people easily believe stupid shit.
easily. stupid shit. people believe it. cult leaders. dictators. false prophets. hallucinations. wishful thinking. hope. lies that sound good. lies. people believe lies and die for lies.
if you disagree, then you’re wrong because you don’t share my opinion.
The only line that Terry Goodkind ever wrote that’s worth a damn:
Wizard’s First Rule: People are stupid.
Sadly, the best-seller status of his subsequent endeavors served only to prove this point.
re: best of all possible worlds:
Would it be possible to live in a world where knowledge of God is guaranteed, and yet there is also room for free will? For example: a choice regarding our main profession, or our main love interest etc. We’d lose the freedom to choose evil, perhaps, but that would be fine by me.
As it is, I think a more likely scenario is that God has made the world this way because it is actively in his interest for people not to believe in him, that this somehow furthers his Plan.
However it is absurd to opt for believing in God propogating non-belief over non-belief itself. So I’d choose not to believe (but would expect no punishment from God if he did actually prove to exist, seeing as his divine plan involved my non-belief… if you follow)
re: teleology
The reason I make the origins of the universe and the origins of biology separate gaps is because they are ontologically different. In actual fact, to be totally thorough, I’d say there’s another one there too:
Gap 1: Existence as opposed to non-existence (why there is something as opposed to nothing)
Gap 2: Ordered existence as opposed to chaos (why the universe is, at least at a physical level, behaving consistently)
Gap 3: ‘Designed’ entities within existence (why organisms have a sense of individual survival)
The atheistic explanations would be variations on neccesity and chance:
Gap 1: It is just the way it is
Gap 2: It is either the way it had to be, or there are a bunch of other alternatives but we only see our universe which happened to be ordered
Gap 3: The amount of time meant that probabalistically it was bound to happen eventually
The theistic explanations, on the other hand, of course all refer to God. HOWEVER, I believe they appeal to different ‘aspects’ of God:
Gap 1: God’s quality of being of the ‘mind’ category, as opposed to ‘matter’ (and therefore avoiding many explanations expected of material-type existence)
Gap 2: God’s quality of not only being a ‘mind’, but of being intelligent (able to structure thoughts for design)
Gap 3: God’s quality of being purposeful, of applying his design skills to making individual, purposeful entities
So when you say:
I find I can’t accept it because I don’t believe that just having things exist leads to laws of physics, and that just having laws of physics leads to having living beings.
re: problem of consciousness
Thanks for the props. It really was a bombshell to understand it, and I can tell pretty quickly whether another person ‘gets it’ or not. I definitely have not solved it. I don’t think there really is any solving it. Where I stand right now is:
Yes, we can solve various ‘soft’ problems of consciousness, such as: which part of the brain is ‘responsible’ for which mental faculties. But how you actually go from brain-matter to mind-process is forever unfathomable.
(the computer analogy is good up to a point, until you hit the monitor itself (which is the main point of a computer). WHERE is our monitor upon which we see the world?)
Finally, of course this intercepts most directly with the God issue when we think about this ineffable nature of mind, and imagine it without any links to matter. Mind with all the limiters taken off = God. If such a thing is possible, then Mind > Matter. But if matter is central to the generation of mind, then Matter > Mind (and there is no God).
Very tough questions to answer. I should get on with some programming soon… lol
re: problem of evil
Yeah, that’s where I’m at right now on this one.
My problem is that the reverse is true, and that the existence of Good also allows for greater Evil. For instance: a person believes they have found the love of their life (a good thing). But they actually turn out to be a hideous sadistical murderer who tortures them (Evil, made even worse by the promise of the previous Good).
Bit of both, but rooted in the central emotional idea that Evil is Bad. I mean, maybe there is a greater good, but until God himself fucking explains himself I don’t see it. Will keep thinking about this shit though.
To me, it is not abundantly clear that “accepting Christ” is a good thing at all. It is presumably only revealed to be a good thing once you die, and that is quite a large gamble to play with my life, and I don’t see the sense in it. I mean, if people who suffered malaria had different deaths to other people, where a bright light opened to the heavens and a cool ‘malaria angel’ came to take the soul of the deceased (fully visible to everyone) then sure, I’d believe there was a Greater Good that came from that Evil.
