Do you believe in God?

[Danoff]

While we're on the subject:

 

[Dotini]

I think Plato, Aristotle and Descartes were dualists. If they were alive today, we could laugh at them and tell them how stupid they are, that their jibber-jabber has no place in our world. No one would want to talk with them.

 

[Danoff]

I think Plato, Aristotle and Descartes were dualists. If they were alive today, we could laugh at them and tell them how stupid they are, that their jibber-jabber has no place in our world. No one would want to talk with them.

Descartes is actually featured in the video I just posted. Maybe have a watch.

(Also just FYI that's called argumentum ad verecundiam, appeal to authority)

 

[Dotini]

Descartes is actually featured in the video I just posted. Maybe have a watch.

(Also just FYI that's called argumentum ad verecundiam, appeal to authority)

I'm a libertarian, and strictly anti-authoritarian. I laugh at Plato, sneer at Aristotle and snicker at Descartes.

All these dudes are mental fuddy-duddies from dusty millennia deep in the past, poor strawmen for modern argument. If we really want to address the Hard Problem of Consciousness, we will need to duel with our mental toothpicks with the like of David Chalmers. I'm currently reading Chalmers.

 

[Danoff]

I'm a libertarian, and strictly anti-authoritarian. I laugh at Plato, sneer at Aristotle and snicker at Descartes.

All these dudes are mental fuddy-duddies from dusty millennia deep in the past, poor strawmen for modern argument. If we really want to address the Hard Problem of Consciousness, we will need to duel with our mental toothpicks with the like of David Chalmers. I'm currently reading Chalmers.

Watch those videos then. Chalmers did... he has a rebuttal to them on youtube.

 

[Imari]

Well, I've been following this thread for many years. If anyone has ever attempted to document or sustain a "non-materialist" argument, I don't remember it. Nor am I aware that anyone has accepted its merit or validity. Face it, our community of male tech and car geeks is the wrong demography for the non-materialist type of guy. Personally, being very old, I've accumulated some experiences which challenge the materialist notion of consciousness and the strictly material basis of nature. But I don't believe in God. Neither do I believe against God. I do believe that this is not a good forum to find anything other that a one sided debate.

How can you be that old and still be a hipster?

We use Occam's Razor for a reason. One should not complicate explanations beyond what is necessary to explain the observed. On the day that a non-materialistic interpretation is required to explain something, it will be widely accepted and indeed encouraged by the scientific community.

Given that we don't really understand how the mind works terribly well, even without getting into the mechanics of it, it seems like materialist/non-materialist is a bit like navel gazing. It might be fun, but it doesn't really get anyone anywhere. What would help is talking about actual knowledge that's being found about the mind, and how it all might fit together.

Unfortunately, some people seem to be very into stuff that can't be replicated, which isn't at all how it works.

I think Plato, Aristotle and Descartes were dualists. If they were alive today, we could laugh at them and tell them how stupid they are, that their jibber-jabber has no place in our world. No one would want to talk with them.

You think so? Or do you think that maybe they were intelligent people who were forward thinking for their time? Maybe they'd be interesting to converse with, and maybe when they were supplied with some of the information that we take for granted these days, they'd have interesting views on it. Maybe they'd change their minds given new information, or maybe they'd find a novel way to integrate it into their own views. Or maybe they'd just shut it out and "nope" their way through the modern age.

Maybe you could stop trolling and trying to decide what everyone who disagrees with you thinks. You don't understand other people nearly as well as you think you do.

 

[Scaff]

But then how does that explain her getting our grandmother's name in 2 attempts?

Are you not aware of what the Bible instructs you to do with people of this type and those who consort with them?

"Do not suffer a witch to live"
http://biblehub.com/exodus/22-18.htm

"'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.'"
http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-27.htm

"'I will set my face against anyone who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute themselves by following them, and I will cut them off from their people."
http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-6.htm

 

[FoRiZon]

How to be an atheist without being scrutinized by large families i wonder...

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

It's called cold-reading.

Did she specifically say "Your grandma is called [name]." or did she say "Do you know someone called [name]?" and your sister immediately infer she was talking about your grandmother and volunteer that information?

