how is it our fault ?
Excellent point. Is the original sin thing exclusive to catholics or is the belief in it a wider chrisitian thing?
How do catholics justify it? Surely they know the garden of eden story is just a story? Without it where does orignal sin come from?
More importantly what was god doing impregnating a virgin (in a weird kind of way) to create a son, who was also him (in a weird kind of way involving a third spirity party) so that the son could be murdered (how fucked up is this shit??) so that we could be absolved (which apparently he could do anyway) of a sin that passes from a person that did not exist (and as the all seeing, all powerful creator he presumably knew this??).
The whole thing from premise to dogma to practice is batshit
Guilt and blame seem to be very catholic
I think sin is too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAYdc2_Y82w
"We weren't lost and we didn't need any book"
It always good to get the view of the pariahs.....
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 03:30:14 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 12:34:13 PM
The whole mercy thing. Why do we need mercy? If we were born sinners because we came via vaginas and not the ether how is it our fault ?
Excellent point. Is the original sin thing exclusive to catholics or is the belief in it a wider chrisitian thing?
How do catholics justify it? Surely they know the garden of eden story is just a story? Without it where does orignal sin come from?
More importantly what was god doing impregnating a virgin (in a weird kind of way) to create a son, who was also him (in a weird kind of way involving a third spirity party) so that the son could be murdered (how fucked up is this shit??) so that we could be absolved (which apparently he could do anyway) of a sin that passes from a person that did not exist (and as the all seeing, all powerful creator he presumably knew this??).
The whole thing from premise to dogma to practice is batshit
You start from the notion that sex with women is very grubby and unworthy
And you build it from there
Even though that is how the species survives but never mind
God needed some kind of USP
So it had to be a Virgin birth
Seafoid,
Your just making things up again
Leonard,
Call it original sin, call it temptation, call it human nature, call it whatever you want. We have parts of our makeup that are contrary to what is good and right, such as selfishness, greed etc. We each have a choice whether or not to submit to them or take the moral path. Thats what original sin is for me, You dont have to Catholic to believe in it or Christian or even theist. Some people believe morals dont exist, tho your second paragraph on Jesus would suggest you do since "shit is fucked up". So presuming you do believe in them perhaps you would explain what you believe they are and where they came from and how we came about to have a choice in them?
How do you know its BS or do you just believe it is?
Joe
Every religion has a USP and something out of this world to get the people in
Islam has the horse that Mohamed flew on from Mecca to Jerusalem
We can't prove any of it. We can just decide whether or not to believe it
I'm hardly an avid mass goer, but now when I do go I feel like I'm a child again. They've changed all the feckin words and I'm too old to sit down and have to learn them again. Why the change? Were we doing it wrong beforehand?
If any other subject was described as 'nonsense' the thread would be pulled and if not the deeply offensive posts would attract bans for the perpetrarors.Sadly on this Board as everywhere else,Catholics are fair game it seems.Sad all the same.
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2016, 02:22:39 PM
Did you read Fr McAllion's letter in Irish News yesterday.Who is the first person,with an impressive record of success the authorities turn to for Exorcisms?,Yes the local priest.As he says this is evidence of a divine being.
Fair enough.We can now remedy some of the mysticisms right down to the QED.
1.What is the telephone number of this local priest ?
2. Where do you live ?
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 03:40:08 PM
Joe
Every religion has a USP and something out of this world to get the people in
Islam has the horse that Mohamed flew on from Mecca to Jerusalem
We can't prove any of it. We can just decide whether or not to believe it
I was more talking about your sex comment..
USP?? Religion exists in the first place because of faith not the other way around, Religion is simply a reflection of that faith
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2016, 02:22:39 PM
Did you read Fr McAllion's letter in Irish News yesterday.Who is the first person,with an impressive record of success the authorities turn to for Exorcisms?,Yes the local priest.As he says this is evidence of a divine being.
Sorry, what authorities are turning to exorcisms? Local authorities?
"That drain is blocked, completely fooked. Anyone any ideas?"
".....is there anything to be said for an auld exorcism?"
"Fair dues, brilliant idea. Now get the kettle on until the priest gets here."
And also, why
wouldn't the first person you'd turn to for an exorcism be a priest? Are they doing them down in Halfords now? Surely all that demonstrates is cop on rather than faith?
Indeed isn't the very definition of faith trying to get an exorcism in the yellow pages? Intellectually, you know it shouldn't work but you still do it anyway.
"Howya Tony, what can I get you, a pint is it?"
"Yeah, and throw us on an exorcism as well."
"But I'm a barman."
"I know that, but I still have faith in you...and a short one while you're at it."
Quote from: easytiger95 on September 30, 2016, 04:12:33 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2016, 02:22:39 PM
Did you read Fr McAllion's letter in Irish News yesterday.Who is the first person,with an impressive record of success the authorities turn to for Exorcisms?,Yes the local priest.As he says this is evidence of a divine being.
Sorry, what authorities are turning to exorcisms? Local authorities?
"That drain is blocked, completely fooked. Anyone any ideas?"
".....is there anything to be said for an auld exorcism?"
"Fair dues, brilliant idea. Now get the kettle on until the priest gets here."
And also, why wouldn't the first person you'd turn to for an exorcism be a priest? Are they doing them down in Halfords now? Surely all that demonstrates is cop on rather than faith?
Indeed isn't the very definition of faith trying to get an exorcism in the yellow pages? Intellectually, you know it shouldn't work but you still do it anyway.
"Howya Tony, what can I get you, a pint is it?"
"Yeah, and throw us on an exorcism as well."
"But I'm a barman."
"I know that, but I still have faith in you...and a short one while you're at it."
A barman or a brahman :P
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 03:30:14 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 12:34:13 PM
The whole mercy thing. Why do we need mercy? If we were born sinners because we came via vaginas and not the ether how is it our fault ?
Excellent point. Is the original sin thing exclusive to catholics or is the belief in it a wider chrisitian thing?
How do catholics justify it? Surely they know the garden of eden story is just a story? Without it where does orignal sin come from?
More importantly what was god doing impregnating a virgin (in a weird kind of way) to create a son, who was also him (in a weird kind of way involving a third spirity party) so that the son could be murdered (how fucked up is this shit??) so that we could be absolved (which apparently he could do anyway) of a sin that passes from a person that did not exist (and as the all seeing, all powerful creator he presumably knew this??).
The whole thing from premise to dogma to practice is batshit
You start from the notion that sex with women is very grubby and unworthy
And you build it from there
Even though that is how the species survives but never mind
God needed some kind of USP
So it had to be a Virgin birth
Seafoid,
Your just making things up again
Leonard,
Call it original sin, call it temptation, call it human nature, call it whatever you want. We have parts of our makeup that are contrary to what is good and right, such as selfishness, greed etc. We each have a choice whether or not to submit to them or take the moral path. Thats what original sin is for me, You dont have to Catholic to believe in it or Christian or even theist. Some people believe morals dont exist, tho your second paragraph on Jesus would suggest you do since "shit is fucked up". So presuming you do believe in them perhaps you would explain what you believe they are and where they came from and how we came about to have a choice in them?
How do you know its BS or do you just believe it is?
Joe
Are you saying that this what Catholicism teaches original sin is and that it has backed away from the garden of eden, scriptural base and the whole passing down the genetic line business? Or are you suggesting that catholics don't believe in catholicism or are you just telling us what you believe and the mass ranks of catholics (the subject matter of the thread) believe something else?
As for morals. Call them morals, ethics, an understanding of consequence and of rights and wrongs or whatever you want. There is very sound evidence that they exist and very good explanations as to where they come from that do not need a god as either the creator or the overseer. Empathy does not need a god but it can explain positive behaviours. Kinship doesn't need a god. It fits perfectly well with darwinism. Grouped societies have their basis in genetic groupings. Behaviours originally encouraged, valued and rewarded in genetic groupings are now established and encouraged, valued and rewarded in non-family groupings.
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2016, 03:57:17 PM
If any other subject was described as 'nonsense' the thread would be pulled and if not the deeply offensive posts would attract bans for the perpetrarors.Sadly on this Board as everywhere else,Catholics are fair game it seems.Sad all the same.
Give me an example of a deeply offensive post on this thread
Another thread about religion. Just what the board needs.
There hasn't been one about Northern Ireland for a few days so someone should sort that out pronto.
Joe
On morals..
If was given a work of fiction to review and in that work a character had the power to create and curate a world, to grant forgiveness of sin and grant eternal life and basically do anything they want and be aware of every thing and every thought in that world and that character inter alia:
- Asked someone to murder their own child to prove their belief in and reverence to them
Asked for human sacrifice
Did not intervene and allowed human sacrifice to go ahead
Created his own son to be killed to achieve something that he could have achieved by other means
Allowed the innocent to be the victims of pointless disease
Created floods, droughts, meteors crashes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and storms to show his anger and vengeance
Then in my review I would contend that that character was devoid of any morals.
Would you review it differently or do you share my view on morals or whatever we are going to call them?
Christianity is just a mish mash of other religious belief systems
I wouldn't get too worked up about it all
Ah come on God works in mysterious ways which basically transcribes to he gets credit if anything good happens and no responsibility for anything bad!
Mass is over. Go in peace.
Thanks be to God.
Indeed!
Quote from: laoislad on September 30, 2016, 04:46:29 PM
Another thread about religion. Just what the board needs.
There hasn't been one about Northern Ireland for a few days so someone should sort that out pronto.
More chance of there being a God than Liverpool being your team. 😃
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 03:26:16 PM
What is exorcism about anyway? Is it schizophrenia or are there really demons sent by the devil, whoever that is ? Why would the devil attack someone in Co Monaghan, for example? Is it like computer viruses?
Pat McEnaney of course, who else?
Quote from: Orior on September 30, 2016, 12:18:05 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 30, 2016, 10:37:08 AM
Quote from: Orior on September 30, 2016, 10:07:38 AM
The Church does not change doctrine to align itself with fashion or popular opinion.
Why have hell, purgatory, limbo, indulgences, the Six Commandments of the Church, fast days, self flagellation, etc, disappeared from the narrative, then? Limbo officially abolished, I think and the others just not mentioned any more. What was the motivation for these changes, if not aligning with the zeitgeist? Unless there was some peer-reviewed research that discovered limbo didn't exist after all, like it was discovered that Pluto isn't a planet anymore?
I have no idea chief. I was only quoting what a priest once told me.
We would need a member of the clergy to answer these questions. Do you mind if I post these on a catholic church discussion board?
Fire away.
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 04:39:18 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 03:30:14 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 12:34:13 PM
The whole mercy thing. Why do we need mercy? If we were born sinners because we came via vaginas and not the ether how is it our fault ?
Excellent point. Is the original sin thing exclusive to catholics or is the belief in it a wider chrisitian thing?
How do catholics justify it? Surely they know the garden of eden story is just a story? Without it where does orignal sin come from?
More importantly what was god doing impregnating a virgin (in a weird kind of way) to create a son, who was also him (in a weird kind of way involving a third spirity party) so that the son could be murdered (how fucked up is this shit??) so that we could be absolved (which apparently he could do anyway) of a sin that passes from a person that did not exist (and as the all seeing, all powerful creator he presumably knew this??).
The whole thing from premise to dogma to practice is batshit
You start from the notion that sex with women is very grubby and unworthy
And you build it from there
Even though that is how the species survives but never mind
God needed some kind of USP
So it had to be a Virgin birth
Seafoid,
Your just making things up again
Leonard,
Call it original sin, call it temptation, call it human nature, call it whatever you want. We have parts of our makeup that are contrary to what is good and right, such as selfishness, greed etc. We each have a choice whether or not to submit to them or take the moral path. Thats what original sin is for me, You dont have to Catholic to believe in it or Christian or even theist. Some people believe morals dont exist, tho your second paragraph on Jesus would suggest you do since "shit is fucked up". So presuming you do believe in them perhaps you would explain what you believe they are and where they came from and how we came about to have a choice in them?
How do you know its BS or do you just believe it is?
Joe
Are you saying that this what Catholicism teaches original sin is and that it has backed away from the garden of eden, scriptural base and the whole passing down the genetic line business? Or are you suggesting that catholics don't believe in catholicism or are you just telling us what you believe and the mass ranks of catholics (the subject matter of the thread) believe something else?
As for morals. Call them morals, ethics, an understanding of consequence and of rights and wrongs or whatever you want. There is very sound evidence that they exist and very good explanations as to where they come from that do not need a god as either the creator or the overseer. Empathy does not need a god but it can explain positive behaviours. Kinship doesn't need a god. It fits perfectly well with darwinism. Grouped societies have their basis in genetic groupings. Behaviours originally encouraged, valued and rewarded in genetic groupings are now established and encouraged, valued and rewarded in non-family groupings.
Nothing like an either/or fallacy to double up as a red herring, do try to stick to the point Leonard. Original sin comes from God, the Garden of Eden is accepted by the church that it was simply how the author understood how they came about, in other words a literary device. The source however remains the same. Despite what you might be alluding to the CC adheres to most of the prevailing theories of science and does not take large parts of the old testament to be (for want of better word) Gospel.
Are empathy and kinship morals? Morals deal with right and wrong? Respect and Loyalty might be the corresponding morals your looking for.
Tho it seems like your saying morals exist but that basically we just made them up for our own purposes and only adhere to them because of consequences, I cant speak for anyone else but thats not true for me at least. And by that definition At risk of a slight tangent are you trying to tell me that morals genetically developed our brains to think that way? I dont think even the most optimistic biological anthropologist would adhere to that, tradition and culture would be their argument.
But anyway I'll ask you again slightly differently as you seem to mixed morals up with actions and consequences... Do you believe right and wrong exist?
And for that matter do you believe the choice between right and wrong exists and if so how did that choice come about and for what end?
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 08:43:01 PM
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 04:39:18 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 03:30:14 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 12:34:13 PM
The whole mercy thing. Why do we need mercy? If we were born sinners because we came via vaginas and not the ether how is it our fault ?
Excellent point. Is the original sin thing exclusive to catholics or is the belief in it a wider chrisitian thing?
How do catholics justify it? Surely they know the garden of eden story is just a story? Without it where does orignal sin come from?
More importantly what was god doing impregnating a virgin (in a weird kind of way) to create a son, who was also him (in a weird kind of way involving a third spirity party) so that the son could be murdered (how fucked up is this shit??) so that we could be absolved (which apparently he could do anyway) of a sin that passes from a person that did not exist (and as the all seeing, all powerful creator he presumably knew this??).
The whole thing from premise to dogma to practice is batshit
You start from the notion that sex with women is very grubby and unworthy
And you build it from there
Even though that is how the species survives but never mind
God needed some kind of USP
So it had to be a Virgin birth
Seafoid,
Your just making things up again
Leonard,
Call it original sin, call it temptation, call it human nature, call it whatever you want. We have parts of our makeup that are contrary to what is good and right, such as selfishness, greed etc. We each have a choice whether or not to submit to them or take the moral path. Thats what original sin is for me, You dont have to Catholic to believe in it or Christian or even theist. Some people believe morals dont exist, tho your second paragraph on Jesus would suggest you do since "shit is fucked up". So presuming you do believe in them perhaps you would explain what you believe they are and where they came from and how we came about to have a choice in them?
How do you know its BS or do you just believe it is?
Joe
Are you saying that this what Catholicism teaches original sin is and that it has backed away from the garden of eden, scriptural base and the whole passing down the genetic line business? Or are you suggesting that catholics don't believe in catholicism or are you just telling us what you believe and the mass ranks of catholics (the subject matter of the thread) believe something else?
As for morals. Call them morals, ethics, an understanding of consequence and of rights and wrongs or whatever you want. There is very sound evidence that they exist and very good explanations as to where they come from that do not need a god as either the creator or the overseer. Empathy does not need a god but it can explain positive behaviours. Kinship doesn't need a god. It fits perfectly well with darwinism. Grouped societies have their basis in genetic groupings. Behaviours originally encouraged, valued and rewarded in genetic groupings are now established and encouraged, valued and rewarded in non-family groupings.
Nothing like an either/or fallacy to double up as a red herring, do try to stick to the point Leonard. Original sin comes from God, the Garden of Eden is accepted by the church that it was simply how the author understood how they came about, in other words a literary device. The source however remains the same. Despite what you might be alluding to the CC adheres to most of the prevailing theories of science and does not take large parts of the old testament to be (for want of better word) Gospel.
Are empathy and kinship morals? Morals deal with right and wrong? Respect and Loyalty might be the corresponding morals your looking for.