There MAY VERY WELL be problems with a world such as I’m describing here, but you see my dilemma right. The world I’m in now suggests non-belief. The possible world which would guarantee belief may be self-defeating.
But what am I supposed to do in the meantime? Go and believe because “well, God is setting me up to not-believe, that’s his plan” It’s ABSURD
I’m sorry to hear about your disabilities. Sometimes I think I have some sort of fatigue syndrome that has been subtlely holding me back my entire life. Other times I think I was just spoilt by my parents. Who knows why God made us the way we are. Or why the world did, or are parents, or ourselves…
but we’ll leave the free-will debate for another time eh! hehe
This.
This pretty well sums up C.S. Lewis as well.
If it weren’t for all the losses he suffered during WW2, I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that Tolkien could never have rolled Lewis’s previously atheist ass over into a diehard Catholic.
every psycho cult leader, every fascist dictator, everyone who started a religion has genuine followers who believe in their mission and are willing to die for them…having loyal followers does not in anyway authenticate your ideology.
jesus had followers, big deal, so what. You assume they needed proof and rational convincing to accept him as God. Yet people 2000 years later easily believe these stories without proof, without personal verification. Even if the stories were true, so what? Being magical doesn’t make you god. No matter what miracles one does. Nothing. No matter what he said. God is infinite, man is finite. No display of power can make you infinite. Jesus could take me outside of space in some other dimension and destroy and recreate this reality 10000 times and I still wouldn’t call him God. God is far greater than any magical wizard. But then I forget, christians have a very funny idea of God, he’s a cartoon figure, a powerful man who has desires and hands out rewards and does circus tricks to convince followers…
I’m not a believer in the Book of Bay, mind you. It’s just a theory I heard.
But back to the Matrix Scrolls, scholars also debate on the meaning of this image, showing Hugo at the showing of the events of the 2nd chapter of the Matrix Scrolls. The question is whether, based on that image, Hugo is disappointed about how the events are portrayed to the common people, and why he’s having to put up with that shit. It’s as if the Wachowski clan had failed to tell his story in a form that makes any sense, carrying this habit of discrepancy into the 3rd and final chapter.
Them dieing for believing isn’t the point of my argument, i already explained this. I am well aware that there are people who have died for what they believed in, whether it was in vain or not. That isn’t my point, so please read my posts carefully. Again, i will repeat what i was saying: These followers died horribly for what they believed in, certainly they (just like any other follower of other cults) where doing this because they felt they were doing this for the truth. So what what made them believe <- That is the argument i’m givng.
As i explained, it wasn’t just his miracles nor his words that influenced his followers to live and die the way they did. Answering me with “their are other followers who dedicate and die for who they believed in”. That is redundant to the point.
As i’ve said before, you can’t simplify Jesus’ teachings and just say they ate up his words. Because that is absurd to think that a bunch of Jews would believe in a man to be their God in the flesh with just great words. It was the resurrection that solidified and 100% convinced these people on who he was, as to what they claim. The reason why they followed Jesus and gave their lives for it is because they believed it was true, and there is where the main point of my argument comes from: How did Jesus strongly convince his followers.
“Jesus could take me outside of space in some other dimension and destroy and recreate this reality 10000 times and I still wouldn’t call him God.”
See this is where I differ somewhat. Having mastery of matter to that degree to me implies that whoever is doing it would be transcendent of this world.
If Jesus did that shit, and I could be 10000% sure it was not a hallucination, I’d certainly be all-ears. Would be uncomparably more compelling than just reading about his exploits in some book.
Uh, a similar thing to what the leaders of the other belief systems with crazy followers did?
STRONG analogies have been drawn between strict adherence to the Torah, and those faithful who only follow the first of the three Matrix Scrolls.
Now, I’m far from being a religious man myself, but the veracity of those Hugoian sects which reject the latter two Matrix Scrolls as being nothing more than fast and loose money-grabs, seems far more plausible to me.
You’re still saying the same thing. You’re saying the followers wouldn’t die for Jesus unless what they believed about him was true. Why? We went over this. They just have to believe he resurrected, just like you believe it, they don’t have to know it or verify it.
They strongly believed he resurrected, does that mean he actually resurrected? No.