Breast cancer, lung problems and heart disease kills three quarters of women who died of natural causes in the 1980s. Did she mention breast cancer specifically, or did your sister infer that from the chest and volunteer that information?

And for that matter, why did she need two attempts at anything?

There's a terrific Penn & Teller's Bull**** episode on 'psychics' and cold-reading. I recommend it heartily.
That's a little ironic given that you once literally drove someone away - and your account only survived your stupidity by sheer fluke that the person in question returned to the site to talk about Fallout 4. I'd hoped you'd learned your lesson when it came to telling people what is and isn't acceptable to post.

She said there was a presence called "someone" that didn't make sense to my sister. Then she "re-adjusted" and picked out our grandmothers name saying she was present.

I'll give the episode a go, thanks.

Still, even if I give you the cold-reading thing....

Can science explain predictions of the future? OK so they are more vague but I'll divulge....

My mum visited a psychic who told her that her future was with a man from around the Americas. This was during her first marriage to a guy with England. Eventually she got a divorce then married my dad (and is still married), who is from the Caribbean.

Or

When my girlfriend had her palm read she was told that 2 people were in love with her, and that she would choose the 2nd person and her future lay with him. At the time she was with another guy and I was only a friend. Needless to say she left the other guy and we've been going out for 4 1/2 years.

Is there a "cold-reading" explanation available for future predictions, or, prophecies?

Are you not aware of what the Bible instructs you to do with people of this type and those who consort with them?

"Do not suffer a witch to live"
http://biblehub.com/exodus/22-18.htm

"'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.'"
http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-27.htm

"'I will set my face against anyone who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute themselves by following them, and I will cut them off from their people."
http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-6.htm

Yeah I've only got up to Leviticus 10 in reading the Bible through and through and it's already pretty....dry*

They even call for people to be killed for going against the Sabbath!

But I still believe Jesus saves, and can't wait to go over the Gospels.

*The Book of Leviticus I mean!

 

[Famine]

She said there was a presence called "someone" that didn't make sense to my sister. Then she "re-adjusted" and picked out our grandmothers name saying she was present.

Did she say it was your grandmother, or just say a name and then your sister volunteered that the name was your grandmother's?

My mum visited a psychic who told her that her future was with a man from around the Americas. This was during her first marriage to a guy with England. Eventually she got a divorce then married my dad (and is still married), who is from the Caribbean.

Did she say that she would marry a man from around the Americas or just that her future was with him? It's such a vague 'prediction' that it covers me and I'm pretty sure I'm not marrying the man in question...

When my girlfriend had her palm read she was told that 2 people were in love with her, and that she would choose the 2nd person and her future lay with him. At the time she was with another guy and I was only a friend. Needless to say she left the other guy and we've been going out for 4 1/2 years.

And that prediction applies to me too (well, her).

This is what cold-reading deals with. Huge, broad brushes that the victim then fills in the blanks to make it sound like an actual, specific prediction.

 

[Dotini]

Are you not aware of what the Bible instructs you to do with people of this type and those who consort with them?

"Do not suffer a witch to live"
http://biblehub.com/exodus/22-18.htm

"'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.'"
http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-27.htm

"'I will set my face against anyone who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute themselves by following them, and I will cut them off from their people."
http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-6.htm

Most certainly priests of organized religion would fear any practice which would sideline the priests and put people in direct and personal contact with "the gods". You are NOT to use a Ouija board!!

 

[Scaff]

My mum visited a psychic who told her that her future was with a man from around the Americas. This was during her first marriage to a guy with England. Eventually she got a divorce then married my dad (and is still married), who is from the Caribbean.

Applies to at least a dozen people I know given how vague it is.

When my girlfriend had her palm read she was told that 2 people were in love with her, and that she would choose the 2nd person and her future lay with him. At the time she was with another guy and I was only a friend. Needless to say she left the other guy and we've been going out for 4 1/2 years.

That applies to my wife as well.[/quote]

Is there a "cold-reading" explanation available for future predictions, or, prophecies?