Tho it seems like your saying morals exist but that basically we just made them up for our own purposes and only adhere to them because of consequences, I cant speak for anyone else but thats not true for me at least. And by that definition At risk of a slight tangent are you trying to tell me that morals genetically developed our brains to think that way? I dont think even the most optimistic biological anthropologist would adhere to that, tradition and culture would be their argument.
But anyway I'll ask you again slightly differently as you seem to mixed morals up with actions and consequences... Do you believe right and wrong exist?
And for that matter do you believe the choice between right and wrong exists and if so how did that choice come about and for what end?
Original sin is about control. How can children have sin? What did they do wrong?
Seafoid, One simple is that part of our nature is to be tempted by things, I believe we are born with it.
It couldn't really be considered a sin in a child until they understand and act upon it tho but it still with them up until that point
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 09:10:44 PM
Seafoid, One simple is that part of our nature is to be tempted by things, I believe we are born with it.
It couldn't really be considered a sin in a child until they understand and act upon it tho but it still with them up until that point
Joe I think our understanding of psychology has come on a good bit even since the 1980s.
Loading kids with feelings of guilt and blame is not good.
I think there is a coherent Christian world view that could emerge in the age of climate change and that it would be pretty different to the current version.
Yeah lets teach them there is no right and wrong and they have no conscience, you work away with your kids on that and let us know when your ready for the mad house.
Would that be Neoliberal Climate Change? I can see how that can affect kids alright
Do those who claim the RC church to be intrinsically moral, know anything of its history throughout the centuries?
Quote"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
― Søren Kierkegaard
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 08:43:01 PM
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 04:39:18 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 03:30:14 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 12:34:13 PM
The whole mercy thing. Why do we need mercy? If we were born sinners because we came via vaginas and not the ether how is it our fault ?
Excellent point. Is the original sin thing exclusive to catholics or is the belief in it a wider chrisitian thing?
How do catholics justify it? Surely they know the garden of eden story is just a story? Without it where does orignal sin come from?
More importantly what was god doing impregnating a virgin (in a weird kind of way) to create a son, who was also him (in a weird kind of way involving a third spirity party) so that the son could be murdered (how fucked up is this shit??) so that we could be absolved (which apparently he could do anyway) of a sin that passes from a person that did not exist (and as the all seeing, all powerful creator he presumably knew this??).
The whole thing from premise to dogma to practice is batshit
You start from the notion that sex with women is very grubby and unworthy
And you build it from there
Even though that is how the species survives but never mind
God needed some kind of USP
So it had to be a Virgin birth
Seafoid,
Your just making things up again
Leonard,
Call it original sin, call it temptation, call it human nature, call it whatever you want. We have parts of our makeup that are contrary to what is good and right, such as selfishness, greed etc. We each have a choice whether or not to submit to them or take the moral path. Thats what original sin is for me, You dont have to Catholic to believe in it or Christian or even theist. Some people believe morals dont exist, tho your second paragraph on Jesus would suggest you do since "shit is fucked up". So presuming you do believe in them perhaps you would explain what you believe they are and where they came from and how we came about to have a choice in them?
How do you know its BS or do you just believe it is?
Joe
Are you saying that this what Catholicism teaches original sin is and that it has backed away from the garden of eden, scriptural base and the whole passing down the genetic line business? Or are you suggesting that catholics don't believe in catholicism or are you just telling us what you believe and the mass ranks of catholics (the subject matter of the thread) believe something else?
As for morals. Call them morals, ethics, an understanding of consequence and of rights and wrongs or whatever you want. There is very sound evidence that they exist and very good explanations as to where they come from that do not need a god as either the creator or the overseer. Empathy does not need a god but it can explain positive behaviours. Kinship doesn't need a god. It fits perfectly well with darwinism. Grouped societies have their basis in genetic groupings. Behaviours originally encouraged, valued and rewarded in genetic groupings are now established and encouraged, valued and rewarded in non-family groupings.
Nothing like an either/or fallacy to double up as a red herring, do try to stick to the point Leonard. Original sin comes from God, the Garden of Eden is accepted by the church that it was simply how the author understood how they came about, in other words a literary device. The source however remains the same. Despite what you might be alluding to the CC adheres to most of the prevailing theories of science and does not take large parts of the old testament to be (for want of better word) Gospel.
Are empathy and kinship morals? Morals deal with right and wrong? Respect and Loyalty might be the corresponding morals your looking for.
Tho it seems like your saying morals exist but that basically we just made them up for our own purposes and only adhere to them because of consequences, I cant speak for anyone else but thats not true for me at least. And by that definition At risk of a slight tangent are you trying to tell me that morals genetically developed our brains to think that way? I dont think even the most optimistic biological anthropologist would adhere to that, tradition and culture would be their argument.
But anyway I'll ask you again slightly differently as you seem to mixed morals up with actions and consequences... Do you believe right and wrong exist?
And for that matter do you believe the choice between right and wrong exists and if so how did that choice come about and for what end?
Joe
Your argument is that human nature (or original sin) comes from God and that is in deed an argument. But what is it backed up by? What alternatives have been weighed up and what is your view on those?
I am fully aware that the catholic church and its members do not take most of the bible as literal truth. What bemuses me is the fact that the church and its members will tell people how to live their lives and condem harmless acts based upon a literal (or invented) reading of the bible which is at that point in time not a literary work but the undiluted word of god.
Empathy and kinship are not morals. I never argued that they were. They are however some of the sources of morality and you did ask where morals came from I apologise profusely for the confusion this has caused in your brain.
If you could revisit the posts and get your head around them then you will find the nonsense in the coda of your post
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 09:22:14 PM
Yeah lets teach them there is no right and wrong and they have no conscience, you work away with your kids on that and let us know when your ready for the mad house.
Would that be Neoliberal Climate Change? I can see how that can affect kids alright
I get the impression, and correct me if I 'm wrong but you operate on the basis that the only possible explanation for a recognition of right and wrong is that God placed this instinct in humans. Similarly you believe that atheists don't recognise the right/wrong dichotomy?
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 09:22:14 PM
Yeah lets teach them there is no right and wrong and they have no conscience, you work away with your kids on that and let us know when your ready for the mad house.
Would that be Neoliberal Climate Change? I can see how that can affect kids alright
They aren't sinners. they can still understand the difference between right and wrong without having guilt pumped into them.
I would trust my kids .
Climate change is happening anyway whether you accept it or not.
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 09:22:14 PM
Yeah lets teach them there is no right and wrong and they have no conscience, you work away with your kids on that and let us know when your ready for the mad house.
Would that be Neoliberal Climate Change? I can see how that can affect kids alright
'Wrong' of course including that the Earth is the centre of the Universe, punishable by death if you disagree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno)
Of course many were simply excommunicated, thereby doomed to eternal hell, which is apparently a fate far worse than death.
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 11:27:33 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 08:43:01 PM
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 04:39:18 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 03:30:14 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 12:34:13 PM
The whole mercy thing. Why do we need mercy? If we were born sinners because we came via vaginas and not the ether how is it our fault ?
Excellent point. Is the original sin thing exclusive to catholics or is the belief in it a wider chrisitian thing?
How do catholics justify it? Surely they know the garden of eden story is just a story? Without it where does orignal sin come from?
More importantly what was god doing impregnating a virgin (in a weird kind of way) to create a son, who was also him (in a weird kind of way involving a third spirity party) so that the son could be murdered (how fucked up is this shit??) so that we could be absolved (which apparently he could do anyway) of a sin that passes from a person that did not exist (and as the all seeing, all powerful creator he presumably knew this??).
The whole thing from premise to dogma to practice is batshit
You start from the notion that sex with women is very grubby and unworthy
And you build it from there
Even though that is how the species survives but never mind
God needed some kind of USP
So it had to be a Virgin birth
Seafoid,
Your just making things up again
Leonard,
Call it original sin, call it temptation, call it human nature, call it whatever you want. We have parts of our makeup that are contrary to what is good and right, such as selfishness, greed etc. We each have a choice whether or not to submit to them or take the moral path. Thats what original sin is for me, You dont have to Catholic to believe in it or Christian or even theist. Some people believe morals dont exist, tho your second paragraph on Jesus would suggest you do since "shit is fucked up". So presuming you do believe in them perhaps you would explain what you believe they are and where they came from and how we came about to have a choice in them?
How do you know its BS or do you just believe it is?
Joe
Are you saying that this what Catholicism teaches original sin is and that it has backed away from the garden of eden, scriptural base and the whole passing down the genetic line business? Or are you suggesting that catholics don't believe in catholicism or are you just telling us what you believe and the mass ranks of catholics (the subject matter of the thread) believe something else?
As for morals. Call them morals, ethics, an understanding of consequence and of rights and wrongs or whatever you want. There is very sound evidence that they exist and very good explanations as to where they come from that do not need a god as either the creator or the overseer. Empathy does not need a god but it can explain positive behaviours. Kinship doesn't need a god. It fits perfectly well with darwinism. Grouped societies have their basis in genetic groupings. Behaviours originally encouraged, valued and rewarded in genetic groupings are now established and encouraged, valued and rewarded in non-family groupings.
Nothing like an either/or fallacy to double up as a red herring, do try to stick to the point Leonard. Original sin comes from God, the Garden of Eden is accepted by the church that it was simply how the author understood how they came about, in other words a literary device. The source however remains the same. Despite what you might be alluding to the CC adheres to most of the prevailing theories of science and does not take large parts of the old testament to be (for want of better word) Gospel.
Are empathy and kinship morals? Morals deal with right and wrong? Respect and Loyalty might be the corresponding morals your looking for.
Tho it seems like your saying morals exist but that basically we just made them up for our own purposes and only adhere to them because of consequences, I cant speak for anyone else but thats not true for me at least. And by that definition At risk of a slight tangent are you trying to tell me that morals genetically developed our brains to think that way? I dont think even the most optimistic biological anthropologist would adhere to that, tradition and culture would be their argument.
But anyway I'll ask you again slightly differently as you seem to mixed morals up with actions and consequences... Do you believe right and wrong exist?
And for that matter do you believe the choice between right and wrong exists and if so how did that choice come about and for what end?
Joe
Your argument is that human nature (or original sin) comes from God and that is in deed an argument. But what is it backed up by? What alternatives have been weighed up and what is your view on those?
I am fully aware that the catholic church and its members do not take most of the bible as literal truth. What bemuses me is the fact that the church and its members will tell people how to live their lives and condem harmless acts based upon a literal (or invented) reading of the bible which is at that point in time not a literary work but the undiluted word of god.
Empathy and kinship are not morals. I never argued that they were. They are however some of the sources of morality and you did ask where morals came from I apologise profusely for the confusion this has caused in your brain.
If you could revisit the posts and get your head around them then you will find the nonsense in the coda of your post
Im sorry if you thought that my entire paragraph was solely about empathy and kinship it clearly wasn't. Perhaps you could read the rest of it and reply instead of engaging in pointless ad hominen?
So I'll ask again.... do you believe right and wrong exist? or have we created them? Do you adhere to right and wrong in your life?
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 11:33:46 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 09:22:14 PM
Yeah lets teach them there is no right and wrong and they have no conscience, you work away with your kids on that and let us know when your ready for the mad house.
Would that be Neoliberal Climate Change? I can see how that can affect kids alright
They aren't sinners. they can still understand the difference between right and wrong without having guilt pumped into them.
I would trust my kids .
Climate change is happening anyway whether you accept it or not.
Yeah so now im a climate change denier too ::) ::) I suppose it makes kids feel more guilty too?
How it teaching kids right and wrong pumping guilt into them?
Quote from: muppet on September 30, 2016, 11:53:53 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 09:22:14 PM
Yeah lets teach them there is no right and wrong and they have no conscience, you work away with your kids on that and let us know when your ready for the mad house.
Would that be Neoliberal Climate Change? I can see how that can affect kids alright
'Wrong' of course including that the Earth is the centre of the Universe, punishable by death if you disagree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno)
Of course many were simply excommunicated, thereby doomed to eternal hell, which is apparently a fate far worse than death.
Nothing like keeping it relevant eh Muppet??
It was disgraceful what happened Giordano Bruno
I watched Cosmos too and was slightly bemused how a science program championed a guy who simply dreamed things up (which he should have been perfectly entitled to BTW do with getting executed). I think Carl Sagan would have thought it pretty lame. But makes you wonder about people in science driving an anti Catholic agenda. If the catholic church was so anti science there would surely be more up to date examples of it. It seems like many scientists are unsurprisingly believers in a materialist universe, this belief puts them in directly conflict with an institution who also believes in a spiritual universe. Neither can be proved (if anything truely can be), its just pointless and petty.
edit: probably slightly misdirected there, Neil deGrasse Tyson has consistently avoided being drawn on the issue of religion tho he does tend to be very politicial and most scientist (with a few exceptions) in media tend to stick to science. Seth McFarlane (who is not a scientist) on the other hand has consistently tired to up play this science v church thing. So its more likely a theme the media likes to use that has caused it to infiltrate into the mainstream.
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 01, 2016, 05:38:53 AM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 11:33:46 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 09:22:14 PM
Yeah lets teach them there is no right and wrong and they have no conscience, you work away with your kids on that and let us know when your ready for the mad house.
Would that be Neoliberal Climate Change? I can see how that can affect kids alright
They aren't sinners. they can still understand the difference between right and wrong without having guilt pumped into them.
I would trust my kids .
Climate change is happening anyway whether you accept it or not.
Yeah so now im a climate change denier too ::) ::) I suppose it makes kids feel more guilty too?
How it teaching kids right and wrong pumping guilt into them?
Can you be good without being religious ? Or is there no ethical life without the Church?
Quote from: seafoid on October 01, 2016, 06:41:34 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 01, 2016, 05:38:53 AM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 11:33:46 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 09:22:14 PM
Yeah lets teach them there is no right and wrong and they have no conscience, you work away with your kids on that and let us know when your ready for the mad house.
Would that be Neoliberal Climate Change? I can see how that can affect kids alright
They aren't sinners. they can still understand the difference between right and wrong without having guilt pumped into them.
I would trust my kids .
Climate change is happening anyway whether you accept it or not.
Yeah so now im a climate change denier too ::) ::) I suppose it makes kids feel more guilty too?
How it teaching kids right and wrong pumping guilt into them?
Can you be good without being religious ? Or is there no ethical life without the Church?
Of course you can... IMO
Tho the question I am getting at is does good and bad truly exist or is it just something that humans have created?
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 01, 2016, 06:48:01 AM
Quote from: seafoid on October 01, 2016, 06:41:34 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 01, 2016, 05:38:53 AM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 11:33:46 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 09:22:14 PM
Yeah lets teach them there is no right and wrong and they have no conscience, you work away with your kids on that and let us know when your ready for the mad house.
Would that be Neoliberal Climate Change? I can see how that can affect kids alright
They aren't sinners. they can still understand the difference between right and wrong without having guilt pumped into them.
I would trust my kids .
Climate change is happening anyway whether you accept it or not.
Yeah so now im a climate change denier too ::) ::) I suppose it makes kids feel more guilty too?
How it teaching kids right and wrong pumping guilt into them?
Can you be good without being religious ? Or is there no ethical life without the Church?
Of course you can... IMO
Tho the question I am getting at is does good and bad truly exist or is it just something that humans have created?
I think evil is related to trauma. People are not born with it.
Abuse and neglect drive a lot of criminal activity later in life in the case of murderers for example
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 01, 2016, 05:34:43 AM
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 11:27:33 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 08:43:01 PM
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 04:39:18 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 03:30:14 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 12:34:13 PM
The whole mercy thing. Why do we need mercy? If we were born sinners because we came via vaginas and not the ether how is it our fault ?
Excellent point. Is the original sin thing exclusive to catholics or is the belief in it a wider chrisitian thing?
How do catholics justify it? Surely they know the garden of eden story is just a story? Without it where does orignal sin come from?
More importantly what was god doing impregnating a virgin (in a weird kind of way) to create a son, who was also him (in a weird kind of way involving a third spirity party) so that the son could be murdered (how fucked up is this shit??) so that we could be absolved (which apparently he could do anyway) of a sin that passes from a person that did not exist (and as the all seeing, all powerful creator he presumably knew this??).
