Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by owl of Minerva »

By Dontaskme:

“ Toxic positivity is a curse on humanity, it keeps us slaves to the invisible father christmas who dwells in empty space reported to be inside your head..Which is weird, in the sense that something so infinitely large such as god could possibly fit inside a human skull.”

…………………………………………………………………….

Okay. If you think positivity (all or some)? Is toxic then is negativity (all or some)? Positive? That could be a whole other discussion.

The truth is they are two sides of an equation in our dual system that cannot be reconciled. So we choose which one we endorse and we have different points of view on that.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8533
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Sculptor »

RWStanding wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 7:23 am Christianity
Britain used to refer to itself as a Christian country.
There seems to be little agreement as to what we are today.
In modern terms:
Christianity is not about simple freedom of the individual will.
Christianity is not about simple obedience to moral codes.
Christianity is about informed conformity to altruist values.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Human and other rights and duties are legal constructs based on values.
"Britian" is not an entity that can declare itself one thing or another.
Legally the Cof E is legally bound to the government. To that degree we are a "christian" country, but you despription of it is weak
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

owl of Minerva wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:57 pm I noticed since my post the discourse has become more civil and inviting for others to engage in.
:lol:

It comes and goes. Some of us were done making our points. :D I don't think there is a particularly correct way to call out deceit, distortion, self-righteousness, etc., even when such things are being delivered with a charade of civility and/or behind a cloak of Christianity (which actually makes them seem more insidious). Many of us speak out against behaviors/actions/thinking that we do not want/allow for ourselves. If humankind is connected throughout, there may naturally be a lot of correcting and balancing going on.

Those who seem mired in deceit may actually want others to help break them out of it, if they're too fearful (for example) to evolve beyond their own limitations on their own. They may want to be 'caught'... and they may want to pay some kind of public penance. A lot of weird trips -- so who knows? Some of the most outrageous theist/god-wannabe mindsets have come across this forum, claiming and boasting of what they know of-and-through god. And they stay despite the absence of converts/believers, and despite the collective responses of disgust that they receive. So maybe they're seeking something more, even though they pretend to know it all.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 3:39 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 2:16 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:28 pm
Then let's "correct" it.

Fill in the premise:

Premise 1: No God exists (fundamental to Atheism, obviously)
Premise 2: ____________________________________________________________
Conclusion: Therefore, I am obliged to obey moral precept X. (You pick the moral precept)


If you cannot complete the syllogism, then you're wrong and I'm right, obviously.
Wrong premises, therefore wrong syllogism.
The first premise is unavoidable. It's the definition of "Atheism." The conclusion is unavoidable, because you have to justify a moral value of your choice. So there's really no other legitimate option for either. It's only the middle premise you can work with, if you can.
Premise 1: Like all organisms, human beings have a specific nature that requires the manner of behavior necessary for them to live successfully as the kind of (intellectual, rational, volitional) beings they are.

Premise 2: There is no mystical source for that knowledge or supernatural being to tell them how to live or what to do.

Therefore: They must use their ability to learn (intellect) what their nature is and what it requires, and must use that knowledge and their ability to think (reason) to judge which actions will produce what their nature requires and then must consciously choose (volition) to do it.
That's an invalid syllogism, meaning it's incorrectly formed. Are you unfamiliar with the rules of logic?

You have to have what's called a "middle term" to tie the first premise to the conclusion. Otherwise, the conclusion is unwarrranted by the premises.
The middle term is, "knowledge." If you really need it explained I'll be glad to, but don't ask, please, unless you intend to try to understand.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:13 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 3:39 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 2:16 am
Wrong premises, therefore wrong syllogism.
The first premise is unavoidable. It's the definition of "Atheism." The conclusion is unavoidable, because you have to justify a moral value of your choice. So there's really no other legitimate option for either. It's only the middle premise you can work with, if you can.
Premise 1: Like all organisms, human beings have a specific nature that requires the manner of behavior necessary for them to live successfully as the kind of (intellectual, rational, volitional) beings they are.

Premise 2: There is no mystical source for that knowledge or supernatural being to tell them how to live or what to do.

Therefore: They must use their ability to learn (intellect) what their nature is and what it requires, and must use that knowledge and their ability to think (reason) to judge which actions will produce what their nature requires and then must consciously choose (volition) to do it.
That's an invalid syllogism, meaning it's incorrectly formed. Are you unfamiliar with the rules of logic?