Yep:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading#The_Forer_effect_.28Barnum_statements.29

Make it vague enough and provide enough of them aqnd confirmation bias will do the rest. Its exactly how horoscopes 'work'.

Yeah I've only got up to Leviticus 10 in reading the Bible through and through and it's already pretty....dry*

They even call for people to be killed for going against the Sabbath!

But I still believe Jesus saves, and can't wait to go over the Gospels.

*The Book of Leviticus I mean!

Dry?

Its psychotic and calls for death for the most minor of events.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Did she say it was your grandmother, or just say a name and then your sister volunteered that the name was your grandmother's?

Did she say that she would marry a man from around the Americas or just that her future was with him? It's such a vague 'prediction' that it covers me and I'm pretty sure I'm not marrying the man in question...

And that prediction applies to me too (well, her).

This is what cold-reading deals with. Huge, broad brushes that the victim then fills in the blanks to make it sound like an actual, specific prediction.

-She said it was my grandmother, whose name is "Pearl" so yes I can see how that could apply to a lot of things

-She said her future was with him. So I get your point.

-Hmm but she wasn't aware of my feelings for her at the time. She was baffled that 2 people could have feelings for her and wanted to know who it was.

Dry?

Its psychotic and calls for death for the most minor of events.

Yeah but it's the third Book of the OT, and I don't know of many Christians who follow it to this day. I'm pretty sure Jesus's teachings are more profound and relevant for us and Leviticus was more for how people should live during the time it was written.

 

[BobK]

Yeah but it's the third Book of the OT, and I don't know of many Christians who follow it to this day. I'm pretty sure Jesus's teachings are more profound and relevant for us and Leviticus was more for how people should live during the time it was written.

What?!? Christians who do not follow the Holy Word of God??

As far as I know, by the way, Leviticus does not have an expiration date. Could be I just overlooked it somehow.

 

[Danoff]

-Hmm but she wasn't aware of my feelings for her at the time. She was baffled that 2 people could have feelings for her and wanted to know who it was.

Even better... she has no idea that this is the case and believes it anyway. That is such an easy prediction to make for a young female. Especially so if she's attractive. My guess is that it was more than 2 people, and you don't know who the 3rd, 4th and 5th people are.

Also, it takes a very... unique... individual to listen to that and say "No way, there is no possible way that anyone else is interested in me. You're a fraud because that prediction is beyond belief".

Yeah but it's the third Book of the OT, and I don't know of many Christians who follow it to this day. I'm pretty sure Jesus's teachings are more profound and relevant for us and Leviticus was more for how people should live during the time it was written.

As always, Christians are bound by the OT in that it is their God. Jesus may have rewritten the contract, but your God still cared a great deal about shellfish consumption and the harvest. Your god still saw fit... at some point... to stone people for being infidels, gay, witches... whatever. Your god is still the bloodthirsty immoral savage demon of the OT. Your God still condoned the slaughtering of enemy men and women and boy children and the raping and sexual slavery of their virgin girls. Christianity is forever bound by the OT.

 

[mistersafeway]

-Hmm but she wasn't aware of my feelings for her at the time. She was baffled that 2 people could have feelings for her and wanted to know who it was.

Plenty of people are in relationships and have a friend who wants to be more but can't say out of respect for that relationship, nothing special there.

Yeah but it's the third Book of the OT, and I don't know of many Christians who follow it to this day. I'm pretty sure Jesus's teachings are more profound and relevant for us and Leviticus was more for how people should live during the time it was written.

I highly doubt there are any Christians who follow it in it's entirety* to this day, but Scaff's point was that you were understating how horrible a piece of writing it is.

*Plenty of Christians do, on the other hand, happily quote the verse about gays and use it to justify their own hatred of homosexuals while ignoring eeeeverything else in there.

Of course, faster typists/people who saw it before me ruin my fun.