The whole thing from premise to dogma to practice is batshit
You start from the notion that sex with women is very grubby and unworthy
And you build it from there
Even though that is how the species survives but never mind
God needed some kind of USP
So it had to be a Virgin birth
Seafoid,
Your just making things up again
Leonard,
Call it original sin, call it temptation, call it human nature, call it whatever you want. We have parts of our makeup that are contrary to what is good and right, such as selfishness, greed etc. We each have a choice whether or not to submit to them or take the moral path. Thats what original sin is for me, You dont have to Catholic to believe in it or Christian or even theist. Some people believe morals dont exist, tho your second paragraph on Jesus would suggest you do since "shit is fucked up". So presuming you do believe in them perhaps you would explain what you believe they are and where they came from and how we came about to have a choice in them?
How do you know its BS or do you just believe it is?
Joe
Are you saying that this what Catholicism teaches original sin is and that it has backed away from the garden of eden, scriptural base and the whole passing down the genetic line business? Or are you suggesting that catholics don't believe in catholicism or are you just telling us what you believe and the mass ranks of catholics (the subject matter of the thread) believe something else?
As for morals. Call them morals, ethics, an understanding of consequence and of rights and wrongs or whatever you want. There is very sound evidence that they exist and very good explanations as to where they come from that do not need a god as either the creator or the overseer. Empathy does not need a god but it can explain positive behaviours. Kinship doesn't need a god. It fits perfectly well with darwinism. Grouped societies have their basis in genetic groupings. Behaviours originally encouraged, valued and rewarded in genetic groupings are now established and encouraged, valued and rewarded in non-family groupings.
Nothing like an either/or fallacy to double up as a red herring, do try to stick to the point Leonard. Original sin comes from God, the Garden of Eden is accepted by the church that it was simply how the author understood how they came about, in other words a literary device. The source however remains the same. Despite what you might be alluding to the CC adheres to most of the prevailing theories of science and does not take large parts of the old testament to be (for want of better word) Gospel.
Are empathy and kinship morals? Morals deal with right and wrong? Respect and Loyalty might be the corresponding morals your looking for.
Tho it seems like your saying morals exist but that basically we just made them up for our own purposes and only adhere to them because of consequences, I cant speak for anyone else but thats not true for me at least. And by that definition At risk of a slight tangent are you trying to tell me that morals genetically developed our brains to think that way? I dont think even the most optimistic biological anthropologist would adhere to that, tradition and culture would be their argument.
But anyway I'll ask you again slightly differently as you seem to mixed morals up with actions and consequences... Do you believe right and wrong exist?
And for that matter do you believe the choice between right and wrong exists and if so how did that choice come about and for what end?
Joe
Your argument is that human nature (or original sin) comes from God and that is in deed an argument. But what is it backed up by? What alternatives have been weighed up and what is your view on those?
I am fully aware that the catholic church and its members do not take most of the bible as literal truth. What bemuses me is the fact that the church and its members will tell people how to live their lives and condem harmless acts based upon a literal (or invented) reading of the bible which is at that point in time not a literary work but the undiluted word of god.
Empathy and kinship are not morals. I never argued that they were. They are however some of the sources of morality and you did ask where morals came from I apologise profusely for the confusion this has caused in your brain.
If you could revisit the posts and get your head around them then you will find the nonsense in the coda of your post
Im sorry if you thought that my entire paragraph was solely about empathy and kinship it clearly wasn't. Perhaps you could read the rest of it and reply instead of engaging in pointless ad hominen?
So I'll ask again.... do you believe right and wrong exist? or have we created them? Do you adhere to right and wrong in your life?
Joe
It is sad that I am having to direct you step by step through a pretty straight forward argument but here goes.
The point about the end of the post was that if you had understood the meaning of my post then you wouldn't have had to ask such questions. This is what I directed you back to. Dismiss that as playing the man if you wish but in this case it was"the man" who was failing to grasp the meaning.
So to answer this again. Humans and other species to hugely varying degrees show signs of being able to process a difference between right and wrong and to decide to do right. All of this is most evident in primates and the link to brain capacity cannot be dismissed. Our evolution as a social species has been primarily in family groupings. It is only in latter years that we have moved outside this. We are genetically driven to look after our genes and pass on the most apt genes. We reward behaviours in that sense. Empathy and kinship thrive. Standards of behaviour are set and with improved understanding are advanced even when dealing with non family members. That is why I try to do right. That is why we all try to with varying degrees of success. We are genetically programmed to do so.
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 01, 2016, 05:58:10 AM
Quote from: muppet on September 30, 2016, 11:53:53 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 09:22:14 PM
Yeah lets teach them there is no right and wrong and they have no conscience, you work away with your kids on that and let us know when your ready for the mad house.
Would that be Neoliberal Climate Change? I can see how that can affect kids alright
'Wrong' of course including that the Earth is the centre of the Universe, punishable by death if you disagree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno)
Of course many were simply excommunicated, thereby doomed to eternal hell, which is apparently a fate far worse than death.
Nothing like keeping it relevant eh Muppet??
It was disgraceful what happened Giordano Bruno
I watched Cosmos too and was slightly bemused how a science program championed a guy who simply dreamed things up (which he should have been perfectly entitled to BTW do with getting executed). I think Carl Sagan would have thought it pretty lame. But makes you wonder about people in science driving an anti Catholic agenda. If the catholic church was so anti science there would surely be more up to date examples of it. It seems like many scientists are unsurprisingly believers in a materialist universe, this belief puts them in directly conflict with an institution who also believes in a spiritual universe. Neither can be proved (if anything truely can be), its just pointless and petty.
edit: probably slightly misdirected there, Neil deGrasse Tyson has consistently avoided being drawn on the issue of religion tho he does tend to be very politicial and most scientist (with a few exceptions) in media tend to stick to science. Seth McFarlane (who is not a scientist) on the other hand has consistently tired to up play this science v church thing. So its more likely a theme the media likes to use that has caused it to infiltrate into the mainstream.
You guessed wrong regarding Cosmos, so bash whoever you want. Bruno is a historical fact, not simply the last thing you saw on TV. And the Church claimed he was 'wrong' all on their misguided own. Did the Pope involved go to Hell? Or how does that work?
As for your usual 'anti-Catholic agenda', this for me is confirmation of its falseness. If it really believed it was 'The Truth', and that it should 'Turn the other Cheek, and that its mission was to convert non-believers, it wouldn't be pulling down the shutters at any critical analysis and firing ad hominems at non-believers.
No-one said the church was 'anti-Science'. This strawman is typical of small-minded people who need to polarise everything into right and wrong, for and against, pro and anti. Life isn't that simple.
As for modern conflicts with Science, there are still Catholics who ardently believe in Creationism. The Church allows them to do so and has never come out and said in plain language, that it was nonsense. The Church is a mess on homosexuality and calls it a choice, despite experts now believing it is likely to be a genetic evolution. The persecution of homosexuals continues unabated. Look at what that ideology turns people like Tony Fearon into.
But the main conflict, modern and historical, between Science and Religion, is that the former seeks evidence, while the latter seeks subjects. Anyone can follow science, there are no membership requirements, while in religion you usually have to suspend your normal thought processes and have 'faith'.
Many religions ban whole sections of society. The Catholic Church is not the worst in this regard in modern times, but it has a shameful history nonetheless.
In order for a discussion to develop legs you need a few posters with diametrically opposing views. I think the Church needs a reset.
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2016, 03:57:17 PM
If any other subject was described as 'nonsense' the thread would be pulled and if not the deeply offensive posts would attract bans for the perpetrarors.Sadly on this Board as everywhere else,Catholics are fair game it seems.Sad all the same.
What thread like this has been pulled?
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2016, 02:11:31 PM
Serious amount of trolls on this Board.I'd say everyone of you if hit by a bus would be asking for a priest.
Can't be sure about that, Tony.
I was never hit by a bus and I hope I never will but I'm not so sure I would call for a priest if I was.
I have had at least two close shaves shaves in the past where I was on the brink of finding out for myself if there is an afterlife or not.
I was in hospital each time and I was asked if I wanted the services of a priest each time.
I said I didn't want to confess anything about anything but the priest could call by and we'd have a chat if he liked, again about anything he wished to bring up.
My reasoning was simple: if there really was an all-seeing, all-hearing, compassionate deity, he (she?) would already know if if I was in a state of mortal sin or not. No point bothering the poor priest with a list of things Is be making up as we went along.
Besides, I didn't honestly think I had done anything to merit eternal damnation for anything I had done.
So stuff the begrudgers, I'd I 'd take my chances. Luckily for me, I pulled through on each occasion and there's a distinct possibility that I'll be faced with the same choice sooner or later.
I see no reason to change my opinion. I'll go for three out of three.
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 01, 2016, 06:48:01 AM
Quote from: seafoid on October 01, 2016, 06:41:34 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 01, 2016, 05:38:53 AM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 11:33:46 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 09:22:14 PM
Yeah lets teach them there is no right and wrong and they have no conscience, you work away with your kids on that and let us know when your ready for the mad house.
Would that be Neoliberal Climate Change? I can see how that can affect kids alright
They aren't sinners. they can still understand the difference between right and wrong without having guilt pumped into them.
I would trust my kids .
Climate change is happening anyway whether you accept it or not.
Yeah so now im a climate change denier too ::) ::) I suppose it makes kids feel more guilty too?
How it teaching kids right and wrong pumping guilt into them?
Can you be good without being religious ? Or is there no ethical life without the Church?
Of course you can... IMO
Tho the question I am getting at is does good and bad truly exist or is it just something that humans have created?
I think evil is something that develops in the brain. If you read psychological reports of murderers or child killers there is usually
a long process involved in the back story. There was a case in Switzerland where a prisoner murdered a psychologist who was bringing him to a sports session. He grew up in an abusive home and his mother was tormenter in chief. He developed a hatred of women. He beat up his first girlfriend. He developed a fantasy of slitting a woman's throat. He got turned on thinking about it. At each stage he went further. there was some kind of brain process gong on.
Graham Dwyer had something similar going on. He kept on feeding his hatred of women until he murdered one.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/30/mark-bridger-guilty-april-jones-murder
Jim Gamble, the founding head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, said there was a theory that men such as Bridger and Hazell became caught up in a "spiral of abuse"."They begin to want more, they want access not to still images but to video images, and then they want to get more real experience. And through the internet they realise that they are not alone," Gamble said.
Quote from: J70 on October 01, 2016, 11:43:07 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2016, 03:57:17 PM
If any other subject was described as 'nonsense' the thread would be pulled and if not the deeply offensive posts would attract bans for the perpetrarors.Sadly on this Board as everywhere else,Catholics are fair game it seems.Sad all the same.
What thread like this has been pulled?
He didn't answer it the first time so I'm not sure what will have changed.
There is a recurring theme of evading the gaping holes in the religious arguments or throwing out words/concepts and not being able to back up e.g. Describing something as simultaneously strong and immeasurable. Tony and his confreres are adept at this. Wilful misinterpretation (or are they really that thick)is a standard ploy. And then label it anti religious as if saying someone is anti you is a means of addressing their disagreement with you. Laughable really
Quote from: Hardy on September 30, 2016, 11:06:09 AM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on September 30, 2016, 11:02:44 AM
What breed is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?
Dunno, but he appears to be deaf.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
grant us peace.
Very good lads
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 03:26:16 PM
What is exorcism about anyway? Is it schizophrenia or are there really demons sent by the devil, whoever that is ? Why would the devil attack someone in Co Monaghan, for example? Is it like computer viruses?
Because the devil is from Cavan.
TryIng to argue with TF is like trying to talk sense to a Brexiteer. A banker interviewed by the FT said it was impossible to ask them about details. If you do you are accused of hating Brexit.
Quote from: LCohen on October 01, 2016, 08:53:31 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 01, 2016, 05:34:43 AM
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 11:27:33 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 08:43:01 PM
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 04:39:18 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 03:30:14 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 12:34:13 PM
The whole mercy thing. Why do we need mercy? If we were born sinners because we came via vaginas and not the ether how is it our fault ?
Excellent point. Is the original sin thing exclusive to catholics or is the belief in it a wider chrisitian thing?
How do catholics justify it? Surely they know the garden of eden story is just a story? Without it where does orignal sin come from?
More importantly what was god doing impregnating a virgin (in a weird kind of way) to create a son, who was also him (in a weird kind of way involving a third spirity party) so that the son could be murdered (how fucked up is this shit??) so that we could be absolved (which apparently he could do anyway) of a sin that passes from a person that did not exist (and as the all seeing, all powerful creator he presumably knew this??).
The whole thing from premise to dogma to practice is batshit
You start from the notion that sex with women is very grubby and unworthy
And you build it from there
Even though that is how the species survives but never mind
God needed some kind of USP
So it had to be a Virgin birth
Seafoid,
Your just making things up again
Leonard,
Call it original sin, call it temptation, call it human nature, call it whatever you want. We have parts of our makeup that are contrary to what is good and right, such as selfishness, greed etc. We each have a choice whether or not to submit to them or take the moral path. Thats what original sin is for me, You dont have to Catholic to believe in it or Christian or even theist. Some people believe morals dont exist, tho your second paragraph on Jesus would suggest you do since "shit is fucked up". So presuming you do believe in them perhaps you would explain what you believe they are and where they came from and how we came about to have a choice in them?
How do you know its BS or do you just believe it is?
Joe
Are you saying that this what Catholicism teaches original sin is and that it has backed away from the garden of eden, scriptural base and the whole passing down the genetic line business? Or are you suggesting that catholics don't believe in catholicism or are you just telling us what you believe and the mass ranks of catholics (the subject matter of the thread) believe something else?
As for morals. Call them morals, ethics, an understanding of consequence and of rights and wrongs or whatever you want. There is very sound evidence that they exist and very good explanations as to where they come from that do not need a god as either the creator or the overseer. Empathy does not need a god but it can explain positive behaviours. Kinship doesn't need a god. It fits perfectly well with darwinism. Grouped societies have their basis in genetic groupings. Behaviours originally encouraged, valued and rewarded in genetic groupings are now established and encouraged, valued and rewarded in non-family groupings.
Nothing like an either/or fallacy to double up as a red herring, do try to stick to the point Leonard. Original sin comes from God, the Garden of Eden is accepted by the church that it was simply how the author understood how they came about, in other words a literary device. The source however remains the same. Despite what you might be alluding to the CC adheres to most of the prevailing theories of science and does not take large parts of the old testament to be (for want of better word) Gospel.
Are empathy and kinship morals? Morals deal with right and wrong? Respect and Loyalty might be the corresponding morals your looking for.
Tho it seems like your saying morals exist but that basically we just made them up for our own purposes and only adhere to them because of consequences, I cant speak for anyone else but thats not true for me at least. And by that definition At risk of a slight tangent are you trying to tell me that morals genetically developed our brains to think that way? I dont think even the most optimistic biological anthropologist would adhere to that, tradition and culture would be their argument.
But anyway I'll ask you again slightly differently as you seem to mixed morals up with actions and consequences... Do you believe right and wrong exist?
And for that matter do you believe the choice between right and wrong exists and if so how did that choice come about and for what end?
Joe
Your argument is that human nature (or original sin) comes from God and that is in deed an argument. But what is it backed up by? What alternatives have been weighed up and what is your view on those?
I am fully aware that the catholic church and its members do not take most of the bible as literal truth. What bemuses me is the fact that the church and its members will tell people how to live their lives and condem harmless acts based upon a literal (or invented) reading of the bible which is at that point in time not a literary work but the undiluted word of god.
Empathy and kinship are not morals. I never argued that they were. They are however some of the sources of morality and you did ask where morals came from I apologise profusely for the confusion this has caused in your brain.
If you could revisit the posts and get your head around them then you will find the nonsense in the coda of your post
Im sorry if you thought that my entire paragraph was solely about empathy and kinship it clearly wasn't. Perhaps you could read the rest of it and reply instead of engaging in pointless ad hominen?
So I'll ask again.... do you believe right and wrong exist? or have we created them? Do you adhere to right and wrong in your life?
Joe
It is sad that I am having to direct you step by step through a pretty straight forward argument but here goes.
The point about the end of the post was that if you had understood the meaning of my post then you wouldn't have had to ask such questions. This is what I directed you back to. Dismiss that as playing the man if you wish but in this case it was"the man" who was failing to grasp the meaning.
So to answer this again. Humans and other species to hugely varying degrees show signs of being able to process a difference between right and wrong and to decide to do right. All of this is most evident in primates and the link to brain capacity cannot be dismissed. Our evolution as a social species has been primarily in family groupings. It is only in latter years that we have moved outside this. We are genetically driven to look after our genes and pass on the most apt genes. We reward behaviours in that sense. Empathy and kinship thrive. Standards of behaviour are set and with improved understanding are advanced even when dealing with non family members. That is why I try to do right. That is why we all try to with varying degrees of success. We are genetically programmed to do so.
