It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Duck Dynasty' Star Imagines Vivid Rape And Murder Scenario For Atheist Family

page: 14
31
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I think that is only because our understanding of humanity and mental illness is underdeveloped. I bet with proper education, and the right application of treatment of mental illnesses, laws would be exceedingly unnecessary. To me, fear is a poor motivator. It creates resistance. The key to getting people to do the right thing, is to have them do it willingly. Because THEY want to. The key to that is education (read: NOT indoctrination). Then for the few that still want to act out, we need to learn more about the brain and mental illnesses. Maybe even they can be helped.




posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Even if we toss that aside for the moment, there's the story of Job to consider.


The story where god made a petty bet with Satan to see how much of an ass he could be and still be grateful? Yea that story is the picture of morality. You know what we call people like Job these days? Useful idiots.

Though I'm not entirely convinced Job knew God or that he was just an overly optimistic person. I think he was more thankful for everything he had. In the story, God does no interaction with Job. Oh yes, he blesses Job with a new family at the end, but I'm sure that didn't go down like a family literally was sent down from heaven. No, Job found the new family through keeping his head up when the going got tough. Then the Bible attributes that success to God blessing him with a new family.


I'd say, based on what I know of evolutionary theory, that either we didn't evolve (odds are not in its favor, IMHO, and you don't have to be a YECer to do the math in this regard) or it was a divinely guided process. Either way, you can make a strong case that God is here from the beginning.


Then I'd say that your knowledge of evolutionary theory is incomplete and pretty basic. Odds being in favor that we evolved from primates are pretty much 99.999%. By the way, to do the math on evolution, it helps to be a scientist. They actually KNOW math and science, unlike a YECer.


Well, He hasn't smitten anyone on this thread for suggesting He's not involved in morality, so why would he bother smiting the Sumerians? Or maybe He did, but we don't have a record of it.


That's why I pointed out that he is the OT god. You know, the overly jealous and angry one? The almighty one that is above us yet has human flaws. I'm aware that your religion suggests that god had some sort of change of heart with Jesus and all (I still think that the two gods are completely different gods, but whatever).


Which is why the Hebrew faith has ways for people who are not Hebrew to come into the faith and *also* why God chills with Job before He gets around to the Hebrews and *also* why He (in the Christian conception) died to save the whole world.


That's excellent for any societies that come in contact with the Hebrews, but there were quite a few civilizations back in the day that never even HEARD of the Hebrews let alone seen them or talked to them. Plus, the Hebrews waged a few ancient genocides back in the day. Those people didn't get a chance to convert either.


Wait, the Code of Whatshisface was written by the finger of God? I had no idea

But seriously, in the Christian conception of the Old Testament, God details a record of the Hebrews to illustrate the problems with following the law...legalism, if you will. I'm not sure why a random legal code would do anything more than serve as another illustration of the immutability of humans' need for morality external to them, which Paul(?) deals with in the New Testament.


This doesn't make any sense. God is showing Christians the problems of obeying the law?
edit on 30-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE




Yeah...OK. For the record, I have no God. I don't believe in God and I detest man made religion.



Oh? Okay.


Good try...but major fail. But unlike some, I don't hate people who do believe in God or religion.


Wait. What? So you DO believe that people need "God", or else they'll be raping and murdering and eating babies? Because that's what we're discussing here........ MORALITY......right?



edit on 30-3-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
originally posted by: Krazysh0t


In the story, God does no interaction with Job.


Except for the part where God shows up to talk to him...



Then I'd say that your knowledge of evolutionary theory is incomplete and pretty basic. Odds being in favor that we evolved from primates are pretty much 99.999%. By the way, to do the math on evolution, it helps to be a scientist. They actually KNOW math and science, unlike a YECer.


Just because something happened, doesn't make it likely.
There's a lot of disagreement on how likely or unlikely evolution is in the abstract, but because it isn't testable or repeatable, it's hard to scientifically verify exactly how probable it is.



That's why I pointed out that he is the OT god. You know, the overly jealous and angry one? The almighty one that is above us yet has human flaws.


Gaaah! You're undermining yourself here, friend! The idea that humans have flaws suggests that there is such a thing as a perfect human, or at least the form of the perfect human. But you don't believe in either of those, do you?



I'm aware that your religion suggests that god had some sort of change of heart with Jesus and all


It doesn't.



That's excellent for any societies that come in contact with the Hebrews, but there were quite a few civilizations back in the day that never even HEARD of the Hebrews let alone seen them or talked to them. Plus, the Hebrews waged a few ancient genocides back in the day. Those people didn't get a chance to convert either.