They strongly believed he resurrected, and he did. So what? A magician who claims to be god is just a magician who claims to be god…
Did those other cult leaders rise from the dead. That was the key starting point of the ministry of the followers of Jesus. Other cult leaders made doctrines out of older beliefs, mixing politics, religious/spiritual beliefs, and their own feelings and then being capable of poisoning the minds of the people listening to them.
There was one thing that convinced the apostles and that was his resurrection, and they seriously believed it. This is not similar to any cult, because it was eye-witnessed fact to the followers of Jesus. They believed him to be the divine deity of their ancestors, the same divine deity in the Torah. So no, he did not do it in the same way other cult/religious leaders do.
Tomb-worms bloat on red carnage, i’ll carve the moon-magic of a winter
eve’s dream, enraptured by the black gate opens… Blood sates the ebon
tiger, stood unopposed not five day’s march from mighty gul-kothoth,
regardless of any sorcerous trinkets the vyrgothians may possess, and that
the book of the faith of cybertronianismanity.
So what they believed is true because they were infallible. Infallible people don’t have false beliefs. Therefore whatever they believed was true.
It’s written that there were eye-witnesses. What’s written is infallible so it must be true. Since it is written and infallible and since Jesus had infallible followers he MUST have resurrected! Why else would infallible followers believe their Cult Leader resurrected? It must be true! it all makes sense now!
The problem with other cults who have messiahs and magicians is that their followers are fallible. If only those other cult leaders had infallible followers like Jesus!
perfect logic.
No, not just why but how.
And That just leads to my question, if the resurrection wasn’t true, that he never died and rose from the grave. How did they just believe in him? Whether or not he was a magician, that is your personal intake.
Well, if there was a solid solved case that Jesus pulled a “Houdini” out of the crucifixion, then this you gave here is indeed factual and 100% acceptable. However, saying that it is possible to magic trick a roman execution is kinda of an absurd.
Lastly, it’s like you think the apostles believed in him mainly through his claims. No jew especially during early Palestine would easily tolerate any claim such as a man being God. It wasn’t just from his claims, nor his “miracles” as i have said so many times. Magicians existed during that period as well, so don’t try to make things sound as simple.
The how doesn’t matter, we already agreed people believe stupid things. People trick themselves and avoid reality. People have gullible psychology. People are ignorant. They probably don’t know how they came to believe it, how would we know? What’s important for you to understand is that just because people believe X, doesn’t mean X is true. Just because Jesus followers believed X, doesn’t mean it is true.
It seems you understand this for other cults, but in yours Jesus has infallible followers and the only way they could follow him is if what they believed was true. Absurd. His followers weren’t infallible.
I’m saying an actual magician. An alien with technology. A mutant with powers. A rare phenomena in nature.
A person coming back from the dead is one thing. Claiming you are identical with God is another.
It’s like me baking a cake and then saying I’m the King of England. Wtf is the connection? Is your idea of God so childish? An alien with sufficient technology would convince you that he is god.
What a wonderful wittle wabbit hole we’ve wander down.
My argument isn’t just because Jesus had followers who died. It is simply the reason… to me, it is not as simple to just gain that type of disciples. Please, look up their martyrdom to see how really serious they where with what they believed their leader to be. My first intention for this argument was to show that Jesus’ followers where not liars; they where not making up a story; because it is absurd to suggest that seeing the way they bravely allowed to suffer. I’m not saying that they where infallible, i’m saying they were serious/dedicated in what they believed in (do i need to show you the way his apostles died?) and it was all for a real impressive reason. I’m taking in note their strong faith, and not saying anything that they were incapable of making errors. I’m giving their possibility of being at error here a chance for your side. The point of my argument is that they believed that what they believed in was the truth, and their had to be a reason to have that planted in their minds. You can’t just simplify it by saying other cult leaders have done the same because their is no list of acolytes/followers who have went to harsh martyrdom because they believed their leader rose from the dead. A case is needed to show just as how Jesus manage to convince his followers if so the resurrection is fallible.
As i said earlier, if you want to take Jesus as the Son of God or the Harry Houdini slash Confucius of early AD Palestine, that is all up to you. That wasn’t my original concern so i’m not going to argue against your conclusion of him being a Magician. Just my note to you is, that if you do propose that he was just a magician, others will demand that you give a good basis as it is possible to magic tricked the roman execution.