See above in bold Leonard.
I had already discussed this... Looks like your telling me that human action is governed by inevitable preconditions by preprograming in the brain or whats learned in the enviroment.... so basically morals dont exist then? There is no such thing as good and evil is what you are telling me? And that actions that most of us could percieve to be abhorent (say murder) are only that, a perception. And ultimately the perpetrator could think they are perfectly ok and there is nothing concrete to say they are wrong? Brings into question the whole justice system does it not? I actually think Anders Brevik seems to be a good example of this.
And since your heading down this route. Where does the actual decision come from? How do we have a choice to make these decisions?
And why do we have the experience of thought at all. I mean if are brains are just akin to computers processing all this information why do we experience anything more than a computer does? Genetic evolution does not offer anything on how we came to have that experience anymore than an oak tree, we really should be zombies.
Quote from: seafoid on October 02, 2016, 01:22:05 PM
TryIng to argue with TF is like trying to talk sense to a Brexiteer. A banker interviewed by the FT said it was impossible to ask them about details. If you do you are accused of hating Brexit.
Pray for him.
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on October 03, 2016, 09:04:19 AM
Quote from: seafoid on October 02, 2016, 01:22:05 PM
TryIng to argue with TF is like trying to talk sense to a Brexiteer. A banker interviewed by the FT said it was impossible to ask them about details. If you do you are accused of hating Brexit.
Pray for him.
I think we need Investment grade prayer. A novena
http://god-answers-prayers.com/miracle_prayers/never_known_to_fail/index.html
Quote from: seafoid on October 03, 2016, 09:09:51 AM
http://god-answers-prayers.com/miracle_prayers/never_known_to_fail/index.html
60% of the time it works everytime
Quote from: MoChara on October 03, 2016, 10:09:31 AM
Quote from: seafoid on October 03, 2016, 09:09:51 AM
http://god-answers-prayers.com/miracle_prayers/never_known_to_fail/index.html
60% of the time it works everytime
How can it work for all Ireland finals?
Quote from: seafoid on October 03, 2016, 10:22:07 AM
Quote from: MoChara on October 03, 2016, 10:09:31 AM
Quote from: seafoid on October 03, 2016, 09:09:51 AM
http://god-answers-prayers.com/miracle_prayers/never_known_to_fail/index.html
60% of the time it works everytime
How can it work for all Ireland finals?
Mayo are getting the 40% out of the way and are about to go on a Crossmaglen-esqe run of titles. ...
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 03, 2016, 06:28:53 AM
Quote from: LCohen on October 01, 2016, 08:53:31 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 01, 2016, 05:34:43 AM
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 11:27:33 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 08:43:01 PM
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 04:39:18 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 03:30:14 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2016, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 12:34:13 PM
The whole mercy thing. Why do we need mercy? If we were born sinners because we came via vaginas and not the ether how is it our fault ?
Excellent point. Is the original sin thing exclusive to catholics or is the belief in it a wider chrisitian thing?
How do catholics justify it? Surely they know the garden of eden story is just a story? Without it where does orignal sin come from?
More importantly what was god doing impregnating a virgin (in a weird kind of way) to create a son, who was also him (in a weird kind of way involving a third spirity party) so that the son could be murdered (how fucked up is this shit??) so that we could be absolved (which apparently he could do anyway) of a sin that passes from a person that did not exist (and as the all seeing, all powerful creator he presumably knew this??).
The whole thing from premise to dogma to practice is batshit
You start from the notion that sex with women is very grubby and unworthy
And you build it from there
Even though that is how the species survives but never mind
God needed some kind of USP
So it had to be a Virgin birth
Seafoid,
Your just making things up again
Leonard,
Call it original sin, call it temptation, call it human nature, call it whatever you want. We have parts of our makeup that are contrary to what is good and right, such as selfishness, greed etc. We each have a choice whether or not to submit to them or take the moral path. Thats what original sin is for me, You dont have to Catholic to believe in it or Christian or even theist. Some people believe morals dont exist, tho your second paragraph on Jesus would suggest you do since "shit is fucked up". So presuming you do believe in them perhaps you would explain what you believe they are and where they came from and how we came about to have a choice in them?
How do you know its BS or do you just believe it is?
Joe
Are you saying that this what Catholicism teaches original sin is and that it has backed away from the garden of eden, scriptural base and the whole passing down the genetic line business? Or are you suggesting that catholics don't believe in catholicism or are you just telling us what you believe and the mass ranks of catholics (the subject matter of the thread) believe something else?
As for morals. Call them morals, ethics, an understanding of consequence and of rights and wrongs or whatever you want. There is very sound evidence that they exist and very good explanations as to where they come from that do not need a god as either the creator or the overseer. Empathy does not need a god but it can explain positive behaviours. Kinship doesn't need a god. It fits perfectly well with darwinism. Grouped societies have their basis in genetic groupings. Behaviours originally encouraged, valued and rewarded in genetic groupings are now established and encouraged, valued and rewarded in non-family groupings.
Nothing like an either/or fallacy to double up as a red herring, do try to stick to the point Leonard. Original sin comes from God, the Garden of Eden is accepted by the church that it was simply how the author understood how they came about, in other words a literary device. The source however remains the same. Despite what you might be alluding to the CC adheres to most of the prevailing theories of science and does not take large parts of the old testament to be (for want of better word) Gospel.
Are empathy and kinship morals? Morals deal with right and wrong? Respect and Loyalty might be the corresponding morals your looking for.
Tho it seems like your saying morals exist but that basically we just made them up for our own purposes and only adhere to them because of consequences, I cant speak for anyone else but thats not true for me at least. And by that definition At risk of a slight tangent are you trying to tell me that morals genetically developed our brains to think that way? I dont think even the most optimistic biological anthropologist would adhere to that, tradition and culture would be their argument.
But anyway I'll ask you again slightly differently as you seem to mixed morals up with actions and consequences... Do you believe right and wrong exist?
And for that matter do you believe the choice between right and wrong exists and if so how did that choice come about and for what end?
Joe
Your argument is that human nature (or original sin) comes from God and that is in deed an argument. But what is it backed up by? What alternatives have been weighed up and what is your view on those?
I am fully aware that the catholic church and its members do not take most of the bible as literal truth. What bemuses me is the fact that the church and its members will tell people how to live their lives and condem harmless acts based upon a literal (or invented) reading of the bible which is at that point in time not a literary work but the undiluted word of god.
Empathy and kinship are not morals. I never argued that they were. They are however some of the sources of morality and you did ask where morals came from I apologise profusely for the confusion this has caused in your brain.
If you could revisit the posts and get your head around them then you will find the nonsense in the coda of your post
Im sorry if you thought that my entire paragraph was solely about empathy and kinship it clearly wasn't. Perhaps you could read the rest of it and reply instead of engaging in pointless ad hominen?
So I'll ask again.... do you believe right and wrong exist? or have we created them? Do you adhere to right and wrong in your life?
Joe
It is sad that I am having to direct you step by step through a pretty straight forward argument but here goes.
The point about the end of the post was that if you had understood the meaning of my post then you wouldn't have had to ask such questions. This is what I directed you back to. Dismiss that as playing the man if you wish but in this case it was"the man" who was failing to grasp the meaning.
So to answer this again. Humans and other species to hugely varying degrees show signs of being able to process a difference between right and wrong and to decide to do right. All of this is most evident in primates and the link to brain capacity cannot be dismissed. Our evolution as a social species has been primarily in family groupings. It is only in latter years that we have moved outside this. We are genetically driven to look after our genes and pass on the most apt genes. We reward behaviours in that sense. Empathy and kinship thrive. Standards of behaviour are set and with improved understanding are advanced even when dealing with non family members. That is why I try to do right. That is why we all try to with varying degrees of success. We are genetically programmed to do so.
See above in bold Leonard.
I had already discussed this... Looks like your telling me that human action is governed by inevitable preconditions by preprograming in the brain or whats learned in the enviroment.... so basically morals dont exist then? There is no such thing as good and evil is what you are telling me? And that actions that most of us could percieve to be abhorent (say murder) are only that, a perception. And ultimately the perpetrator could think they are perfectly ok and there is nothing concrete to say they are wrong? Brings into question the whole justice system does it not? I actually think Anders Brevik seems to be a good example of this.
And since your heading down this route. Where does the actual decision come from? How do we have a choice to make these decisions?
And why do we have the experience of thought at all. I mean if are brains are just akin to computers processing all this information why do we experience anything more than a computer does? Genetic evolution does not offer anything on how we came to have that experience anymore than an oak tree, we really should be zombies.
Human thought is governed by the programming of the brain. The brains which thrive, live longest and reproduce most successfully are the ones that result in the most apt behaviours as its the behaviours that get rewarded.
Good and bad, right and wrong are labels. Society develops standards and denotes extreme wrongs. Obviously not everyone shares the sames thoughts on what is wrong. Some would consider an action to be acceptable whereas the broad base of society (or a society) would consider them wrong. Breivik is in this category. Society punishes this behaviour and enforces its collective view of acceptability. Others accept that an individual action is wrong for ordinary people but is acceptable for them as superior beings. Again society punishes this and enforces its view. This is how society works (including the use of formal laws today). The zeitgeist shifts but the most generally accepted wrongs tend to remain as denoted as wrongs. And in all of this Breivik is unlikely to become a father
Humans in these senses represent the current peak of the evolution. Other species populate a spectrum. The oak tree is quite near the opposite end of that continuum.
Leonard, we'll start afresh..
Most of our social action is governed by our environment its nothing to do with our makeup, this would certainly be true of Anders Brevik, who I believe incidentally knows what he did was wrong but wants to fly in the face of society for the shear hell of it.
So there is no right and wrong then in your opinion then? Just a perception off, sorry but I'll disagree I believe there are inherent rights and wrongs similar to how maths and laws of nature exist, you believe they exist dont you or did we invent those to?
But again back to that same question. I used the tree as an example because if we cut a tree we dont believe it experiences anything in the way of pain when we do that but it still reacts by growing a branch, so ..why arent we like that?. How do we come to experience thought (and everything else for that matter like pain, smell, sight). Why arent we just robots or zombies with no experience of our thought, for example why dont actions happen automatically.... like I dont need to think if I touch something hot i just take my hand away before I even feel heat or pain, how is it all our actions arent like that?
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 03, 2016, 08:57:39 PM
Leonard, we'll start afresh..
Most of our social action is governed by our environment its nothing to do with our makeup, this would certainly be true of Anders Brevik, who I believe incidentally knows what he did was wrong but wants to fly in the face of society for the shear hell of it.
So there is no right and wrong then in your opinion then? Just a perception off, sorry but I'll disagree I believe there are inherent rights and wrongs similar to how maths and laws of nature exist, you believe they exist dont you or did we invent those to?
But again back to that same question. I used the tree as an example because if we cut a tree we dont believe it experiences anything in the way of pain when we do that but it still reacts by growing a branch, so ..why arent we like that?. How do we come to experience thought (and everything else for that matter like pain, smell, sight). Why arent we just robots or zombies with no experience of our thought, for example why dont actions happen automatically.... like I dont need to think if I touch something hot i just take my hand away before I even feel heat or pain, how is it all our actions arent like that?
Lets
I know little of Breivik other than what he did and how to spell his name. ;) I know nothing about his motivations. He is not an individual I have studied.
I do believe in right and wrong. I don't have to rely on mere belief as we can witness the shared views of right and wrong. We can see how these vary from era to era and in terms of geography/ethnic groupings etc. All that is considered wrong or evil in one time and place in one group of people will not represent wrong or evil in every time period (past, present and future), in every geography and with every social grouping. We don't need to merely believe that we can witness it and the record of it.
There is a very clear difference between a snapshot invention and an evolution over the geological time. That is not difficult to understand and doesn't require belief as the record of it is there to be witnessed.
The true wonder of the evolution of species is the complexity of and variation in species. Complex organs are not easy to regenerate but simple orgnanisms and organs are. A human cannot re-grow a lobbed off leg (at one end of the complexity scale) but a star fish at the simpler end of multi-cell animals can. Humans are complex and our development is at the extreme end of the development. The wider primates share much of this. Some senses are acute and suited to our environment e.g. our eye sight is a product of something moving at our speed hunting large mammals on the african plain. The mole has inferior sight conducive to its environment and a product of its apt evolution. A peregrine falcon's eyesight is vastly superior to human's for all the same reasons.Humans's are not alone in being able to think, respond to stimulus, record the response to stimulus and use it in the future (a day old calf knows not to go back to the electric fence). We don't have to believe this, the evidence is all around us. Many spiritualist struggle with this. The whole man in god's likeness doesn't really help with all these similar characteristics in the wider animal kingdom. It doesn't help with the fact that human's didn't just appear on earth but has antecedents and intermediate evolutionary steps. It doesn't help with explaining what god was at all this time. Just messing "in a mysterious way" I suppose?
Is it just me or does Satan get an awful bad rap? The God of the Old Testament is a genocidal psychotic maniac who hates women and tells old fellas to kill their children to test their faith. Then there's the great flood holocaust thing. God racks up a far bigger body count than old Lucifer. I think the likes of Tony have been reading the good book all wrong. God is the baddie and Satan is the goodie.
Quote from: LCohen on October 03, 2016, 09:35:12 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 03, 2016, 08:57:39 PM
Leonard, we'll start afresh..
Most of our social action is governed by our environment its nothing to do with our makeup, this would certainly be true of Anders Brevik, who I believe incidentally knows what he did was wrong but wants to fly in the face of society for the shear hell of it.
So there is no right and wrong then in your opinion then? Just a perception off, sorry but I'll disagree I believe there are inherent rights and wrongs similar to how maths and laws of nature exist, you believe they exist dont you or did we invent those to?
But again back to that same question. I used the tree as an example because if we cut a tree we dont believe it experiences anything in the way of pain when we do that but it still reacts by growing a branch, so ..why arent we like that?. How do we come to experience thought (and everything else for that matter like pain, smell, sight). Why arent we just robots or zombies with no experience of our thought, for example why dont actions happen automatically.... like I dont need to think if I touch something hot i just take my hand away before I even feel heat or pain, how is it all our actions arent like that?
Lets
I know little of Breivik other than what he did and how to spell his name. ;) I know nothing about his motivations. He is not an individual I have studied.
I do believe in right and wrong. I don't have to rely on mere belief as we can witness the shared views of right and wrong. We can see how these vary from era to era and in terms of geography/ethnic groupings etc. All that is considered wrong or evil in one time and place in one group of people will not represent wrong or evil in every time period (past, present and future), in every geography and with every social grouping. We don't need to merely believe that we can witness it and the record of it.
There is a very clear difference between a snapshot invention and an evolution over the geological time. That is not difficult to understand and doesn't require belief as the record of it is there to be witnessed.
The true wonder of the evolution of species is the complexity of and variation in species. Complex organs are not easy to regenerate but simple orgnanisms and organs are. A human cannot re-grow a lobbed off leg (at one end of the complexity scale) but a star fish at the simpler end of multi-cell animals can. Humans are complex and our development is at the extreme end of the development. The wider primates share much of this. Some senses are acute and suited to our environment e.g. our eye sight is a product of something moving at our speed hunting large mammals on the african plain. The mole has inferior sight conducive to its environment and a product of its apt evolution. A peregrine falcon's eyesight is vastly superior to human's for all the same reasons.Humans's are not alone in being able to think, respond to stimulus, record the response to stimulus and use it in the future (a day old calf knows not to go back to the electric fence). We don't have to believe this, the evidence is all around us. Many spiritualist struggle with this. The whole man in god's likeness doesn't really help with all these similar characteristics in the wider animal kingdom. It doesn't help with the fact that human's didn't just appear on earth but has antecedents and intermediate evolutionary steps. It doesn't help with explaining what god was at all this time. Just messing "in a mysterious way" I suppose?
m confused how can right and wrong truly exist if as you say they are just dreamed up by humans and change over time? According to your definition they dont truly exist.
Moreover you are just repeating more of the same stuff and still arent answering my question on our experience...
How did we come to experience the sight from which you are ascertaining things to be fact? For example we can make a camera that replicates the function of our eye...but does the camera experience sight? Obviously not, so what extra thing we do to experience sight? Why arent we robots without an experience?