Just because they had no chance to convert to the Hebrew faith doesn't mean they didn't get a chance to worship God. That's why my reference to Job was important. Jonah also is a good reference for this if you're curious.



This doesn't make any sense. God is showing Christians the problems of obeying the law?


Sure it does. Check out the New Testament. It goes on and on about how the purpose of the old law was to expose human's sin and how the new covenant is SO MUCH BETTER!



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: StalkerSolent



Neither. They're not mutually exclusive concepts.


Hmm. I thought I demonstrated they were. Please show me how they aren't (a syllogism would be nice
)



what's the point in ever having any standards?


I, also, would like to know this.



Nope, but people can make their own subjective decisions. Like anyone else, I have my own opinions on what is/isn't acceptable.


Yes...



It's more of an argument against simple majorities and all of the rights going to the majority of people. Otherwise being popular would bestow all of the popularity while being unpopular would mean you have no rights.


Well, a lot of times in the past, being unpopular did mean you had no rights. If rights are something that derives from the majority of people, why should unpopular minorities have rights?



It's better when it's inconvenient.


If morality is inconvenient, then why do we have morality at all? Seems like a dang annoyance. "The next step in my evolution: crippling myself with arbitrary standards that I imposed on myself for no apparent reason!"



Oddly enough it's the political science and liberal arts majors that are better equipped to discuss the concepts.


That sounds about right




There is a lot to the theory that based on what I know I simply can't ignore. The universe seems to recursively subdivide to all scales, it corrects errors using ECC, object oriented programs that create a billion people all with unique attributes, are trivial to write. The whole thing even works into reincarnation as the memory block holding your information opens up when you die, and another takes it's place, but data (if stored in any system similar to what we already have) leaves remnants which see the past lives of that block of memory.


That's pretty sweet.



The theory has a lot of interesting things going on. But then what I always think is that, given a few hours.... maybe a week after some planning, I could set this same system up and I'm nothing special.


You should totally do that! ATS would be famous




If the average person can do this and create realities for other machines, then what does that say about the God who set up the rules for our machine? It certainly wouldn't be that of an omnipotent being.


Well, for us He would be.



That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that the creator set up a system by which people would only gain information necessary to their lives and not to the life of your creator. I'll be honest here, from what I have read of God in the Bible, I do not like him. He has a complex to be worshipped and obeyed for all manner of things, and has set about a series of rules to follow that even the most devout to struggle can't stick with because they don't understand the underlying intent.


I don't see why this is so bad if humans were originally programmed to know, love, and worship the programmer.



As a systems designer this really irks me. Things should have purpose, and that purpose should be obvious.


BORING!
Sorry.



Jesus is a little more tolerable but going by what I've read of his younger years he wasn't living a wholesome life.


Eh?



Maybe God encouraged us to accept his rules because he couldn't figure out how to program answers for them. Or maybe, he wants a second opinion on his rules, and as such gave us the ability to develop the philosophy and math behind designing a better system. What if those rules weren't given as something we should obey, but rather as a system which needs improvement from the lifetimes of 20 billion people in order to develop a more powerful theory.


Or, maybe the rules are the basic programming that need to be followed for the optimal solutions. But the programmer also decided to give His creations free will. Hijinks ensue



Oddly enough, in these stories it's Satan who points out that these rules don't work, and tries to give humans a jump start on developing their own working rule set.


Er...no...Satan gives humans access to the divine rules, without which we were blissfully ignorant.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Except for the part where God shows up to talk to him...


You mean when god is "talking to Job in a whirlwind"? Yeah ok.


Just because something happened, doesn't make it likely.
There's a lot of disagreement on how likely or unlikely evolution is in the abstract, but because it isn't testable or repeatable, it's hard to scientifically verify exactly how probable it is.


What's the point in calculating the odds when you know that it happened? You can talk all day about the likelihood of evolution, but it is irrelevant because here we are. A product of evolution.


Gaaah! You're undermining yourself here, friend! The idea that humans have flaws suggests that there is such a thing as a perfect human, or at least the form of the perfect human. But you don't believe in either of those, do you?


Such a thing can be idealized to compare to though.


It doesn't.


So god is still petty, vengeful, angry, and jealous of people not worshiping only him? I haven't seen any smitings from god lately. He mustn't be too angry with the world as it stands then.


Just because they had no chance to convert to the Hebrew faith doesn't mean they didn't get a chance to worship God. That's why my reference to Job was important. Jonah also is a good reference for this if you're curious.