You have to have what's called a "middle term" to tie the first premise to the conclusion. Otherwise, the conclusion is unwarrranted by the premises.
The middle term is, "knowledge." If you really need it explained I'll be glad to, but don't ask, please, unless you intend to try to understand.
Well, formally, your alleged "middle term" doesn't appear in your premise 1. So it's not logically gluing anything to anything else. Your second premise floats without basis in premise 1, and the conclusion doesn't contain either of the key terms in premises 1 or 2.

So, rationally speaking, nothing "follows" from any premise you've supplied there. Can you fix that, or am I asking too much?
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

owl of Minerva wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 4:43 pm

Okay. If you think positivity (all or some)? Is toxic then is negativity (all or some)? Positive? That could be a whole other discussion.

The truth is they are two sides of an equation in our dual system that cannot be reconciled. So we choose which one we endorse and we have different points of view on that.
Christian positivity is toxic..in my opinion, which in my view doesn't make me a neagtive person. Telling people that they will burn in hell for not choosing to worship an invisble made-up entity that lives as an idea in someones head, is sick and dangerous. IMO

Maybe it's time to follow your own advice you appear to revel in virtue signalling to others.
owl of Minerva wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 4:43 pm If someone is confrontational and set in their belief it is best as I said not to give them oxygen. Just ignore it and go on to the next topic. Being ignored is the best approach. If anyone has chosen their worldview they have no right to beat others over the head with it.
But I guess where I go ego. :roll:

It's just the way it is, resistence is futile. 8)
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Lacewing wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 6:05 pm And they stay despite the absence of converts/believers, and despite the collective responses of disgust that they receive. So maybe they're seeking something more, even though they pretend to know it all.

You go girl. :wink:

I said something similar recently.

It's like enough is never enough. That's why we keep breeding more of the bastards.

Don't let the bastards get you down, always stay high by staying below the line of the bottom feeders. :lol: :wink:
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Everybody is talking but No One is listening. Always Be the Listener ..not the noise. :wink: 8)

In space no one can hear you scream. :shock:

Foo!
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by owl of Minerva »

By lacewing:

“It comes and goes. Some of us were done making our points. I don't think there is a particularly correct way to call out deceit, distortion, self-righteousness, etc., even when such things are being delivered with a charade of civility and/or behind a cloak of Christianity (which actually makes them seem more insidious). Many of us speak out against behaviors/actions/thinking that we do not want/allow for ourselves. If humankind is connected throughout, there may naturally be a lot of correcting and balancing going on.

Those who seem mired in deceit may actually want others to help break them out of it, if they're too fearful (for example) to evolve beyond their own limitations on their own. They may want to be 'caught'... and they may want to pay some kind of public penance. A lot of weird trips -- so who knows? Some of the most outrageous theist/god-wannabe mindsets have come across this forum, claiming and boasting of what they know of-and-through god. And they stay despite the absence of converts/believers, and despite the collective responses of disgust that they receive. So maybe they're seeking something more, even though they pretend to know it all.”

………………………………………………………..
Owl of Mineva response:

Your points are well-taken. Maybe it is possible to convince someone of their error, as you see it, and even help them to evolve into open-mindedness but personally I am not convinced. I have spent time in the past trying to change people’s minds and convince them of the error of their ways. If it had any lasting effect I never saw evidence of it. So I gave up proselytizing, as I was not accomplishing anything and had begun to sound like a broken record.

Now, especially when it comes to philosophy or science, (I leave religion alone), I discuss topics based on known facts and abstract ideas which although speculative are always stimulating and interesting. If this is done with an open mind on all sides it is very enjoyable and informative. If religion does come up, I find the best approach is that of a wise man who listened in silence to a pundit quoting scripture for some time and responded by saying: I am waiting to hear you. In other words I am not interested in what you are quoting or in what you believe. What personal experience have you had of any of this.

Of course at a gathering there may be one who insists on getting on a soap box and from a place of personal belief try to turn the discussion in that direction. Such a discussion can be engaged in and there is no reason to object to it but I find the conversation is as if caught in a net and does not flow as it is supposed to.

That is what I have learned, it may not work for everyone as we are all different.
Last edited by owl of Minerva on Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by owl of Minerva »

Dontaskme wrote:

“ Maybe it's time to follow your own advice you appear to revel in virtue signalling to others.”

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:43 am

If someone is confrontational and set in their belief it is best as I said not to give them oxygen. Just ignore it and go on to the next topic. Being ignored is the best approach. If anyone has chosen their worldview they have no right to beat others over the head with it.

Dontaskme wrote:

But I guess where I go ego.