Joe
Are you really saying that a collective understanding doesn't exist because it builds up over time in human minds? But that it does it exist if we just say it was placed there by a god?
Are you denying that things that are considered wrong in one time period/location/culture is considered right in another? Yet how can this be if they are absolutes placed in humans by a single god?
A camera seeks to recreate the capacity to capture an image. Its doesn't recreate the brain or the optical nerve. The camera does not experience sight any more than an eye does. A brain experiences sight as imperfectly captured by the eye. Our brains have developed and we can re-create that development by recreating our species. We have not yet been able to recreate it outside our species (and its not something I long for). None of this points to a god. Not only is a god not required to explain this but a god does not explain it.
Good and evil underlie the actions the people are making the result might be different but the intent is the same.
A brain is billions of neurons firing which are electrical pulses, how do we get from that to the experience of sight? The camera can display an image on it face through similar electrical pulses is it experiencing sight?
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 03, 2016, 10:46:08 PM
Good and evil underlie the actions the people are making the result might be different but the intent is the same.
You just going to throw out a banal statement or are you going to make a point and back it up?
Be specific - are right and wrong absolutes or are there degrees, variances and changes over time? How does this work with a god explanations versus an evolutionary explanation? The detail you provide here will be key and I note you are still online.
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 03, 2016, 10:46:08 PM
A brain is billions of neurons firing which are electrical pulses, how do we get from that to the experience of sight? The camera can display an image on it face through similar electrical pulses is it experiencing sight?
Senses evolve. We can see this through the varying degrees of sight that are out there today and over time.Some of our ancestors did not have sight but we do. the degree to which we have it is a product of evolution. Different evolutionary requirements would have resulted in a different degree of sight. Again we can see that all around us. A god isn't required to explain this and again does not explain this
Quote from: LCohen on October 03, 2016, 10:57:25 PM
The detail you provide here will be key and I note you are still online.
This is one of funniest things Ive ever had fired at me on here and there have been some clinkers....are you a teacher?
Also did you check I was online when you sent your post, how do you know i was looking at this thread? and more to the point why do you care when you get a reply?
Dont you see the pointless stupidity of attempting to make personal insults to a faceless nobody on an anonymous discussion board?
Free will and our conscience would be where right and wrong resides, the right and wrong do not lie in the actions but in our decision. The conscious decision we make from our conscience using our intuition is part of the experience we have, which is not explained by genetic evolution a point Im making you dont seem to be getting at all
So lets stop regurgitating genetic evolution again. Which does not explain our experience. The key word is experience how do we have one? Again Im not asking how we see, I am asking how we come to EXPERIENCE sight? IF you dont understand the question I would be happy to explain it further but please dont start the genetic evolution thing again because it indicates to me you do not understand the question, as I have said numerous times according to it we should be zombies without an experience doing our thing automatically.
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 04, 2016, 07:10:17 PM
Free will and our conscience would be where right and wrong resides, the right and wrong do not lie in the actions but in our decision. The conscious decision we make from our conscience using our intuition is part of the experience we have, which is not explained by genetic evolution a point Im making you dont seem to be getting at all
If that doesn't expose the dangers of religion I don't know what does. Your 100% correct of course... if someone truly believes in their doctrine of faith and that doctrine says 'persecute the heretic/infidel/traitor' ..... its only right that you follow through on your faith. To do anything less is half hearted. Anyone for another Inquisition?
Quote from: theskull1 on October 04, 2016, 08:52:06 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 04, 2016, 07:10:17 PM
Free will and our conscience would be where right and wrong resides, the right and wrong do not lie in the actions but in our decision. The conscious decision we make from our conscience using our intuition is part of the experience we have, which is not explained by genetic evolution a point Im making you dont seem to be getting at all
If that doesn't expose the dangers of religion I don't know what does. Your 100% correct of course... if someone truly believes in their doctrine of faith and that doctrine says 'persecute the heretic/infidel/traitor' ..... its only right that you follow through on your faith. To do anything less is half hearted. Anyone for another Inquisition?
You either didnt read what I wrote,didnt understand it or just like repeating populist mantra that has no relation to the point being made. I think its a combination of all of them to be honest.
As the opposite is actually true. Our conscience and choice are what ultimately determines if we do the right thing. And that comes from within.
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 05, 2016, 04:28:10 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on October 04, 2016, 08:52:06 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 04, 2016, 07:10:17 PM
Free will and our conscience would be where right and wrong resides, the right and wrong do not lie in the actions but in our decision. The conscious decision we make from our conscience using our intuition is part of the experience we have, which is not explained by genetic evolution a point Im making you dont seem to be getting at all
If that doesn't expose the dangers of religion I don't know what does. Your 100% correct of course... if someone truly believes in their doctrine of faith and that doctrine says 'persecute the heretic/infidel/traitor' ..... its only right that you follow through on your faith. To do anything less is half hearted. Anyone for another Inquisition?
You either didnt read what I wrote,didnt understand it or just like repeating populist mantra that has no relation to the point being made. I think its a combination of all of them to be honest.
As the opposite is actually true. Our conscience and choice are what ultimately determines if we do the right thing. And that comes from within.
Ummmm ???
Are you trying to point out that the comment I've put in bold is the distinguishing point? If so, my comment stands strong and is very much in alignment with what you're saying. Its that very 'inner belief' that you're doing the right thing, regardless of what it is that keeps your conscience clear.
Who other than a devout person of faith would blow them selves and a bus full of innocents up with contentment in their heart and smile as they go to heaven?
Who other than a devout person of faith would torture/stone people they accuse (on scant evidence/heresay) to be a witch/heretic/jew until they recant like they did up until recent centuries round the devout kingdoms on papal decree?
To deny this reality is to be intellectually dishonest with oneself
Of course Christianity 'has moved on' now after people thinking gods position as directed by papal decree was infallible for all those centuries. Not quite sure how that squares with Christians today.... fully doubt any really reflect on the inconsistencies of their human led indoctrination across the centuries.
http://www.annunaki.org/the-annunaki-in-the-bible/ (http://www.annunaki.org/the-annunaki-in-the-bible/)
Quote from: theskull1 on October 05, 2016, 06:23:19 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 05, 2016, 04:28:10 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on October 04, 2016, 08:52:06 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 04, 2016, 07:10:17 PM
Free will and our conscience would be where right and wrong resides, the right and wrong do not lie in the actions but in our decision. The conscious decision we make from our conscience using our intuition is part of the experience we have, which is not explained by genetic evolution a point Im making you dont seem to be getting at all
If that doesn't expose the dangers of religion I don't know what does. Your 100% correct of course... if someone truly believes in their doctrine of faith and that doctrine says 'persecute the heretic/infidel/traitor' ..... its only right that you follow through on your faith. To do anything less is half hearted. Anyone for another Inquisition?
You either didnt read what I wrote,didnt understand it or just like repeating populist mantra that has no relation to the point being made. I think its a combination of all of them to be honest.
As the opposite is actually true. Our conscience and choice are what ultimately determines if we do the right thing. And that comes from within.
Ummmm ???
Are you trying to point out that the comment I've put in bold is the distinguishing point? If so, my comment stands strong and is very much in alignment with what you're saying. Its that very 'inner belief' that you're doing the right thing, regardless of what it is that keeps your conscience clear.
Who other than a devout person of faith would blow them selves and a bus full of innocents up with contentment in their heart and smile as they go to heaven?
Who other than a devout person of faith would torture/stone people they accuse (on scant evidence/heresay) to be a witch/heretic/jew until they recant like they did up until recent centuries round the devout kingdoms on papal decree?
To deny this reality is to be intellectually dishonest with oneself
Of course Christianity 'has moved on' now after people thinking gods position as directed by papal decree was infallible for all those centuries. Not quite sure how that squares with Christians today.... fully doubt any really reflect on the inconsistencies of their human led indoctrination across the centuries.
No it wasnt my main point, perhaps you could tell me what defines right from wrong if not our conscience or where do right and wrong reside if not in our conscience?
But anyway Ill also digress to your red herring...
The short answer about suicide bombers is they are not answering their conscience, they are kids who are following orders from people who have corrupted their religions message, the kids are ignoring their consciences. And what of kamikaze pilots was Buddhism making them carry out their attacks?
Our conscience is our own instinctual guide to right and wrong, we can ignore it or suppress it but its still there and the choice we have of following its guide is still there.
Life experience complicates our relationship with it and makes it more difficult for us to reconcile with it. That's why the instinctive clarity of a child's conscience is often a better gauge than an adults.
When we use ideologies as a fundamental basis of our decisions it often comes into conflicts with our intuitive conscience. Politics especially, but also Social norms and religion, are not immune to conflicting with our conscience, so we often need to be on our guard and in touch with what our conscience is saying to keep us, politics, society and religion on the right path.
Quote from: muppet on October 05, 2016, 07:04:59 PM
http://www.annunaki.org/the-annunaki-in-the-bible/ (http://www.annunaki.org/the-annunaki-in-the-bible/)
That great Muppet so your a fan of David Ike, it all starting to become clear
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 05, 2016, 08:55:32 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 05, 2016, 07:04:59 PM
http://www.annunaki.org/the-annunaki-in-the-bible/ (http://www.annunaki.org/the-annunaki-in-the-bible/)
That great Muppet so your a fan of David Ike, it all starting to become clear
We finally have something in common.
Quote from: muppet on October 05, 2016, 07:04:59 PM
http://www.annunaki.org/the-annunaki-in-the-bible/ (http://www.annunaki.org/the-annunaki-in-the-bible/)
Fields of the Nephilim
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 04, 2016, 07:10:17 PM
This is one of funniest things Ive ever had fired at me on here and there have been some clinkers....are you a teacher?
Also did you check I was online when you sent your post, how do you know i was looking at this thread? and more to the point why do you care when you get a reply?
Dont you see the pointless stupidity of attempting to make personal insults to a faceless nobody on an anonymous discussion board?
Maybe I was trying to be smart? I'll get over it. Its just that replies were becoming increasingly evasive and non-sensical that I would get you in a flow.
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 04, 2016, 07:10:17 PM
Free will and our conscience would be where right and wrong resides, the right and wrong do not lie in the actions but in our decision. The conscious decision we make from our conscience using our intuition is part of the experience we have,
A confident statement but backed up by absolutely nothing
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 04, 2016, 07:10:17 PM
which is not explained by genetic evolution a point Im making you dont seem to be getting at all
Genetic evolution offers a perfectly good explanation for right and wrong. What is more is that it offers evidence of the stages of evolution.
You offer a confident statement. But not an explanation and certainly not evidence.
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 04, 2016, 07:10:17 PM
So lets stop regurgitating genetic evolution again.
Step away from a sound and evidenced theory if you want but at least offer some evidence??
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 04, 2016, 07:10:17 PM
The key word is experience how do we have one? Again Im not asking how we see, I am asking how we come to EXPERIENCE sight? IF you dont understand the question I would be happy to explain it further but please dont start the genetic evolution thing again because it indicates to me you do not understand the question
Explain how cognitive processing capability cannot be the result of evolution? Explain what level of cognitive processing capability our ancestors had - including the bacterial, sea-life, amphibian, early-mammal and primate ancestors? Had they all the same level of processing capability? The same ability to enjoy, record and recall experience?
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 04, 2016, 07:10:17 PM
as I have said numerous times according to it we should be zombies without an experience doing our thing automatically.
Explain how genetic evolution leads to this conclusion?
Take as long as you like
Leonard,
If you dont believe you have a conscience or freewill more power to you, but I know I have one and its backed up by me experiencing my own conscience, no one else can experience my conscience so there will be no evidence of it, your quite right. You'll just have to take my word for it and consider if you experience your own conscience.
Cognitive processing can be explained of course by evolution but it doesnt explain how we come to experience that processing in the form of monologue or thought. It seems you dont understand the question so I must be doing a bad job of explaining it since I have asked it about a dozen times now. So here it is it most modern format known as the Hard Problem... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
Another way to think of it is to bring in quantum mechanics. If the Standard Model is indeed the true nature of reality of the Material World then pretty much everything material that we experience is the electromagnetic force or in other words its gauge particle of a photon. These photons are picked up by our eyes and in turn send electrical signals to our brain where they fire neurons, and somewhere somehow after or during that we experience the colour blue (for example) by virtue of the different wave lengths of the photons. How is it that a tiny particle (if thats even the right way to imagine things at a quantum level) which should have no colour in its own true state makes us experience the colour blue?
Course I already know you cant answer it no one can, so I was being a bit of a dick. I was just wondering how you rationalise it, but you obviously had never even considered it. Prehaps you'll take the materialist view that that its an illusion, however I chuckle at this proposal....this basically means the materialism version of the universe is based on an illusion, quite shaky ground if you ask me. Which of course it is anyway when you consider that our perception of the universe is nothing like the basic version of reality of quantum mechanics or the even more mind warping string theory. So what do you BELIEVE our EXPERIENCE is?
Get a room lads
cant remember (too lazy to search) who recommended the sam harris podcasts in this thread but thank you very much. very enjoyable
OmaghJoe's argument is always simply to allow you to go to the edge of proven science and insist that God lives just beyond it.
There is no evidence, observation or even solid theory to work with.
So prior to the new God 2000 odd years ago, did mankind feck themselves by worshiping other Gods even know they didn't know about the new God, and why did the new God wait so long before introducing himself, the Egyptians were a smart race - why did he not give them a shout or was he just shy and wanted to wait until he got his Word correct?
Quote from: No wides on October 06, 2016, 02:08:11 PM
So prior to the new God 2000 odd years ago, did mankind feck themselves by worshiping other Gods even know they didn't know about the new God, and why did the new God wait so long before introducing himself, the Egyptians were a smart race - why did he not give them a shout or was he just shy and wanted to wait until he got his Word correct?
Many Bibles stories are re-hashed versions of earlier myths, e.g. Noah and the Ark: http://history-world.org/floods.htm (http://history-world.org/floods.htm)
Quote from: No wides on October 06, 2016, 02:08:11 PM
So prior to the new God 2000 odd years ago, did mankind feck themselves by worshiping other Gods even know they didn't know about the new God, and why did the new God wait so long before introducing himself, the Egyptians were a smart race - why did he not give them a shout or was he just shy and wanted to wait until he got his Word correct?
Sure there are probably still natives in the darkest reaches of the Amazon who, this very day, have yet to experience the delights of organized religion and the Judaeo-Christian god! What fate awaits those poor wretches through no fault of their own? Never mind those eejits among us who were in the club but came to an honest, logical, properly thought-out conclusion that's it's all a load of bollocks!
Quote from: muppet on October 06, 2016, 01:30:33 PM
OmaghJoe's argument is always simply to allow you to go to the edge of proven science and insist that God lives just beyond it.
There is no evidence, observation or even solid theory to work with.
Utter bollocks muppet as usual, have I even mentioned God in this thread? Tho to be fair a straw man is usually a more intricate fallacy than your usual red herring (tho maybe not in this case).
Tho I will reiterate what my point is and that is we can never be completely sure of anything.
And even if you do believe in a materialist world fine but why would you assume that empiricism can give you an accurate picture of that world? Its a massive jump in logic to assume that it does, and the discovery of the bizarre realm of quantum mechanics with spooky action and randomness more or less confirms that our empirical view of things aint accurate, and also begs the question is that realm a true picture of reality?
Quote from: J70 on October 06, 2016, 02:52:31 PM
Quote from: No wides on October 06, 2016, 02:08:11 PM
So prior to the new God 2000 odd years ago, did mankind feck themselves by worshiping other Gods even know they didn't know about the new God, and why did the new God wait so long before introducing himself, the Egyptians were a smart race - why did he not give them a shout or was he just shy and wanted to wait until he got his Word correct?
Sure there are probably still natives in the darkest reaches of the Amazon who, this very day, have yet to experience the delights of organized religion and the Judaeo-Christian god! What fate awaits those poor wretches through no fault of their own? Never mind those eejits among us who were in the club but came to an honest, logical, properly thought-out conclusion that's it's all a load of bollocks!
So whats not bollocks J70?
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 06, 2016, 03:07:29 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 06, 2016, 02:52:31 PM
Quote from: No wides on October 06, 2016, 02:08:11 PM
So prior to the new God 2000 odd years ago, did mankind feck themselves by worshiping other Gods even know they didn't know about the new God, and why did the new God wait so long before introducing himself, the Egyptians were a smart race - why did he not give them a shout or was he just shy and wanted to wait until he got his Word correct?