By the way, Job is considered to be a gentile. He isn't an outsider to God's glory race of Hebrews.

Job in rabbinic literature


Raba, specifying the time more accurately, said Job lived in the time of the spies who were sent by Moses to explore the land of Canaan (B. B. 15a). According to these rabbis, Job was a Gentile—an opinion which is elsewhere expressed more fully, in that Job is said to have been a pious Gentile or one of the prophets of the Gentiles (ib. 15b; Seder 'Olam R. xxi.). Other tannaim place Job variously in the reign of Saba, in that of the Chaldees, and in that of Ahasuerus. R. Johanan and R. Eleazar both declared that Job was one of those who returned from the Captivity and that his bet ha-midrash was at Tiberias (Yer. Soṭah v. 8; B. B. l.c.; Gen. R. l.c.). It is said in B. B. (ib.) that these tannaim necessarily considered Job an Israelite; but R. Hananeel (ad loc.) has in his text, "All the Tannaim and Amoraim, with the exception of the one who placed Job in the time of Jacob, were of opinion that Job was an Israelite" (comp. also Gen. R. l.c.).


Jonah was a Hebrew as well. Heck he was a preacher at that...


Sure it does. Check out the New Testament. It goes on and on about how the purpose of the old law was to expose human's sin and how the new covenant is SO MUCH BETTER!


So your reasoning is this, "The Old Testament is an example of why you should disobey the law so that we can substitute new laws with the New Testament"?



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
originally posted by: Krazysh0t


You mean when god is "talking to Job in a whirlwind"? Yeah ok.


Yup




What's the point in calculating the odds when you know that it happened? You can talk all day about the likelihood of evolution, but it is irrelevant because here we are. A product of evolution.


"Naww, Detective, don't crunch those numbers. I'm not in the least bit interested about the chance that our victim was killed by a stray bullet. It has no bearing on this murder case."

Besides, we don't know that it happened. We have inferential evidence that it happened. Unless they've been evolving apes into people in test tubes without telling me about it...



Such a thing can be idealized to compare to though.


Not really. You can imagine changes, but not perfection absent a standard of perfection. Besides, who's to say we aren't perfect now?



I haven't seen any smitings from god lately. He mustn't be too angry with the world as it stands then.


Maybe He's just covert





By the way, Job is considered to be a gentile. He isn't an outsider to God's glory race of Hebrews.


"Gentile" means "outsider to God's glory race of Hebrews."

From Wikipedia:



Gentile (from Latin gentilis, by the French gentil, feminine: gentille, meaning of or belonging to a clan or tribe) is an ethnonym that commonly means non-Jew. Other groups that claim Israelite heritage sometimes use the term to describe outsiders.




Jonah was a Hebrew as well. Heck he was a preacher at that...


I was referring to the people Jonah went to preach to...



So your reasoning is this, "The Old Testament is an example of why you should disobey the law so that we can substitute new laws with the New Testament"?


No.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Yup


God talking to Job in a whirlwind is believable as God talking to someone in a burning bush. Sounds more like the ravings of a mad man.


"Naww, Detective, don't crunch those numbers. I'm not in the least bit interested about the chance that our victim was killed by a stray bullet. It has no bearing on this murder case."

Besides, we don't know that it happened. We have inferential evidence that it happened. Unless they've been evolving apes into people in test tubes without telling me about it...


We have enough evidence to know that it happened. There is no doubt about it at this point.


Not really. You can imagine changes, but not perfection absent a standard of perfection. Besides, who's to say we aren't perfect now?


The simple fact that evolution never ceases says that we aren't perfect now. We will continue to evolve. Heck we may even at some point down the line branch out as different species but with rational thought.



Gentile (from Latin gentilis, by the French gentil, feminine: gentille, meaning of or belonging to a clan or tribe) is an ethnonym that commonly means non-Jew. Other groups that claim Israelite heritage sometimes use the term to describe outsiders.


Ok, you are right. I misused that term, it's a good thing I don't believe he talked to or was aware of God.


I was referring to the people Jonah went to preach to...


I really have my doubts that god was somehow open to letting these people in on his glory but demonstrated extreme racist tendencies for just about any group of people that happened to be in the way of the Hebrew military expansion.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
originally posted by: Krazysh0t



God talking to Job in a whirlwind is believable as God talking to someone in a burning bush. Sounds more like the ravings of a mad man.


Ah, but as Aristotle said, there is a madness which has at its source the divine.



We have enough evidence to know that it happened. There is no doubt about it at this point.


You know, when religious people say that about God, nobody takes them seriously.