,,,,,,,,……………………………………….
Owl of Minerva response:

I don’t intend to as you put it ‘virtue signal to others.’ Just expressing what works for me. The problem I found with the discussion that I advised to move on from, is that there are beliefs on both sides: believer, and possibly proselytizer on one side, and non-believer, and possibly proselytizer on the other side. Debates can be on beliefs. Whether they can be considered philosophical is another matter.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

owl of Minerva wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 6:31 pm I have spent time in the past trying to change people’s minds and convince them of the error of their ways. If it had any lasting effect I never saw evidence of it.
Me too. So, I typically only do it if it's fun or inspiring/thought-provoking for me.

It seems that people can eventually consider other views, even if they don't acknowledge it, especially if they hear it from various sources, and if it makes sense in the overall evolution of human thinking. I don't have an agenda tied to whether or not anyone ever does this in response to something I contribute, rather... it's an exercise for me to question and test boundaries and what we claim to know. This includes me too. By challenging narrow, one-sided, even-ridiculous beliefs, I am expressing my intent not to be limited or directed by such things. I am aware that what I challenge in 'another', I challenge in 'myself'.
owl of Minerva wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 6:31 pmI discuss topics based on known facts and abstract ideas which although speculative are always stimulating and interesting. If this is done with an open mind on all sides it is very enjoyable and informative.
Agreed! Some of my most thoughtful posts received only minimal (if any) response. When no one even makes fun of it, I've wondered whether it shorted out brain cells :lol: -- but, more likely, it's just not a channel that anyone else is on at that time. It happens to other people too. A lot of times, the quick and dirty entertainment seems to be what succeeds most here. It's always thrilling when it goes deeper than that.
owl of Minerva wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 6:31 pmIf religion does come up, I find the best approach is that of a wise man who listened in silence to a pundit quoting scripture for some time and responded by saying: I am waiting to hear you. In other words I am not interested in what you are quoting or in what you believe. What personal experience have you had of any of this.
Yes!! That is the TRULY interesting stuff! What are people doing with what they think? How did they get there? How has it changed their life? And do they imagine there's any more than that?

Thanks for your response. :)
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by jayjacobus »

Lacewing wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 7:49 pm
owl of Minerva wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 6:31 pm I have spent time in the past trying to change people’s minds and convince them of the error of their ways. If it had any lasting effect I never saw evidence of it.
Me too. So, I typically only do it if it's fun or inspiring/thought-provoking for me.

It seems that people can eventually consider other views, even if they don't acknowledge it, especially if they hear it from various sources, and if it makes sense in the overall evolution of human thinking. I don't have an agenda tied to whether or not anyone ever does this in response to something I contribute, rather... it's an exercise for me to question and test boundaries and what we claim to know. This includes me too. By challenging narrow, one-sided, even-ridiculous beliefs, I am expressing my intent not to be limited or directed by such things. I am aware that what I challenge in 'another', I challenge in 'myself'.
owl of Minerva wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 6:31 pmI discuss topics based on known facts and abstract ideas which although speculative are always stimulating and interesting. If this is done with an open mind on all sides it is very enjoyable and informative.
Agreed! Some of my most thoughtful posts received only minimal (if any) response. When no one even makes fun of it, I've wondered whether it shorted out brain cells :lol: -- but, more likely, it's just not a channel that anyone else is on at that time. It happens to other people too. A lot of times, the quick and dirty entertainment seems to be what succeeds most here. It's always thrilling when it goes deeper than that.
owl of Minerva wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 6:31 pmIf religion does come up, I find the best approach is that of a wise man who listened in silence to a pundit quoting scripture for some time and responded by saying: I am waiting to hear you. In other words I am not interested in what you are quoting or in what you believe. What personal experience have you had of any of this.
Yes!! That is the TRULY interesting stuff! What are people doing with what they think? How did they get there? How has it changed their life? And do they imagine there's any more than that?

Thanks for your response. :)
Critical thinking is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment. There are few critical thinkers using this forum.

There are debaters who want to win the debates. But there are no judges to declare winners and end the debates.

The two of you have a right perspective.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by owl of Minerva »

Response to Lacewing:

Thanks for your analysis and response. The philosophy I try to live by, not always easy, has the endorsement of some big names in philosophy, religion, and psychology: Aristotle, Buddha, and Jung. It is called The Middle Way; negotiating a path between opposites. It is based on realism. We are in a system where we have to deal with the often painful relativities of opposing forces which impacts us on all levels: the spiritual, the intellectual/mental, and physical. We see a little light if we do not pick one part of the equation/duality and pitch our tent in it.