Sure there are probably still natives in the darkest reaches of the Amazon who, this very day, have yet to experience the delights of organized religion and the Judaeo-Christian god! What fate awaits those poor wretches through no fault of their own? Never mind those eejits among us who were in the club but came to an honest, logical, properly thought-out conclusion that's it's all a load of bollocks!
So whats not bollocks J70?
What is bollocks is some ever present being that waited 198,000 years before showing his hand to mankind, though maybe he only has space in the eternal kingdom for a finite number so wanted all the savages from back in the day to piss off to hell.
Quote from: No wides on October 06, 2016, 03:13:14 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 06, 2016, 03:07:29 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 06, 2016, 02:52:31 PM
Quote from: No wides on October 06, 2016, 02:08:11 PM
So prior to the new God 2000 odd years ago, did mankind feck themselves by worshiping other Gods even know they didn't know about the new God, and why did the new God wait so long before introducing himself, the Egyptians were a smart race - why did he not give them a shout or was he just shy and wanted to wait until he got his Word correct?
Sure there are probably still natives in the darkest reaches of the Amazon who, this very day, have yet to experience the delights of organized religion and the Judaeo-Christian god! What fate awaits those poor wretches through no fault of their own? Never mind those eejits among us who were in the club but came to an honest, logical, properly thought-out conclusion that's it's all a load of bollocks!
So whats not bollocks J70?
What is bollocks is some ever present being that waited 198,000 years before showing his hand to mankind, though maybe he only has space in the eternal kingdom for a finite number so wanted all the savages from back in the day to piss off to hell.
Maybe it is, maybe it isnt. Since time is just another dimension maybe he wasn't waiting at all?
But please tell me what isnt bollocks, please tell me what you have where the logic adds up. Muppet seems to know but refuses to tell me can you let me in on it? IM if you dont want to tell the world....Is it Scientology? Is that why no one will tell me?
It's life - like all animals, you are born, live your life and die.
Quote from: No wides on October 06, 2016, 03:25:50 PM
It's life - like all animals, you are born, live your life and die.
EH? So quantum mechanics is BS then? How did we come to experience life?
From reading omaghjoe's posts on this thread and from a prior discussion we had, I think he makes some good points, as far as I can follow them.
Joe, on the conscience bit, and considering where humans evolved from, do you think our non-human ancestors all had a conscience, or at what point did it come about?
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 06, 2016, 03:07:29 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 06, 2016, 02:52:31 PM
Quote from: No wides on October 06, 2016, 02:08:11 PM
So prior to the new God 2000 odd years ago, did mankind feck themselves by worshiping other Gods even know they didn't know about the new God, and why did the new God wait so long before introducing himself, the Egyptians were a smart race - why did he not give them a shout or was he just shy and wanted to wait until he got his Word correct?
Sure there are probably still natives in the darkest reaches of the Amazon who, this very day, have yet to experience the delights of organized religion and the Judaeo-Christian god! What fate awaits those poor wretches through no fault of their own? Never mind those eejits among us who were in the club but came to an honest, logical, properly thought-out conclusion that's it's all a load of bollocks!
So whats not bollocks J70?
That Klopp has got Liverpool playing marvelous football. That Michael Murphy is a once in a generation full forward being sacrificed for the greater good of the Donegal team in the era of blanket defenses. That the day is lit up by the sun. That science is an incredible tool to investigate the universe.
Are you really looking for a list?
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 06, 2016, 03:34:05 PM
Quote from: No wides on October 06, 2016, 03:25:50 PM
It's life - like all animals, you are born, live your life and die.
EH? So quantum mechanics is BS then? How did we come to experience life?
You asked me what is not bullshit - life isn't, for 7 billion people on this planet they are born, they live whatever hand they have and they die. If you are away in another dimension like stargate good for you hope the weather is pleasant.
Quote from: Esmarelda on October 06, 2016, 03:38:20 PM
From reading omaghjoe's posts on this thread and from a prior discussion we had, I think he makes some good points, as far as I can follow them.
Joe, on the conscience bit, and considering where humans evolved from, do you think our non-human ancestors all had a conscience, or at what point did it come about?
Because Joe would know that, maybe he is time traveling and can get the answer?
Quote from: No wides on October 06, 2016, 03:47:30 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on October 06, 2016, 03:38:20 PM
From reading omaghjoe's posts on this thread and from a prior discussion we had, I think he makes some good points, as far as I can follow them.
Joe, on the conscience bit, and considering where humans evolved from, do you think our non-human ancestors all had a conscience, or at what point did it come about?
Because Joe would know that, maybe he is time traveling and can get the answer?
I said "do you think" so it's just his opinion I'm after.
What's with the agro?
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 06, 2016, 03:34:05 PM
Quote from: No wides on October 06, 2016, 03:25:50 PM
It's life - like all animals, you are born, live your life and die.
EH? So quantum mechanics is BS then? How did we come to experience life?
Is it just humans that experience life?
Quote from: Esmarelda on October 06, 2016, 03:38:20 PM
From reading omaghjoe's posts on this thread and from a prior discussion we had, I think he makes some good points, as far as I can follow them.
Joe, on the conscience bit, and considering where humans evolved from, do you think our non-human ancestors all had a conscience, or at what point did it come about?
Well a conscience is intertwined with experience and consciousness Esm so the short answer is I dont know. Because where does it stop primates?, dogs?, snakes, fish, plants, bacteria, rocks?
But then I KNOW I have one and I BELIEVE that everyone has one. Does a chimp have one for example... not a clue and it doesnt really affect how I interact and feel towards them so I dont feel compelled to believe anything on it as such. But obviously somewhere along the line it started how and when I dont know. Some people believe animals do and I would be cool with that if that's what they believe....
Quote from: J70 on October 06, 2016, 03:43:40 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 06, 2016, 03:07:29 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 06, 2016, 02:52:31 PM
Quote from: No wides on October 06, 2016, 02:08:11 PM
So prior to the new God 2000 odd years ago, did mankind feck themselves by worshiping other Gods even know they didn't know about the new God, and why did the new God wait so long before introducing himself, the Egyptians were a smart race - why did he not give them a shout or was he just shy and wanted to wait until he got his Word correct?
Sure there are probably still natives in the darkest reaches of the Amazon who, this very day, have yet to experience the delights of organized religion and the Judaeo-Christian god! What fate awaits those poor wretches through no fault of their own? Never mind those eejits among us who were in the club but came to an honest, logical, properly thought-out conclusion that's it's all a load of bollocks!
So whats not bollocks J70?
That Klopp has got Liverpool playing marvelous football. That Michael Murphy is a once in a generation full forward being sacrificed for the greater good of the Donegal team in the era of blanket defenses. That the day is lit up by the sun. That science is an incredible tool to investigate the universe.
Are you really looking for a list?
But what if I believe soccer is by and large shit? Michael Murphy is just big ignoramus who can shoot a bit? And sunlight is nothing only an illusion our mind has created from photons? I do believe science is a great tool for investigating the universe (the empirical universe at least) even if what it tells us may not be the true nature of reality.
So your really what your saying is whats not bollocks it what you believe not matter if someone else believes something else? Would that be fair?
Quote from: No wides on October 06, 2016, 03:43:51 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 06, 2016, 03:34:05 PM
Quote from: No wides on October 06, 2016, 03:25:50 PM
It's life - like all animals, you are born, live your life and die.
EH? So quantum mechanics is BS then? How did we come to experience life?
You asked me what is not bullshit - life isn't, for 7 billion people on this planet they are born, they live whatever hand they have and they die. If you are away in another dimension like stargate good for you hope the weather is pleasant.
...Yes and according to quantum mechanics those lives are just a jumble of floating atoms which consist of particles whizzing and popping around.
Arent you travelling through time? I am thanks to the spacetime geodesic that all my atoms are sitting on but if I was hanging out on a neutron star time would slow way down (relative to you of course), and should stop in a black hole.
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 06, 2016, 04:16:06 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 06, 2016, 03:43:40 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 06, 2016, 03:07:29 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 06, 2016, 02:52:31 PM
Quote from: No wides on October 06, 2016, 02:08:11 PM
So prior to the new God 2000 odd years ago, did mankind feck themselves by worshiping other Gods even know they didn't know about the new God, and why did the new God wait so long before introducing himself, the Egyptians were a smart race - why did he not give them a shout or was he just shy and wanted to wait until he got his Word correct?
Sure there are probably still natives in the darkest reaches of the Amazon who, this very day, have yet to experience the delights of organized religion and the Judaeo-Christian god! What fate awaits those poor wretches through no fault of their own? Never mind those eejits among us who were in the club but came to an honest, logical, properly thought-out conclusion that's it's all a load of bollocks!
So whats not bollocks J70?
That Klopp has got Liverpool playing marvelous football. That Michael Murphy is a once in a generation full forward being sacrificed for the greater good of the Donegal team in the era of blanket defenses. That the day is lit up by the sun. That science is an incredible tool to investigate the universe.
Are you really looking for a list?
But what if I believe soccer is by and large shit? Michael Murphy is just big ignoramus who can shoot a bit? And sunlight is nothing only an illusion our mind has created from photons? I do believe science is a great tool for investigating the universe (the empirical universe at least) even if what it tells us may not be the true nature of reality.
So your really what your saying is whats not bollocks it what you believe not matter if someone else believes something else? Would that be fair?
It's all a judgement call, based on our cumulative upbringing, environment and intelligence. Had I never been exposed to science beyond secondary school and my own curiosity, I might still be a believer in Catholicism... maybe. If I grew up in Riyadh, I might be an Islamic fundamentalist who approves of violent jihad. If I grew up in rural Indiana and was homeschooled before going to Liberty University, I might be a young earth creationist.
But does that mean all those competing world views are equally valid? Have we no solid ground to stand to say they aren't? Is the "Grand Canyon was carved by Noah's Flood" a valid hypothesis? Does the interlocking geological and palaeontogical evidence against it not really matter? Are the anti-vaxxers and homeopaths on equal footing with modern medicine?
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 06, 2016, 03:05:30 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 06, 2016, 01:30:33 PM
OmaghJoe's argument is always simply to allow you to go to the edge of proven science and insist that God lives just beyond it.
There is no evidence, observation or even solid theory to work with.
Utter bollocks muppet as usual, have I even mentioned God in this thread? Tho to be fair a straw man is usually a more intricate fallacy than your usual red herring (tho maybe not in this case).
Tho I will reiterate what my point is and that is we can never be completely sure of anything.
And even if you do believe in a materialist world fine but why would you assume that empiricism can give you an accurate picture of that world? Its a massive jump in logic to assume that it does, and the discovery of the bizarre realm of quantum mechanics with spooky action and randomness more or less confirms that our empirical view of things aint accurate, and also begs the question is that realm a true picture of reality?
What is the thread about?
As for....
"we can never be completely sure of anything. "
This is exactly the point I was making and precisely where you go in any religious argument.
We can be sure of plenty. Scientific process, evidence, peer-review and most importantly, reproducibility, can prove some things with certainty.
Quote from: J70 on October 06, 2016, 04:46:14 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 06, 2016, 04:16:06 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 06, 2016, 03:43:40 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 06, 2016, 03:07:29 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 06, 2016, 02:52:31 PM
Quote from: No wides on October 06, 2016, 02:08:11 PM
So prior to the new God 2000 odd years ago, did mankind feck themselves by worshiping other Gods even know they didn't know about the new God, and why did the new God wait so long before introducing himself, the Egyptians were a smart race - why did he not give them a shout or was he just shy and wanted to wait until he got his Word correct?
Sure there are probably still natives in the darkest reaches of the Amazon who, this very day, have yet to experience the delights of organized religion and the Judaeo-Christian god! What fate awaits those poor wretches through no fault of their own? Never mind those eejits among us who were in the club but came to an honest, logical, properly thought-out conclusion that's it's all a load of bollocks!
So whats not bollocks J70?
That Klopp has got Liverpool playing marvelous football. That Michael Murphy is a once in a generation full forward being sacrificed for the greater good of the Donegal team in the era of blanket defenses. That the day is lit up by the sun. That science is an incredible tool to investigate the universe.
Are you really looking for a list?
But what if I believe soccer is by and large shit? Michael Murphy is just big ignoramus who can shoot a bit? And sunlight is nothing only an illusion our mind has created from photons? I do believe science is a great tool for investigating the universe (the empirical universe at least) even if what it tells us may not be the true nature of reality.
So your really what your saying is whats not bollocks it what you believe not matter if someone else believes something else? Would that be fair?
It's all a judgement call, based on our cumulative upbringing, environment and intelligence. Had I never been exposed to science beyond secondary school and my own curiosity, I might still be a believer in Catholicism... maybe. If I grew up in Riyadh, I might be an Islamic fundamentalist who approves of violent jihad. If I grew up in rural Indiana and was homeschooled before going to Liberty University, I might be a young earth creationist.
But does that mean all those competing world views are equally valid? Have we no solid ground to stand to say they aren't? Is the "Grand Canyon was carved by Noah's Flood" a valid hypothesis? Does the interlocking geological and palaeontogical evidence against it not really matter? Are the anti-vaxxers and homeopaths on equal footing with modern medicine?
I studied science (or applied science at least) to 3rd level ed and take a great interest in it. I dont see any conflict with faith unless your faith was based on a God of the gaps.
And although you pick rather extreme examples all of them including science make the following two logical errors:
They make assumptions to move forward: science assumes our senses give us an accurate picture of reality, faith assumes there is a spiritual aspect to the universe
None of them logically add up: unknown mystrey in religion and lack of a theory of everything in science, (let alone an empirically "proved" one).
Then again who says logic as we understand it holds.. after all quantum randomness and spooky action have bee detected in quantum mechanics and they are completely illogical, thus blowing the long held belief in science of a deterministic naturalist universe completely out of the water.
I dont believe in "last Thursday-ism" or "brain in a vat" but I have no way of knowing at all if they are wrong.
Also a note on the "antivaxers" although Im no fan of theirs there was a good example of the intolerance going around for alternative views when a doctor on tv said that "its a fact that vaccines do not cause autism." I was thinking how in the hell does he know especially considering that medicine doesnt even know what causes autism so to say its a "fact" is complete Bollocks.
https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/2015/02/24/what-does-quantum-mechanics-suggest-about-our-perceptions-reality/
Don't particularly want to go down this rabbit hole with you Joe, but logic dictates I must. With regard to your questions about consciousness and conscience, I think the area itself is one of the last great frontiers for science. As I've stated before on the board I'm an agnostic, so if science comes to the conclusion a la Occam's Razor that there is a higher force at work in human consciousness, I'll neither be surprised or dismayed.
However, you are using the existence of quantum mechanics as an argument to discredit the possibility of empiricism providing us with any concrete answers to your questions re experience. Ipso facto there must be a higher power/force of right and wrong/whichever you'd like to call it that cannot be accounted for by empiricism.
The link above is a discussion paper about the relationship between quantum mechanics and perceived reality. It's a dense read but I'd point your attention to the last paragraph which would seem to refute your argument below.
QuoteThen again who says logic as we understand it holds.. after all quantum randomness and spooky action have bee detected in quantum mechanics and they are completely illogical, thus blowing the long held belief in science of a deterministic naturalist universe completely out of the water.
The last paragraph states
QuoteWhere does that leave us? The remarkable thing is that we can still reliably track aspects of reality. Whatever quantity you want to measure — be it position, momentum, or spin — if you measure it twice, within a short span of time, you will find that it has the same value. Thus, we have good reason to think that our measurements provide reliable information about reality. This sort of reliability is good enough to guide our actions, and it provides strong evidence of the hidden reality behind our perceptions.
To paraphrase, science does give a reliable base for measuring reality, as well as being the principle tool for exploring quantum physics. The existence of one does not negate the measures in another, and using quantum mechanics as a sledgehammer to demolish the legitimacy of theories such as genetic evolution is the very definition of a "strawman" argument.
So perhaps you need another line of argument? Have at it Joe, I have the popcorn in the microwave as we speak.
How do you get through the day Joe? You seem to believe that nothing is really knowable! And you didn't really answer about the relative validity of science and what most would consider pseudoscience. Do you really not make judgements and have solid opinions in real life about life and religion and science and medicine and engineering and so on?
And I think the point about the anti-vaxxers is that they never had a case in the first place. This isn't some holdouts clinging to some formerly accepted paradigm that science or medicine moved on from; it was discredited from the start. They're not owed any respect or serious consideration until they come up with legitimate evidence.