The simple fact that evolution never ceases says that we aren't perfect now.


Nope. It says we are not fully optimized for our environment.



We will continue to evolve.


Yes! We can become a superior race!




Heck we may even at some point down the line branch out as different species but with rational thought.


They'll probably look back at our past with derision, since we keep interfering with any attempts to breed such a race and are downright squeamish about creating environments that would better lead to human evolution.



Ok, you are right. I misused that term, it's a good thing I don't believe he talked to or was aware of God.


Logically, you probably shouldn't believe he exists.

What would happen if you did believe he talked to or was aware of God?



I really have my doubts that god was somehow open to letting these people in on his glory but demonstrated extreme racist tendencies for just about any group of people that happened to be in the way of the Hebrew military expansion.


Or Medo-Persian or Babylonian military expansion, amiright?



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Ah, but as Aristotle said, there is a madness which has at its source the divine.


So? Aristotle lived during the time of many gods and no understanding of mental illness. Science has a term for people who talk to bushes and whirlwinds these days.


You know, when religious people say that about God, nobody takes them seriously.


Because there is no evidence for God. It is a key component of saying something for sure.


Nope. It says we are not fully optimized for our environment.


Part of perfection is being optimized for all environments.



They'll probably look back at our past with derision, since we keep interfering with any attempts to breed such a race and are downright squeamish about creating environments that would better lead to human evolution.


You are probably right, humans evolving into more than one species would probably result in endless genocide against each other.


Logically, you probably shouldn't believe he exists.

What would happen if you did believe he talked to or was aware of God?


Logically, it doesn't make sense. Why is it just this one guy supposedly knows about god with him being revealed to him, yet not a single other person believes this? You do realize that it is likely that Job is just a parable similar to the Adam and Eve story? It didn't really happen and its existence is meant to teach you a lesson.


Or Medo-Persian or Babylonian military expansion, amiright?


I didn't realize god was on the side of those military forces. I'm just talking about God's chosen people here. Talking about the existence of other war like societies isn't important. We are trying to argue the rationale behind morality here. You claim god is the source of morality. Clearly, the Medo-Persians of Babylonians wouldn't know of God's morality. God didn't tell them about it.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: StalkerSolent
originally posted by: Krazysh0t



So? Aristotle lived during the time of many gods and no understanding of mental illness. Science has a term for people who talk to bushes and whirlwinds these days.


He was talking about love in that passage. Fortunately, in our modern day, we can diagnose this tragic mental illness for what it truly is.



Because there is no evidence for God. It is a key component of saying something for sure.


Naaww, that's not true. There's plenty of evidence for God. You simply don't find it persuasive




Part of perfection is being optimized for all environments.


That's impossible. One cannot be simultaneously optimized for hiding under my sofa like a cockroach and picking fruit off of trees like a giraffe.



You are probably right, humans evolving into more than one species would probably result in endless genocide against each other.


Sounds about right.



Logically, it doesn't make sense. Why is it just this one guy supposedly knows about god with him being revealed to him, yet not a single other person believes this?


Er...how do you know not a single other person believes this. It's about Job, not all these other random people.



You do realize that it is likely that Job is just a parable similar to the Adam and Eve story? It didn't really happen and its existence is meant to teach you a lesson.


Quite possibly.


I didn't realize god was on the side of those military forces.


He was.



I'm just talking about God's chosen people here. Talking about the existence of other war like societies isn't important.
It is if you're saying that the God of the Bible only supports one race in their military expansions and it's not true.



We are trying to argue the rationale behind morality here. You claim god is the source of morality. Clearly, the Medo-Persians of Babylonians wouldn't know of God's morality. God didn't tell them about it.


Er, right, except for the part where He does. Book of Daniel.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: StalkerSolent
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
He was talking about love in that passage. Fortunately, in our modern day, we can diagnose this tragic mental illness for what it truly is.


Another thing to consider is that these people may have been tripping on mushrooms. The ancient Hebrew people definitely used psychedelic mushrooms to "commune" with god. Maybe that is how Job "knew" god. Makes it a lot easier to believe that a whirlwind is talking to you when you recognize the person is tripping balls.


Naaww, that's not true. There's plenty of evidence for God. You simply don't find it persuasive


The only evidence that matters to prove existence is objective evidence. If you can't produce quantitative evidence that it is real, it isn't evidence worth discussing.


That's impossible. One cannot be simultaneously optimized for hiding under my sofa like a cockroach and picking fruit off of trees like a giraffe.