 

[Famine]

-She said it was my grandmother, whose name is "Pearl" so yes I can see how that could apply to a lot of things

What you say here:

My sister just went to see a psychic today. The lady asked if she knew a person called such and such, and she said no. Then she said she was going to try one more time then stop as there can be "interference" or whatever. With the second name she said our grandmother's name.

establishes the following as a timeline:

* Sister goes to 'psychic'
* 'Psychic' asks if sister knows someone called [name 1]
* Sister says no
* 'Psychic' 'readjusts' and says [name 2]
* Sister recognises it as grandmother's name

This is different from your sentence above, which has this timeline:

* Sister goes to 'psychic'
* 'Psychic' asks if sister knows someone called [name 1]
* Sister says no
* 'Psychic' 'readjusts' and says your grandmother is called Pearl

Which is it?

-She said her future was with him. So I get your point.

The distance away this future is, the length of that future and the nature of the future is all left undetermined. The blanks are just filled in by the victim.

-Hmm but she wasn't aware of my feelings for her at the time. She was baffled that 2 people could have feelings for her and wanted to know who it was.

If the 'psychic' had said your name specifically (without you being there, or mentioned), there may be cause for a 'hmm', but 'more than one person is in love with you' is something that could be applied to almost anyone on Earth without any risk of being wrong.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

What you say here:establishes the following as a timeline:

* Sister goes to 'psychic'
* 'Psychic' asks if sister knows someone called [name 1]
* Sister says no
* 'Psychic' 'readjusts' and says [name 2]
* Sister recognises it as grandmother's name

This is different from your sentence above, which has this timeline:

* Sister goes to 'psychic'
* 'Psychic' asks if sister knows someone called [name 1]
* Sister says no
* 'Psychic' 'readjusts' and says your grandmother is called Pearl

Which is it?The distance away this future is, the length of that future and the nature of the future is all left undetermined. The blanks are just filled in by the victim.
If the 'psychic' had said your name specifically (without you being there, or mentioned), there may be cause for a 'hmm', but 'more than one person is in love with you' is something that could be applied to almost anyone on Earth without any risk of being wrong.

Oops, that is meant to say she "didn't say it was our grandmother"! (The "she" being the psychic)

The "she" I was referring to in the post was my sister, who said it was our grandmother

 

[Famine]

Oops, that is meant to say she "didn't say it was our grandmother"!

Yeah, so that's your sister doing the psychic's work for her then...

 

[Scaff]

-She said it was my grandmother, whose name is "Pearl" so yes I can see how that could apply to a lot of things

-She said her future was with him. So I get your point.

-Hmm but she wasn't aware of my feelings for her at the time. She was baffled that 2 people could have feelings for her and wanted to know who it was.


Yeah but it's the third Book of the OT, and I don't know of many Christians who follow it to this day. I'm pretty sure Jesus's teachings are more profound and relevant for us and Leviticus was more for how people should live during the time it was written.

So you get to pick and chose which laws to follow and which ones to ignore?

I mean these haven't been revoked and OT laws hang in every Church I have even been in.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

What?!? Christians who do not follow the Holy Word of God??

As far as I know, by the way, Leviticus does not have an expiration date. Could be I just overlooked it somehow.

Hmmm I can't be sure, but we aren't meant to be bound to all the rules in the OT. Some still remain (the 10 Commandments), but even then those who sin against those can be saved such as the thief crucified next to Jesus.

Even better... she has no idea that this is the case and believes it anyway. That is such an easy prediction to make for a young female. Especially so if she's attractive. My guess is that it was more than 2 people, and you don't know who the 3rd, 4th and 5th people are.

Also, it takes a very... unique... individual to listen to that and say "No way, there is no possible way that anyone else is interested in me. You're a fraud because that prediction is beyond belief".

But to correctly (at least so far!) call it in my favour?

As always, Christians are bound by the OT in that it is their God. Jesus may have rewritten the contract, but your God still cared a great deal about shellfish consumption and the harvest. Your god still saw fit... at some point... to stone people for being infidels, gay, witches... whatever. Your god is still the bloodthirsty immoral savage demon of the OT. Your God still condoned the slaughtering of enemy men and women and boy children and the raping and sexual slavery of their virgin girls. Christianity is forever bound by the OT.

I can't go against the Bible, and agree that Christianity can't just turn its back on history. I think a Christian's duty is also to apologise for the past and current mistakes we make.

God was, and may still be a jealous God.