QuoteThen again who says logic as we understand it holds.. after all quantum randomness and spooky action have bee detected in quantum mechanics and they are completely illogical, thus blowing the long held belief in science of a deterministic naturalist universe completely out of the water.
I don't get this. Please expand.
And why would this make the case for a non- naturalist universe, presumably creationist, any stronger?
Joe disavows the God Of The Gaps proposition while, it seems to me, presenting an even more simplistic proposition – that which is unknown is unknowable.
He seems to think that because science hasn't developed a theory of consciousness, there never will be an explanation of how consciousness works. Therefore, mysticism must be considered as the alternative explanation.
And then, in a bizarre non-sequitur, quantum theory proves that it must be something "spooky" that's going on.
Quote from: muppet on October 06, 2016, 05:38:34 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 06, 2016, 03:05:30 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 06, 2016, 01:30:33 PM
OmaghJoe's argument is always simply to allow you to go to the edge of proven science and insist that God lives just beyond it.
There is no evidence, observation or even solid theory to work with.
Utter bollocks muppet as usual, have I even mentioned God in this thread? Tho to be fair a straw man is usually a more intricate fallacy than your usual red herring (tho maybe not in this case).
Tho I will reiterate what my point is and that is we can never be completely sure of anything.
And even if you do believe in a materialist world fine but why would you assume that empiricism can give you an accurate picture of that world? Its a massive jump in logic to assume that it does, and the discovery of the bizarre realm of quantum mechanics with spooky action and randomness more or less confirms that our empirical view of things aint accurate, and also begs the question is that realm a true picture of reality?
What is the thread about?
As for....
"we can never be completely sure of anything. "
This is exactly the point I was making and precisely where you go in any religious argument.
We can be sure of plenty. Scientific process, evidence, peer-review and most importantly, reproducibility, can prove some things with certainty.
Scientists believe they know about 4% of what there is to,know about the universe, what they do know is that there should be no universe because it should have winked out of existance after about four plano time because the elements were too heavy to support inflation, they also know we live in the goldilocks zone and have this tremendous planet called Jupiter which draws objects that would otherwise have destroyed eons ago the earth yet here we sit.
I do not believe in man because man is flawed, I read somewhere it will take scientists 100 000 000 years to get to 50% of what they would like to know about the universe, in other words we are infants when it comes to knowledge of the cosmos and it's connection to God.
If you don't believe in man, then forget quoting scientists and 'I read somewhere'.
However I agree that man is flawed. I think we will destroy ourselves and our planet pretty quickly. We are too stupid and too selfish to build a lasting society.
We are fooled by conmen in every country that the fella with a different hat, or jersey, or accent or whatever, is out to get us and our family. So we must pay the conmen to protect us. Religions and politics are both full these conmen.
Amber Rudd wants companyies to produce data regarding foreigners employed in the UK. 'Bad' employers are those who employ foreigners when they could employ a local. I have never seen so much naked jingoism in my lifetime. And Trump is using it as his main 'policy'. The German far-right just kicked Merkel's ass in elections.
I am praying this is merely electioneering aimed at getting votes from the easily fooled. Becuase if these people are serious........
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 06, 2016, 04:35:11 PM
Quote from: No wides on October 06, 2016, 03:43:51 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 06, 2016, 03:34:05 PM
Quote from: No wides on October 06, 2016, 03:25:50 PM
It's life - like all animals, you are born, live your life and die.
EH? So quantum mechanics is BS then? How did we come to experience life?
You asked me what is not bullshit - life isn't, for 7 billion people on this planet they are born, they live whatever hand they have and they die. If you are away in another dimension like stargate good for you hope the weather is pleasant.
...Yes and according to quantum mechanics those lives are just a jumble of floating atoms which consist of particles whizzing and popping around.
Arent you travelling through time? I am thanks to the spacetime geodesic that all my atoms are sitting on but if I was hanging out on a neutron star time would slow way down (relative to you of course), and should stop in a black hole.
So you are governed by an infant theory, how do you get through your day, are you married, so you have kids, a job? Why bother with anything, sure if you just ended your life, would it matter, this reality is probably pants and the real you is a blow job queen in another dimension. If you use a collection of atoms to release your collection of atoms, maybe they will fundamentally assist another life who appreciates life.
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 06, 2016, 06:38:10 PM
https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/2015/02/24/what-does-quantum-mechanics-suggest-about-our-perceptions-reality/
Don't particularly want to go down this rabbit hole with you Joe, but logic dictates I must. With regard to your questions about consciousness and conscience, I think the area itself is one of the last great frontiers for science. As I've stated before on the board I'm an agnostic, so if science comes to the conclusion a la Occam's Razor that there is a higher force at work in human consciousness, I'll neither be surprised or dismayed.
However, you are using the existence of quantum mechanics as an argument to discredit the possibility of empiricism providing us with any concrete answers to your questions re experience. Ipso facto there must be a higher power/force of right and wrong/whichever you'd like to call it that cannot be accounted for by empiricism.
The link above is a discussion paper about the relationship between quantum mechanics and perceived reality. It's a dense read but I'd point your attention to the last paragraph which would seem to refute your argument below.
QuoteThen again who says logic as we understand it holds.. after all quantum randomness and spooky action have bee detected in quantum mechanics and they are completely illogical, thus blowing the long held belief in science of a deterministic naturalist universe completely out of the water.
The last paragraph states
QuoteWhere does that leave us? The remarkable thing is that we can still reliably track aspects of reality. Whatever quantity you want to measure — be it position, momentum, or spin — if you measure it twice, within a short span of time, you will find that it has the same value. Thus, we have good reason to think that our measurements provide reliable information about reality. This sort of reliability is good enough to guide our actions, and it provides strong evidence of the hidden reality behind our perceptions.
To paraphrase, science does give a reliable base for measuring reality, as well as being the principle tool for exploring quantum physics. The existence of one does not negate the measures in another, and using quantum mechanics as a sledgehammer to demolish the legitimacy of theories such as genetic evolution is the very definition of a "strawman" argument.
So perhaps you need another line of argument? Have at it Joe, I have the popcorn in the microwave as we speak.
Thanks for the link by the way great read however his point is fundamentally different to mine but then you concluded my point was something different to what I was trying to make! I am not arguing for or against an idealist universe like he is. I am simply arguing like J70 says that true knowledge is simply unknowable and there will always be doubt on whatever knowledge is obtained however I agree that we must move forward so we have to assume some things. Empiricism is a basic assumption of science but what bais do we have to say that it gives us an accurate picture of reality? I used the quantum realm verses the classical realm to demonstrate that we have built two very different realities and neither make any sense so who is to say either is a true picture of reality?
Also consciousness is not a frontier of science its a fundamental assumption of science and as I said without that assumption and a good few others like deductive reasoning science cant go anywhere. Its existence is disputed by Neurologists and Physicists who say there is nothing there because all the energy is used up by the firing of neurons, so the best they can up with is oh its an illusion caused by brain wave frequency. And sorry to tell you this but there are far more frontier of science now than there ever where, 5% of the detectable universe is all we can observe and even that 5% doesnt add up, string theory, dark matter, dark energy, multiverses....And thats just physics, we dont even know how the human gut works yet for ffs, there are countless frontiers in science.
Im glad your enjoying my posts tho it makes a change wha? ;)
Quote from: muppet on October 06, 2016, 05:38:34 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 06, 2016, 03:05:30 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 06, 2016, 01:30:33 PM
OmaghJoe's argument is always simply to allow you to go to the edge of proven science and insist that God lives just beyond it.
There is no evidence, observation or even solid theory to work with.
Utter bollocks muppet as usual, have I even mentioned God in this thread? Tho to be fair a straw man is usually a more intricate fallacy than your usual red herring (tho maybe not in this case).
Tho I will reiterate what my point is and that is we can never be completely sure of anything.
And even if you do believe in a materialist world fine but why would you assume that empiricism can give you an accurate picture of that world? Its a massive jump in logic to assume that it does, and the discovery of the bizarre realm of quantum mechanics with spooky action and randomness more or less confirms that our empirical view of things aint accurate, and also begs the question is that realm a true picture of reality?
What is the thread about?
As for....
"we can never be completely sure of anything. "
This is exactly the point I was making and precisely where you go in any religious argument.
We can be sure of plenty. Scientific process, evidence, peer-review and most importantly, reproducibility, can prove some things with certainty.
Is that inspite of the basic assumption we use in science to move forward?
Quote from: J70 on October 06, 2016, 06:50:37 PM
QuoteThen again who says logic as we understand it holds.. after all quantum randomness and spooky action have bee detected in quantum mechanics and they are completely illogical, thus blowing the long held belief in science of a deterministic naturalist universe completely out of the water.
I don't get this. Please expand.
And why would this make the case for a non- naturalist universe, presumably creationist, any stronger?
What dont you get?
A non-naturalist universe is simply one that is not naturalist. It doesnt make the case for anything else stronger but quantum randomness seemingly dispels the notion. But then who knows.... maybe dark matter is controlling it ;)
Quote from: Hardy on October 06, 2016, 07:08:29 PM
Joe disavows the God Of The Gaps proposition while, it seems to me, presenting an even more simplistic proposition – that which is unknown is unknowable.
He seems to think that because science hasn't developed a theory of consciousness, there never will be an explanation of how consciousness works. Therefore, mysticism must be considered as the alternative explanation.
And then, in a bizarre non-sequitur, quantum theory proves that it must be something "spooky" that's going on.
;) ;) Very Good Hardy although if you want to have a real discussion stop inventing things i said and google spooky action
Quote from: No wides on October 07, 2016, 08:01:18 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 06, 2016, 04:35:11 PM
Quote from: No wides on October 06, 2016, 03:43:51 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 06, 2016, 03:34:05 PM
Quote from: No wides on October 06, 2016, 03:25:50 PM
It's life - like all animals, you are born, live your life and die.
EH? So quantum mechanics is BS then? How did we come to experience life?
You asked me what is not bullshit - life isn't, for 7 billion people on this planet they are born, they live whatever hand they have and they die. If you are away in another dimension like stargate good for you hope the weather is pleasant.
...Yes and according to quantum mechanics those lives are just a jumble of floating atoms which consist of particles whizzing and popping around.
Arent you travelling through time? I am thanks to the spacetime geodesic that all my atoms are sitting on but if I was hanging out on a neutron star time would slow way down (relative to you of course), and should stop in a black hole.
So you are governed by an infant theory, how do you get through your day, are you married, so you have kids, a job? Why bother with anything, sure if you just ended your life, would it matter, this reality is probably pants and the real you is a blow job queen in another dimension. If you use a collection of atoms to release your collection of atoms, maybe they will fundamentally assist another life who appreciates life.
Since I believe we also have a spiritual component which gives life meaning then this is a question for those who believe only in the physical realm that i described
"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."
― Aristotle
The only thing that moves anything forward consistently, is science. Sometimes by accident, sometimes by design, but it always comes back to science.
Just because we are bamboozled by recent discoveries in Quantum Physics, doesn't mean we know less about it. We still know more about it that before each discovery. However we also know now that the field is much bigger than we ever knew before. This is still learning and it is still progress.
The telescope and microscope didn't mean the end of science due to the sheer volume of new territory suddenly available after their inventions. Equally, the great explorers weren't talked out of going to newly discovered lands because of the argument that everything is unknowable. The search for knowledge is what we are all about as a species.
However while it is true to say that you cannot be sure of anything, to somehow use this as an argument against science and for religion, is ridiculous. Science assumes nothing in the first place. Religion is built from the ground up on assumptions and 'faith'.
Quote from: muppet on October 07, 2016, 03:12:06 PM
"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."
― Aristotle
The only thing that moves anything forward consistently, is science. Sometimes by accident, sometimes by design, but it always comes back to science.
Just because we are bamboozled by recent discoveries in Quantum Physics, doesn't mean we know less about it. We still know more about it that before each discovery. However we also know now that the field is much bigger than we ever knew before. This is still learning and it is still progress.
The telescope and microscope didn't mean the end of science due to the sheer volume of new territory suddenly available after their inventions. Equally, the great explorers weren't talked out of going to newly discovered lands because of the argument that everything is unknowable. The search for knowledge is what we are all about as a species.
However while it is true to say that you cannot be sure of anything, to somehow use this as an argument against science and for religion, is ridiculous. Science assumes nothing in the first place. Religion is built from the ground up on assumptions and 'faith'.
Sorry to tell you Muppet but sciecne assumes that our sesnes give us an accurate picture of reality. How do you know we arent a brain in a VAT.
Also inductive reasoning.... ???
There are basic assumptions science makes to move forward if your denying that your living in lala land.
The Standard model of Quantum Physics is pretty much complete by the way no one is bamboozled by it.
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 07, 2016, 03:20:23 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 07, 2016, 03:12:06 PM
"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."
― Aristotle
The only thing that moves anything forward consistently, is science. Sometimes by accident, sometimes by design, but it always comes back to science.
Just because we are bamboozled by recent discoveries in Quantum Physics, doesn't mean we know less about it. We still know more about it that before each discovery. However we also know now that the field is much bigger than we ever knew before. This is still learning and it is still progress.
The telescope and microscope didn't mean the end of science due to the sheer volume of new territory suddenly available after their inventions. Equally, the great explorers weren't talked out of going to newly discovered lands because of the argument that everything is unknowable. The search for knowledge is what we are all about as a species.
However while it is true to say that you cannot be sure of anything, to somehow use this as an argument against science and for religion, is ridiculous. Science assumes nothing in the first place. Religion is built from the ground up on assumptions and 'faith'.
Sorry to tell you Muppet but sciecne assumes that our sesnes give us an accurate picture of reality. How do you know we arent a brain in a VAT.
Also inductive reasoning.... ???
There are basic assumptions science makes to move forward if your denying that your living in lala land.
The Standard model of Quantum Physics is pretty much complete by the way no one is bamboozled by it.
Your last sentence completely contradicts your first.
Which sums up your reasoning really.
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 07, 2016, 03:03:24 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 06, 2016, 06:50:37 PM
QuoteThen again who says logic as we understand it holds.. after all quantum randomness and spooky action have bee detected in quantum mechanics and they are completely illogical, thus blowing the long held belief in science of a deterministic naturalist universe completely out of the water.
I don't get this. Please expand.
And why would this make the case for a non- naturalist universe, presumably creationist, any stronger?
What dont you get?
A non-naturalist universe is simply one that is not naturalist. It doesnt make the case for anything else stronger but quantum randomness seemingly dispels the notion. But then who knows.... maybe dark matter is controlling it ;)
I don't get why quantum randomness and spooky action blow the naturalist outlook out of the water.
Quote from: muppet on October 07, 2016, 03:26:48 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 07, 2016, 03:20:23 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 07, 2016, 03:12:06 PM
"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."
― Aristotle
The only thing that moves anything forward consistently, is science. Sometimes by accident, sometimes by design, but it always comes back to science.
Just because we are bamboozled by recent discoveries in Quantum Physics, doesn't mean we know less about it. We still know more about it that before each discovery. However we also know now that the field is much bigger than we ever knew before. This is still learning and it is still progress.
The telescope and microscope didn't mean the end of science due to the sheer volume of new territory suddenly available after their inventions. Equally, the great explorers weren't talked out of going to newly discovered lands because of the argument that everything is unknowable. The search for knowledge is what we are all about as a species.
However while it is true to say that you cannot be sure of anything, to somehow use this as an argument against science and for religion, is ridiculous. Science assumes nothing in the first place. Religion is built from the ground up on assumptions and 'faith'.
Sorry to tell you Muppet but sciecne assumes that our sesnes give us an accurate picture of reality. How do you know we arent a brain in a VAT.
Also inductive reasoning.... ???
There are basic assumptions science makes to move forward if your denying that your living in lala land.
The Standard model of Quantum Physics is pretty much complete by the way no one is bamboozled by it.
Your last sentence completely contradicts your first.
Which sums up your reasoning really.
NO its doesnt,... sums up your comprehension really ::)
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 07, 2016, 03:29:30 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 07, 2016, 03:26:48 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 07, 2016, 03:20:23 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 07, 2016, 03:12:06 PM
"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."
― Aristotle
The only thing that moves anything forward consistently, is science. Sometimes by accident, sometimes by design, but it always comes back to science.
Just because we are bamboozled by recent discoveries in Quantum Physics, doesn't mean we know less about it. We still know more about it that before each discovery. However we also know now that the field is much bigger than we ever knew before. This is still learning and it is still progress.