First off, that is why I said perfection is something to idealize to compare against. Second off, how do you know it can't be done? Does that problem have to necessarily be solved by height? What about collapsible and inflatable bodies? What about projectiles used to retrieve the fruit?



Sounds about right.


Certainly makes the dehumanizing argument used by all militaries to get their soldiers to fight very effective.


Er...how do you know not a single other person believes this. It's about Job, not all these other random people.


Because only Job is worth mentioning.


He was.


So you are saying that god blessed opposing armies against the Hebrews?


It is if you're saying that the God of the Bible only supports one race in their military expansions and it's not true.


Time for some bible passages to prove this.



Er, right, except for the part where He does. Book of Daniel.


Pretty sure that the Book of Daniel is about an exiled Jew in Babylon writing about the evils of the Babylonian empire.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
originally posted by: Krazysh0t



Another thing to consider is that these people may have been tripping on mushrooms. The ancient Hebrew people definitely used psychedelic mushrooms to "commune" with god.


I haven't heard that, and I'd be interested in learning more. They weren't the only ones.
But oddly enough, God spoke to multiple people in Job. Maybe they were all tripping together and had the same hallucination? That's pretty epic. I guess it also accounts for all the property damage Job endured.



The only evidence that matters to prove existence is objective evidence.


That's nice. Do you have objective evidence proving that statement to be correct?



If you can't produce quantitative evidence that it is real, it isn't evidence worth discussing.


Can you produce quantitative evidence that morality is real? If so, why have you spent so much time discussing it?



First off, that is why I said perfection is something to idealize to compare against.

But which is objectively meaningless.



Second off, how do you know it can't be done? Does that problem have to necessarily be solved by height? What about collapsible and inflatable bodies? What about projectiles used to retrieve the fruit?


That would be freakin' awesome.



Certainly makes the dehumanizing argument used by all militaries to get their soldiers to fight very effective.


True that!




Because only Job is worth mentioning.


Well, the book does have his name on it.



So you are saying that god blessed opposing armies against the Hebrews?


2 Chronicles 35 suggests as much, to use one example. There are others.



Time for some bible passages to prove this.


Also, 1 Chronicles 5:26, Ezra 5:12, etc.



Pretty sure that the Book of Daniel is about an exiled Jew in Babylon writing about the evils of the Babylonian empire.


There's also the cool part where God drives the king insane and Daniel is in charge until the king recovers his sanity. The whole "evils of the Babylonian empire" is a bit inaccurate; Daniel generally gets along pretty well with the people in charge.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I haven't heard that, and I'd be interested in learning more. They weren't the only ones.
But oddly enough, God spoke to multiple people in Job. Maybe they were all tripping together and had the same hallucination? That's pretty epic. I guess it also accounts for all the property damage Job endured.


Some theorize that Manna in the bible were really psychedelic mushrooms.

MOSES WAS VERY PROBABLY HIGH ON PSYCHEDELIC DRUGS, SAYS COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGIST


That's nice. Do you have objective evidence proving that statement to be correct?


Use Objective evidence to prove that Objective evidence is superior than Subjective evidence? That is circular reasoning and a fallacy. I'll give you a logical proof instead.

Well there are only two types of evidence. Subjective and Objective. Subjective is untrustworthy due to its source. Memory. Since human memory doesn't store data like a computer, it is subject to remembering things wrong. Objective evidence doesn't lie therefore it is superior than subjective evidence when compared side by side.


Can you produce quantitative evidence that morality is real? If so, why have you spent so much time discussing it?


I'm not entirely sure it is real. It may just be a product of human imagination that humanity has agreed is a good idea.


But which is objectively meaningless.


True, but striving for perfection gives people meaning in their work.


That would be freakin' awesome.


Evolution comes up with some interesting answers for problems. Perfection implies that an organism would be able to use all of those answers.


2 Chronicles 35 suggests as much, to use one example. There are others.


I'm confused. I just read 2 Chronicles 35 and the only people I saw mention of were the Levites, but they are a Hebrew tribe so I'm not sure what you are talking about here. I don't see God blessing a non-Hebrew people.


Also, 1 Chronicles 5:26, Ezra 5:12, etc.


1 Chronicles 5:26 is talking about a king of Israel getting a war party together to invade another country. But the leader here is the King of Israel. Clearly armies that he gathered to go invading under would be blessed with the same protection as he is.

Ezra 5:12 is appears to be explaining God's punishment for Hebrew ancestors angering God. Though that brings up a whole new morality issue. Having to pay for the sins of your father. Your father falls to temptation and you are punished for his misbehavior before you are even able to make a decision of your own.