But that doesn't dampen Jesus's message.

I highly doubt there are any Christians who follow it in it's entirety* to this day, but Scaff's point was that you were understating how horrible a piece of writing it is.

*Plenty of Christians do, on the other hand, happily quote the verse about gays and use it to justify their own hatred of homosexuals while ignoring eeeeverything else in there.

Of course, faster typists/people who saw it before me ruin my fun.

I didn't mean to understate it. It is horrible, and the only explanation that can be given is that is what God wanted at the time.

As for Christians using the passages about homosexuality, I'm not sure what to make of them. If I was asked if it was a sin to be gay I wouldn't know what to say in all honesty, but I don't believe in persecuting or disowning them since Jesus would embrace them.

So you get to pick and chose which laws to follow and which ones to ignore?

I mean these haven't been revoked and OT laws hang in every Church I have even been in.

Yeah, as above I'm not sure how "we" get to pick which still apply

 

[Danoff]

But to correctly (at least so far!) call it in my favour?

There are very limited circumstances in which that would be an incorrect call.

God was, and may still be a jealous God.

But that doesn't dampen Jesus's message.


I didn't mean to understate it. It is horrible, and the only explanation that can be given is that is what God wanted at the time.

As for Christians using the passages about homosexuality, I'm not sure what to make of them. If I was asked if it was a sin to be gay I wouldn't know what to say in all honesty, but I don't believe in persecuting or disowning them since Jesus would embrace them.

Your God being horribly immoral really does kinda dampen Jesus's message... quite a bit. The message goes from "love your fellow man" to "I'm holding this guy back, you'd better worship him or else".

Does jealousy seem like a virtue becoming of a supreme being? Or does it seem more like a human emotion?

 

[Famine]

Some still remain (the 10 Commandments)

God was, and may still be a jealous God.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

So, the Ten Commandments are still valid and required for Christians to follow, but God can break that one just fine literally within the same passage. Not to mention adultery (knocking up Mary) or killing (see: Noah; the death of everyone on Earth).

That notwithstanding:

Hmmm I can't be sure, but we aren't meant to be bound to all the rules in the OT. Some still remain (the 10 Commandments), but even then those who sin against those can be saved such as the thief crucified next to Jesus.

Which rules of the Old Testament remain? How do you know?

 

[Yttrium99]

Hmmm I can't be sure, but we aren't meant to be bound to all the rules in the OT. Some still remain (the 10 Commandments), but even then those who sin against those can be saved such as the thief crucified next to Jesus.

I can't go against the Bible, and agree that Christianity can't just turn its back on history. I think a Christian's duty is also to apologise for the past and current mistakes we make.i

While it is true the Bible mentions that you can be saved by admitting your sins and requesting Jesus be your savior and all that, the Bible ALSO says that if you sin again KNOWING that your action is a sin, you lose salvation permanently. (Hebrews 10:26)

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Also, no where in the Bible does it say anyone is to toss out any portion of the Old Testament.

 

[mistersafeway]

Jesus would embrace them.

I didn't know he was into that sort of thing, maybe somebody should point out that hating gays means hating Jesus.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Surely I can't be alone in finding it convenient that one can pick and choose which parts of their specific religious text is no longer valid, but does not offer that same level of fluidity to the texts of other religions.

Did I say convenient? I meant hypocritical.

 

[Dennisch]

Can we just make clear that the entire bible is the word of God, and therefore the word of Jesus as Jesus is God?

So I can not find a valid reason for Christians to ignore parts of the OT. Well I can, since having a religion is pick and choose the parts you do like.

Edit.

It seems that I've been somewhat tree'd by 3 hours.

 

[ryzno]

Can we just make clear that the entire bible is the word of God, and therefore the word of Jesus as Jesus is God?

I thought God was God and Jesus was his "son".

 

[Dennisch]

I thought God was God and Jesus was his "son".

Jesus is god in the flesh.

 

[Fat Tyre]

Jesus is god in the flesh.

According to a piece of fiction written ages ago, sometimes I wonder if Star Wars will go down the same path and people will be praising Yoda or some other character in a few thousand years time.