The telescope and microscope didn't mean the end of science due to the sheer volume of new territory suddenly available after their inventions. Equally, the great explorers weren't talked out of going to newly discovered lands because of the argument that everything is unknowable. The search for knowledge is what we are all about as a species.
However while it is true to say that you cannot be sure of anything, to somehow use this as an argument against science and for religion, is ridiculous. Science assumes nothing in the first place. Religion is built from the ground up on assumptions and 'faith'.
Sorry to tell you Muppet but sciecne assumes that our sesnes give us an accurate picture of reality. How do you know we arent a brain in a VAT.
Also inductive reasoning.... ???
There are basic assumptions science makes to move forward if your denying that your living in lala land.
The Standard model of Quantum Physics is pretty much complete by the way no one is bamboozled by it.
Your last sentence completely contradicts your first.
Which sums up your reasoning really.
NO its doesnt,... sums up your comprehension really ::)
How could we know everything about Quantum Physics, if we don't know whether or not anything is real?
As for the Standard Model being complete, would you mind publishing it, as the world would be very interested. You might even get a Nobel Prize for it. That is, if Nobel Prizes really exist. ;D
Quote from: muppet on October 07, 2016, 03:36:57 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 07, 2016, 03:29:30 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 07, 2016, 03:26:48 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 07, 2016, 03:20:23 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 07, 2016, 03:12:06 PM
"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."
― Aristotle
The only thing that moves anything forward consistently, is science. Sometimes by accident, sometimes by design, but it always comes back to science.
Just because we are bamboozled by recent discoveries in Quantum Physics, doesn't mean we know less about it. We still know more about it that before each discovery. However we also know now that the field is much bigger than we ever knew before. This is still learning and it is still progress.
The telescope and microscope didn't mean the end of science due to the sheer volume of new territory suddenly available after their inventions. Equally, the great explorers weren't talked out of going to newly discovered lands because of the argument that everything is unknowable. The search for knowledge is what we are all about as a species.
However while it is true to say that you cannot be sure of anything, to somehow use this as an argument against science and for religion, is ridiculous. Science assumes nothing in the first place. Religion is built from the ground up on assumptions and 'faith'.
Sorry to tell you Muppet but sciecne assumes that our sesnes give us an accurate picture of reality. How do you know we arent a brain in a VAT.
Also inductive reasoning.... ???
There are basic assumptions science makes to move forward if your denying that your living in lala land.
The Standard model of Quantum Physics is pretty much complete by the way no one is bamboozled by it.
Your last sentence completely contradicts your first.
Which sums up your reasoning really.
NO its doesnt,... sums up your comprehension really ::)
How could we know everything about Quantum Physics, if we don't know whether or not anything is real?
As for the Standard Model being complete, would you mind publishing it, as the world would be very interested. You might even get a Nobel Prize for it. That is, if Nobel Prizes really exist. ;D
Peter Higgs already got it
Quote from: J70 on October 07, 2016, 03:27:53 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 07, 2016, 03:03:24 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 06, 2016, 06:50:37 PM
QuoteThen again who says logic as we understand it holds.. after all quantum randomness and spooky action have bee detected in quantum mechanics and they are completely illogical, thus blowing the long held belief in science of a deterministic naturalist universe completely out of the water.
I don't get this. Please expand.
And why would this make the case for a non- naturalist universe, presumably creationist, any stronger?
What dont you get?
A non-naturalist universe is simply one that is not naturalist. It doesnt make the case for anything else stronger but quantum randomness seemingly dispels the notion. But then who knows.... maybe dark matter is controlling it ;)
I don't get why quantum randomness and spooky action blow the naturalist outlook out of the water.
Because a naturalist universe is based on causality coming from inherent laws of nature where every event is determined. Randomness doesn't adhere to either of those.
Higgs didn't give us a dark energy particle or account for the rapid expansion of the universe. You obviously know better though.
C'mon OJ! (I'd call you Einstein except you are wayyy beyond Einstein at this stage.)
Phenomena not explained
The Standard Model is inherently an incomplete theory. There are fundamental physical phenomena in nature that the Standard Model does not adequately explain:
Gravity. The standard model does not explain gravity. The approach of simply adding a "graviton" (whose properties are the subject of considerable consensus among physicists if it exists) to the Standard Model does not recreate what is observed experimentally without other modifications, as yet undiscovered, to the Standard Model. Moreover, instead, the Standard Model is widely considered to be incompatible with the most successful theory of gravity to date, general relativity.[3]
Dark matter and dark energy. Cosmological observations tell us the standard model explains about 5% of the energy present in the universe. About 26% should be dark matter, which would behave just like other matter, but which only interacts weakly (if at all) with the Standard Model fields. Yet, the Standard Model does not supply any fundamental particles that are good dark matter candidates. The rest (69%) should be dark energy, a constant energy density for the vacuum. Attempts to explain dark energy in terms of vacuum energy of the standard model lead to a mismatch of 120 orders of magnitude.[4]
Neutrino masses. According to the standard model, neutrinos are massless particles. However, neutrino oscillation experiments have shown that neutrinos do have mass. Mass terms for the neutrinos can be added to the standard model by hand, but these lead to new theoretical problems. For example, the mass terms need to be extraordinarily small and it is not clear if the neutrino masses would arise in the same way that the masses of other fundamental particles do in the Standard Model.
Matter–antimatter asymmetry.
The universe is made out of mostly matter. However, the standard model predicts that matter and antimatter should have been created in (almost) equal amounts if the initial conditions of the universe did not involve disproportionate matter relative to antimatter. Yet, no mechanism sufficient to explain this asymmetry exists in the Standard Model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model)
Quote from: muppet on October 07, 2016, 03:41:10 PM
Higgs didn't give us a dark energy particle or account for the rapid expansion of the universe. You obviously know better though.
Accounting for gravity would be an even bigger gaping hole, which is only thing that dark matter interacts with.... yet in spite of this the model adds up for understanding matter which is what its goal is.
So enter the mathematicians with string theory to try and pull it all together
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 07, 2016, 03:39:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 07, 2016, 03:27:53 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 07, 2016, 03:03:24 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 06, 2016, 06:50:37 PM
QuoteThen again who says logic as we understand it holds.. after all quantum randomness and spooky action have bee detected in quantum mechanics and they are completely illogical, thus blowing the long held belief in science of a deterministic naturalist universe completely out of the water.
I don't get this. Please expand.
And why would this make the case for a non- naturalist universe, presumably creationist, any stronger?
What dont you get?
A non-naturalist universe is simply one that is not naturalist. It doesnt make the case for anything else stronger but quantum randomness seemingly dispels the notion. But then who knows.... maybe dark matter is controlling it ;)
I don't get why quantum randomness and spooky action blow the naturalist outlook out of the water.
Because a naturalist universe is based on causality coming from inherent laws of nature where every event is determined. Randomness doesn't adhere to either of those.
So there is no causality, no predictability? At any level? And why does every event have to be determined? Probability doesn't come into it?
Again, I'm obviously missing something here.
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 07, 2016, 03:51:30 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 07, 2016, 03:41:10 PM
Higgs didn't give us a dark energy particle or account for the rapid expansion of the universe. You obviously know better though.
Accounting for gravity would be an even bigger gaping hole, which is only thing that dark matter interacts with.... yet in spite of this the model adds up for understanding matter which is what its goal is.
So enter the mathematicians with string theory to try and pull it all together
A truly remarkable conclusion, given that dark matter is not explained.
The Standard Model will be updated or replaced with new discoveries. It isn't remotely finished or complete, or has achieved its 'goal', as you suggest.
Quote from: J70 on October 07, 2016, 04:07:46 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 07, 2016, 03:39:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 07, 2016, 03:27:53 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 07, 2016, 03:03:24 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 06, 2016, 06:50:37 PM
QuoteThen again who says logic as we understand it holds.. after all quantum randomness and spooky action have bee detected in quantum mechanics and they are completely illogical, thus blowing the long held belief in science of a deterministic naturalist universe completely out of the water.
I don't get this. Please expand.
And why would this make the case for a non- naturalist universe, presumably creationist, any stronger?
What dont you get?
A non-naturalist universe is simply one that is not naturalist. It doesnt make the case for anything else stronger but quantum randomness seemingly dispels the notion. But then who knows.... maybe dark matter is controlling it ;)
I don't get why quantum randomness and spooky action blow the naturalist outlook out of the water.
Because a naturalist universe is based on causality coming from inherent laws of nature where every event is determined. Randomness doesn't adhere to either of those.
So there is no causality, no predictability? At any level? And why does every event have to be determined? Probability doesn't come into it?
Again, I'm obviously missing something here.
Everything is determined by the laws of nature... thats the theory of the naturalist universe??
There is causality and predictability in a classical and practical sense of course but quantum randomness could thrown them off especially when dealing things with alot of repeat ability or at that level. Fro example I could get program a robot to throw a basket ball into a net from 20metres say in a controlled environment (same air pressure temperature etc. And it would hit the net every time right but at some point (maybe the billionth or zillionth time) quantum randomness would conspire to make the robot miss.
Quote from: muppet on October 07, 2016, 04:09:47 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 07, 2016, 03:51:30 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 07, 2016, 03:41:10 PM
Higgs didn't give us a dark energy particle or account for the rapid expansion of the universe. You obviously know better though.
Accounting for gravity would be an even bigger gaping hole, which is only thing that dark matter interacts with.... yet in spite of this the model adds up for understanding matter which is what its goal is.
So enter the mathematicians with string theory to try and pull it all together
A truly remarkable conclusion, given that dark matter is not explained.
The Standard Model will be updated or replaced with new discoveries. It isn't remotely finished or complete, or has achieved its 'goal', as you suggest.
So dark matter is definitely matter then? I hadn't heard about that! when was that confirmed? What if its just just some quirk of gravity at large scales? There is nothing to suggest its present a a quantum level
Highly unlikely that the Standard model will be replaced, more likely is that some mathematician will bring it all together with String theory and that will become the prevailing notion of reality, but then how are those string theory experiments coming on?
Some assume for the sake of argument that you are right, Joe, and the billionth throw will miss... what does that mean? That physics and chemistry do not follow predictable laws? Or that they do most of the time? Are there examples which are explained by this?
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 07, 2016, 04:36:28 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 07, 2016, 04:09:47 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 07, 2016, 03:51:30 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 07, 2016, 03:41:10 PM
Higgs didn't give us a dark energy particle or account for the rapid expansion of the universe. You obviously know better though.
Accounting for gravity would be an even bigger gaping hole, which is only thing that dark matter interacts with.... yet in spite of this the model adds up for understanding matter which is what its goal is.
So enter the mathematicians with string theory to try and pull it all together
A truly remarkable conclusion, given that dark matter is not explained.
The Standard Model will be updated or replaced with new discoveries. It isn't remotely finished or complete, or has achieved its 'goal', as you suggest.
So dark matter is definitely matter then? I hadn't heard about that! when was that confirmed? What if its just just some quirk of gravity at large scales? There is nothing to suggest its present a a quantum level
Highly unlikely that the Standard model will be replaced, more likely is that some mathematician will bring it all together with String theory and that will become the prevailing notion of reality, but then how are those string theory experiments coming on?
You can answer that yourself, you are the only one talking about String Theory.
As for dark matter, not definitely being matter? Your whole argument here has been is that we know so little and of that we can't be certain that we know anything. Then, incredibly, you insist we know everything there is to know about matter with the Standard Model. When I point out the holes in that claim, you are back to saying we don't know anything about it again.
The Bible is very skimpy on stuff like viruses. And where was God during the Holocaust? What did Anne Frank do to deserve dying in Auschwitz? Were the Nazis only fulfilling scripture ?
Quote from: J70 on October 07, 2016, 04:52:30 PM
Some assume for the sake of argument that you are right, Joe, and the billionth throw will miss... what does that mean? That physics and chemistry do not follow predictable laws? Or that they do most of the time? Are there examples which are explained by this?
Its just means that a naturalist universe does not appear to be the case and the basic notions of determinism and laws fall down which is my original point. If the laws are predictable great but if they are not absolute then they arent really laws are they?
In terms of classical physics at a low gravity like ours I dont think it matters a diddly but if we are trying to discover further knowledge at quantum level and high gravities then it makes things increasingly difficult to predict and theorise with any kind of certainty. I googled examples of it a classical level and the arent really any good ones, they tend to be where there are alot of events strung together.. nuclear decay is one apparently and in microbiology, actually I might have read somewhere that mutations are random, but that might be more chaotic than truly random.
I think I read somewhere that someone tried to relate our free will to quantum randomness but failed. Regardless its weird shit tho not as weird as spooky action IMO
Quote from: muppet on October 07, 2016, 05:47:41 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 07, 2016, 04:36:28 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 07, 2016, 04:09:47 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 07, 2016, 03:51:30 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 07, 2016, 03:41:10 PM
Higgs didn't give us a dark energy particle or account for the rapid expansion of the universe. You obviously know better though.
Accounting for gravity would be an even bigger gaping hole, which is only thing that dark matter interacts with.... yet in spite of this the model adds up for understanding matter which is what its goal is.
So enter the mathematicians with string theory to try and pull it all together
A truly remarkable conclusion, given that dark matter is not explained.
The Standard Model will be updated or replaced with new discoveries. It isn't remotely finished or complete, or has achieved its 'goal', as you suggest.
So dark matter is definitely matter then? I hadn't heard about that! when was that confirmed? What if its just just some quirk of gravity at large scales? There is nothing to suggest its present a a quantum level
Highly unlikely that the Standard model will be replaced, more likely is that some mathematician will bring it all together with String theory and that will become the prevailing notion of reality, but then how are those string theory experiments coming on?
You can answer that yourself, you are the only one talking about String Theory.
As for dark matter, not definitely being matter? Your whole argument here has been is that we know so little and of that we can't be certain that we know anything. Then, incredibly, you insist we know everything there is to know about matter with the Standard Model. When I point out the holes in that claim, you are back to saying we don't know anything about it again.
Muppet I must apologise, I should have pointed out when I am talking about science I am referring to them about they exist in an empirical or scientific sense not in a true reality sense. So when I say that the Standard Model is complete I mean scientifically it adds up as a model for empirical Matter which is what its aim was, sorry if that was not clear.
Trying to detect dark mattter "quantumly" is nigh on impossible considering it has only be detected interacting with gravity at a galactic level and detecting gravity quantumly has never been even close to achieved. This is where the string theorist come in to try and tie thing together.
Tho if you want to return talking about our main point which was about the nature true reality please start by answering my question about a brain in vat and then when your finished with that tell me how you know we arent going to see any more black swans?
Just on dark matter...
http://www.iflscience.com/space/could-scientists-have-finally-detected-dark-matter-signal/ (http://www.iflscience.com/space/could-scientists-have-finally-detected-dark-matter-signal/)
Early days obviously.
As for the brain in a vat... Does it matter (sorry!)?
All we can do it interpret and learn to understand the world as we see it (or as it is presented to us). If it is us that is the experiment, then our chances are far better playing along, aren't they?
QuoteMuppet I must apologise, I should have pointed out when I am talking about science I am referring to them about they exist in an empirical or scientific sense not in a true reality sense. So when I say that the Standard Model is complete I mean scientifically it adds up as a model for empirical Matter which is what its aim was, sorry if that was not clear.
The funniest bit is the "sorry if that was not clear"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5ide3eVNxQ
Quote from: muppet on October 07, 2016, 10:58:14 PM
Just on dark matter...
http://www.iflscience.com/space/could-scientists-have-finally-detected-dark-matter-signal/ (http://www.iflscience.com/space/could-scientists-have-finally-detected-dark-matter-signal/)
Early days obviously.
As for the brain in a vat... Does it matter (sorry!)?
All we can do it interpret and learn to understand the world as we see it (or as it is presented to us). If it is us that is the experiment, then our chances are far better playing along, aren't they?
Indeed it could be dark matter but more likely not, I wouldn't hang my hat on every weird configuration of photons being dark matter
Im not really asking what I should do if i am a brain in a vat but it sounds like a good enough plan, tho I dont think Orpheus will be showing up for you. But anyway as far as my question goes I'll take that as a.... I dont know
Quote from: J70 on October 07, 2016, 04:52:30 PM
Some assume for the sake of argument that you are right, Joe, and the billionth throw will miss... what does that mean? That physics and chemistry do not follow predictable laws? Or that they do most of the time? Are there examples which are explained by this?
the 92 all Ireland