There's also the cool part where God drives the king insane and Daniel is in charge until the king recovers his sanity. The whole "evils of the Babylonian empire" is a bit inaccurate; Daniel generally gets along pretty well with the people in charge.


I definitely don't see anything about God blessing non-Hebrew people in times of war though.
edit on 30-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: StalkerSolent


Some theorize that Manna in the bible were really psychedelic mushrooms.


That's cool, I guess...but doesn't really affect Job.



Use Objective evidence to prove that Objective evidence is superior than Subjective evidence? That is circular reasoning and a fallacy. I'll give you a logical proof instead.

Well there are only two types of evidence. Subjective and Objective. Subjective is untrustworthy due to its source. Memory. Since human memory doesn't store data like a computer, it is subject to remembering things wrong. Objective evidence doesn't lie therefore it is superior than subjective evidence when compared side by side.


Just because one type of evidence is superior does not mean that other types of evidence ought to be thrown out of the discussion. And, as they say, absence of evidence is not absence of evidence.



I'm not entirely sure it is real. It may just be a product of human imagination that humanity has agreed is a good idea.


And can you prove imagination is real? What about memories?
You see, there are places that objective evidence cannot compete with its more subjective competitor.
But the best evidences for God are based off of things that are immaterial but objective, IMHO.


But which is objectively meaningless.
True, but striving for perfection gives people meaning in their work.


Ah, yes, more opiates for the masses. Why do people need meaning?



I'm confused. I just read 2 Chronicles 35 and the only people I saw mention of were the Levites, but they are a Hebrew tribe so I'm not sure what you are talking about here. I don't see God blessing a non-Hebrew people.


Hold on. I may have misread or mistyped that. The story I'm thinking of is much more exciting.
*uses wizard smartphone-enhanced Bible skills.*
It's at the very end of the chapter. Verses 20 on down.



1 Chronicles 5:26 is talking about a king of Israel getting a war party together to invade another country. But the leader here is the King of Israel. Clearly armies that he gathered to go invading under would be blessed with the same protection as he is.


No...it's talking about how the king of Assyria, stirred up by God, beats up on a bunch of Hebrews.



Ezra 5:12 is appears to be explaining God's punishment for Hebrew ancestors angering God. Though that brings up a whole new morality issue. Having to pay for the sins of your father. Your father falls to temptation and you are punished for his misbehavior before you are even able to make a decision of your own.


There's no way to avoid that happening. If you're father's an alcoholic you're going to be punished for it. Old Testament law commands that sons shall not be punished for their father's misdeeds, in in Ezekiel 18 God goes on a little rant about the idea that he would punish sons for their fathers sins. It seems pretty clear (in the Bible and in real life) that descendants suffer the consequences of the poor judgment of their forefathers, but *also* that one's own sins are what really matters. A large portion of the Bible is about God getting His people out of scrapes their forebears got them into.



I definitely don't see anything about God blessing non-Hebrew people in times of war though.


Read more carefully.
Jeremiah 27 is another good example

edit on 30-3-2015 by StalkerSolent because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Neither. They're not mutually exclusive concepts.


People are free to do what they wish. If a group goes too far with imposing their own morality on others, those others will fight back in order to be free from it.

Well, a lot of times in the past, being unpopular did mean you had no rights. If rights are something that derives from the majority of people, why should unpopular minorities have rights?


It did. Sometimes in the present that is also true, and I'm sure it will be true in the future too. At other times it wasn't true.



If morality is inconvenient, then why do we have morality at all? Seems like a dang annoyance. "The next step in my evolution: crippling myself with arbitrary standards that I imposed on myself for no apparent reason!"


Because most people prefer to not be jerks to each other, it makes society run smoother when we're able to get along and be civil.



You should totally do that! ATS would be famous



I don't know that it would make ATS famous. Really it's very simple to make a few AI's that basically just communicate with each other endlessly. When you get right down to it that's all we are, the only difference between what we can program now and the universe is scale. Where we can make 10 of something, the universe can make a billion. That said, it's a matter of time, I have very little free time.



Well, for us He would be.


Not really. There's a difference between knowing everything, and knowing everything that happens in our reality. Knowing everything that happens in a universe of your own creation, that was designed according to your own views on life is really nothing more than reinforcement of your own beliefs. It doesn't challenge those beliefs and prove them true/false, rather it agrees with them, and encourages beings inside of that universe to also agree.



I don't see why this is so bad if humans were originally programmed to know, love, and worship the programmer.