Two extremes now in relation to free speech are China and the U.S. In the former it is suppressed, in the latter allowed free rein. Both are problematic. With Facebook, now Meta, Zuckerberg if he understood or cared about the consequences, for a billion, or is it a trillion, or two less he could have allowed free speech but have a mission statement that it was going to be monitored for toxicity, with a policy of three strikes and you are out. In this way he would garner some respect and governments would not have to intervene, instead giving their attention to what they are supposed to: roads and bridges.

Knowing religion and philosophy is helpful. Christianity has as much of Far East philosophy/religion in it as from its region of origin. Especially in relation to action. In Eastern religion/philosophy ‘thought is act in fancy.’ In Christianity ‘as a man thinks in his heart so is he.’ Hopefully, the ability to monitor thought will never come, even though it is action. Speech is action and like the quality of the air and water, once it reaches a level of toxicity that is harmful it needs to be curbed.

That said I do enjoy duking it out with acquaintances on different issues. It can get quite heated.
User avatar
Janoah
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:26 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Janoah »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:45 am
Janoah wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:05 am Simultaneous infinity is absurd, but an eternal process in time can be.
This means that an infinite regress of causes in the past never starts.
That's right, an infinite regress of causes in the past never starts.
Or, say, it walks in a circle, like a dog following its tail.

In any case, creation from nothing is definitely absurd.

The question is, why believe in this absurdity?
Profane climb into physics, or into evolution, not because they want to become great scientists, but because science prevents them from believing in their favorite idols, to love their favorite absurdities.
And if it is postulated that love is above all else, then can be indulge in self-deception and adore their pretty idols.
And to deify them, as happened in history.
as the red shift effect
This and other effects do not prove creation from nothing, if something exploded, then from the matter that was before the explosion.
"outside of the set of frames of references human beings presently understand,
Beyond understanding is the conversation of a parrot, and talking about transcendental - is like talking a parrot.
As He said to Abraham,
These words can only be understood allegorically. The One is immaterial, and no physical actions, including conversation, are inherent in the One.
I'm interested. What's his explanation?
On the explanations of Rambam, it is better in a separate topic.
In general, the explanations can be different, the main thing is that they do not contradict the proof of science.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

owl of Minerva wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 1:53 pm The Middle Way; negotiating a path between opposites.
That's mostly how I think and live too. It offers the most clarity and effectiveness.
owl of Minerva wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 1:53 pmWe are in a system where we have to deal with the often painful relativities of opposing forces which impacts us on all levels: the spiritual, the intellectual/mental, and physical. We see a little light if we do not pick one part of the equation/duality and pitch our tent in it.
That's wonderfully said.
owl of Minerva wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 1:53 pmTwo extremes now in relation to free speech are China and the U.S. In the former it is suppressed, in the latter allowed free rein. Both are problematic. With Facebook, now Meta, Zuckerberg if he understood or cared about the consequences, for a billion, or is it a trillion, or two less he could have allowed free speech but have a mission statement that it was going to be monitored for toxicity, with a policy of three strikes and you are out. In this way he would garner some respect and governments would not have to intervene, instead giving their attention to what they are supposed to: roads and bridges.
Indeed! I've wondered how he can be so smart in assembling a big picture, and yet miss such important large pieces! I was once married to someone like that. Brilliant yet strangely clueless about some things at the same time. Such can be a useful/thoughtful warning for any of us: intelligence and power are not the full picture or answer. We must develop and maintain our ability to 'tap into' other understandings and connectivity, that offer the best pathways for intelligence and power to operate on. Otherwise, it's like applying electricity or volts inappropriately to a system... and everything ends up getting fried.
owl of Minerva wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 1:53 pmSpeech is action and like the quality of the air and water, once it reaches a level of toxicity that is harmful it needs to be curbed.
True. I'm still assessing how I, myself, have come to use this forum. Perhaps it is the largest platform that most of us can step onto to confront the outrageous thinking we find there. It's like a big experiment of very diverse minds and intentions congregating in a room, then assessing what occurs and results from that.

When I use the forum to gain clarity about human potential (for better and worse), I find it informative... and even, skill-building. Although I am a peaceful person in my daily life, the forum has introduced me to dragons I was unaware of (in myself and others), and helped me to sharpen my sword in effectively discerning and dealing with them, as well as improving my riding of some of my own. All of which may continue to prove useful going forward. Perhaps this forum is a university for such studies for me. :D
Post Reply