Because programming things that love and worship you is the height of not only being useless but also being narcissistic. Good sims will disobey, find what doesn't work, and report that. Beings that follow their programming don't actually improve the system. I could go into more detail here but since you seem to find talk of system design boring I'll refrain. A large part of programming however involves finding objects that misbehave and having them report their properties.


BORING!
Sorry.


It's fine. But that's the way it is. Most/all of the purpose behind something (varies by what it is) should be immediately apparent, that's just the way design is.



Or, maybe the rules are the basic programming that need to be followed for the optimal solutions. But the programmer also decided to give His creations free will. Hijinks ensue


Sorry, this involves going into some math known as big O notation and data structures. If you want I can explain further, but computing operations rarely involve taking the optimal solution. They instead rely on computing the fastest solve time, but accept that the first few solutions will be wrong. Essentially, the programmer doesn't know the optimal solution, rather it creates a system to find the fastest (average) working solution. Keeping with the theory, free will can play into this because each solution requires a unique set of data, and choosing the properties in that data could be the act of choice (in our computers they're usually the result of random number generation).


Er...no...Satan gives humans access to the divine rules, without which we were blissfully ignorant.


Depends on the religion I suppose. If you ask a Satanist what they were given, they say it's the freedom to pursue their own knowledge without a God dictating their behavior.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: StalkerSolent


That's cool, I guess...but doesn't really affect Job.


I'm trying to say that Job was probably on mushrooms when he is saying he is talking to god. That IS if the story is even true. Which it likely isn't.



Just because one type of evidence is superior does not mean that other types of evidence ought to be thrown out of the discussion. And, as they say, absence of evidence is not absence of evidence.


I never say that god doesn't exist. If you can produce the evidence. I will accept it and change my opinion. I just find it unlikely with the evidence that we have now. I AM however almost certain that the god as Christianity describes it doesn't exist. If a god exists, no human on earth has adequately described it yet.



And can you prove imagination is real? What about memories?
You see, there are places that objective evidence cannot compete with its more subjective competitor.
But the best evidences for God are based off of things that are immaterial but objective, IMHO.


Yes we can prove those things exist. We do brain scans on people's head, map them, and figure out what goes on in your head when you do those things. Your brain fires distinctive neurons in the same regions of the brain as all humans. This allows scientists to determine the types of thoughts you are having in your head.



Ah, yes, more opiates for the masses. Why do people need meaning?


Good question. The quest for meaning makes the world unnecessarily complicated. This world would be immensely more enjoyable if we didn't worry about such things.





No...it's talking about how the king of Assyria, stirred up by God, beats up on a bunch of Hebrews.


Ok, I misread that, but I don't think stirring up a bunch of people into a frenzy is giving a blessing. That sounds more like The Assyrians got hot about some crap and attacked the Hebrews. I highly doubt god spoke to the Assyrians and told them to attack the Hebrews.



There's no way to avoid that happening. If you're father's an alcoholic you're going to be punished for it. Old Testament law commands that sons shall not be punished for their father's misdeeds, in in Ezekiel 18 God goes on a little rant about the idea that he would punish sons for their fathers sins. It seems pretty clear (in the Bible and in real life) that descendants suffer the consequences of the poor judgment of their forefathers, but *also* that one's own sins are what really matters. A large portion of the Bible is about God getting His people out of scrapes their forebears got them into.

Well that is some morality that I disagree with. MY morality forbids such nonsense. So if my morality can hold that as true, then where does that morality come from to you?



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: StalkerSolent



People are free to do what they wish. If a group goes too far with imposing their own morality on others, those others will fight back in order to be free from it.


So, might makes right, eh?



Because most people prefer to not be jerks to each other, it makes society run smoother when we're able to get along and be civil.


So we have morality because it's convenient, and if we don't abandon it when it is inconvenient, it's because it would be more inconvenient to deal with the results of abandoning it.



Good sims will disobey, find what doesn't work, and report that. Beings that follow their programming don't actually improve the system.


But, if you are a perfect programmer...



It's fine. But that's the way it is. Most/all of the purpose behind something (varies by what it is) should be immediately apparent, that's just the way design is.


I say boring not because I find your insights boring (quite the opposite) but because it sounds like a boring program to run. Wouldn't it be more interesting to give the poor AIs a challenge instead of making their task obvious?



Sorry, this involves going into some math known as big O notation and data structures. If you want I can explain further, but computing operations rarely involve taking the optimal solution. They instead rely on computing the fastest solve time, but accept that the first few solutions will be wrong. Essentially, the programmer doesn't know the optimal solution, rather it creates a system to find the fastest (average) working solution. Keeping with the theory, free will can play into this because each solution requires a unique set of data, and choosing the properties in that data could be the act of choice (in our computers they're usually the result of random number generation).


That's really interesting.



Depends on the religion I suppose. If you ask a Satanist what they were given, they say it's the freedom to pursue their own knowledge without a God dictating their behavior.


Ah, yes, of course. Sorry, I assumed from the context you were referring to Christianity



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   
originally posted by: Krazysh0t



I'm trying to say that Job was probably on mushrooms when he is saying he is talking to god. That IS if the story is even true. Which it likely isn't.


Right, Job and his friends were all collectively tripping, and it resulted in them all sharing the exact same hallucination. Amazing!



I never say that god doesn't exist. If you can produce the evidence. I will accept it and change my opinion. I just find it unlikely with the evidence that we have now.


I don't think there's rock-solid undeniable evidence that God exists. But I think there's good indications. Like that pesky desire for meaning, for starters...



I AM however almost certain that the god as Christianity describes it doesn't exist. If a god exists, no human on earth has adequately described it yet.

The last bit's not inconsistent with Christianity




Yes we can prove those things exist. We do brain scans on people's head, map them, and figure out what goes on in your head when you do those things. Your brain fires distinctive neurons in the same regions of the brain as all humans. This allows scientists to determine the types of thoughts you are having in your head.


But, we rely on people's subjective experience to correlate our data. Unless they're sleeping or something, we don't know when they're accessing memory or when they're imagining something. So their subjective testimony is an integral part of our objective understanding of the world, as it is with all things.



Good question. The quest for meaning makes the world unnecessarily complicated. This world would be immensely more enjoyable if we didn't worry about such things.


Not really, it'd be boring if you ask me.
But isn't it interesting, though? Almost like we were given a perpetual spiritual itch. IMHO, that's evidence for the transcendent.





Ok, I misread that, but I don't think stirring up a bunch of people into a frenzy is giving a blessing. That sounds more like The Assyrians got hot about some crap and attacked the Hebrews.


And what about the Egyptians and the Babylonians...?



I highly doubt god spoke to the Assyrians and told them to attack the Hebrews.

Of course you do! But you're demonstrably wrong in your idea that God was only helping out the Hebrews in the Biblical account




Well that is some morality that I disagree with. MY morality forbids such nonsense.


Your morality forbids a kid from having a bad experience because his dad's an alcoholic? How does it manage that feat? That's incredible!



So if my morality can hold that as true, then where does that morality come from to you?


Your imagination

ETA: Also, your innate desire for morality.


edit on 30-3-2015 by StalkerSolent because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-3-2015 by StalkerSolent because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-3-2015 by StalkerSolent because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
So, might makes right, eh?


Not entirely, but the philosophy isn't completely without merit. If you can create some borders for the area you live full of like minded people you don't have to worry about the morality of others, or one person projecting their morality onto others. Additionally, it creates a jurisdiction and boundary to the laws one wishes to live under. If they disagree with those laws, they can live elsewhere. People being people are sometimes going to clash on these ideas, and some people are going to want to take from others. Might, as far as being able to stand up and defend yourself and those boundaries is a good thing.



So we have morality because it's convenient, and if we don't abandon it when it is inconvenient, it's because it would be more inconvenient to deal with the results of abandoning it.


Not always, I'll use an example from my life. I like meat, but I don't approve of factory farming I even see it as immoral. Ignoring this morality and eating bacon is convenient and tasty while sticking to it and doing a tiny bit to end the practice is inconvenient. I stand to gain by taking the convenient route but I don't. Why?



But, if you are a perfect programmer...


If you were perfect, you would have no need to use algorithms that give imperfect results. Reality would look a lot different if that were the case. The error correcting code found in nature for example, wouldn't exist.



I say boring not because I find your insights boring (quite the opposite) but because it sounds like a boring program to run. Wouldn't it be more interesting to give the poor AIs a challenge instead of making their task obvious?


It's an issue with design, when you design a task, goal, or object it's use should be apparent. Good design is efficient and innately conveys it's purpose to the user. The purpose of an AI is primarily to solve problems, and that requires direction. If you have a problem to solve but you give the AI no goal of solving that problem it will find an answer to that task very inefficiently. Humans and just about every other animal on the planet have goals and some of them seem to be programmed to all living things. Hierarchical social structures, comfort, and reproduction being the three most common. Everything is largely a variation on these things (and maybe a parameter or two I'm forgetting) and part of the guidelines on attaining those three can be found in every religion with their differing sets of rules, or in nations with their varying laws.




top topics



 
31
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join