It is possible that they believed he resurrected.
It is possible that they had good reason to believe so.
It is possible they had very bad reasons to believe so.
It is possible they had good reason to believe so, yet it didn’t happen.
It is possible they had bad reasons to believe so, yet it did happen.
A lot of possibilities.
We don’t have to show anything. We already know that believing in something doesn’t make it true. We know that his followers were fallible, just like any other cult follower. Simple.
Here’s my response.
What makes the most sense is that a man who according to the historical record was beaten, crucified, and stabbed with a spear could not have walked around and lived to tell the tale afterwards. Faith in divine agency and miracles is about the suspension of common sense and rationality, and I think an acknowledgement of the debt philosophy owes to Kierkegaard would be enough to give one pause long enough to realize that a rational defense of the Judeo-Christian faith is unnecessary. This is the crux of why I find WLC?s efforts on the whole misguided, although his creationism and ID have certainly contributed to a negative reputation within the scientific community that does figure into my distaste for him.
I fail to see how a naturalistic epistemology would allow us to speculate with any certainty on an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good deity who for some reason is incapable of being detected with the five senses.
If you are not working within the framework of naturalism, then fine, but I would want to ask what epistemological framework you happen to be working in.
So you are saying you agree that we have to take into account the clearly hagiographic and mythical dimensions of the NT gospels that deal with the resurrection.
Maybe I wasn?t explicit enough in my previous post, but I thought I made it clear that my concern for his scientific dishonesty stems from his defense of the creationist/ID movement. If he in fact hasn?t been perpetuating scientifically nave creationist/ID design arguments out of malice but out of ignorance, then my original point concerning his intellectual incompetence still stands.
No amount of WLC’s backpedaling after-the-fact is going to salvage his reputation in scientific circles, but as I already mentioned, his inability to understand biology is almost besides the point insofar as his historical and philosophical arguments are concerned. As I noted above, my beef with him over those issues stem from his decision to even attempt a rational defense of the Judeo-Christian faith when none is necessary.
I am not privy to WLC?s motivation in aligning himself with the creationist/ID movement, so I can?t make any observations that people looking at his track record would not think up themselves. Whatever sympathy for his viewpoints I would have would stem from my appreciation of his eloquence, and certainly not because of his bankrupt philosophical, historical, and scientific viewpoints.
And as I stated above, my accusations of dishonesty stem from WLC?s creationist/ID debates. For his historical and theological arguments, I have not read all of the authors he cites, which is why I am skeptical that he might not be overstating the case when he discusses the nature of the historical consensus concerning Jesus. Certainly, he did not respect the consensus in the scientific peer-reviewed literature before he decided to make his views on the validity of creationism/ID public.
I made my original point about the death of the apostles because mainstream Christian apologists like Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel are adamant that the martyrdom of the apostles should convince us that Jesus was actually resurrected from the grave. Their reasoning goes like this?if Jesus was martyred because he did not realize he was not the Son of God, then the apostles would not have in turn died for Jesus because they would not have seen him resurrected. The argument fails because, to my knowledge, the fate of the apostles lies firmly in the realm of legend and is not confirmed in historical documentation. The persecution and martyrdom of Christians in subsequent generations is not relevant to McDowell and Strobel?s argument because they would not have been around to witness the resurrected Christ, or the lack thereof. If you weren’t referring to this argument, then nevermind.
Yes, but again, none of this escapes the problem that none of the NT documents are first hand accounts of the resurrection; also, the way the fantastical elements of the resurrection are elaborated and embroidered with each successive retelling in the NT is still problematic. But I repeat myself.
Oh please. I reject the arguments because I think they?re bad or irrelevant, not because they?re complex.
Frankly, I am incredulous that you would turn a blind eye to the vengeful, petty God of the OT in your attempt to allow Christianity to sidestep the Euthyphro paradox. And no, I don?t think objective morality exists, considering how anthropologists and evolutionary biologists have argued (quite successfully imo) that morality is an amalgam of neurological hard-wiring and cultural inertia. An ?objective? morality under this schema is simply meaningless. Also, the deductive reasoning that leads many a believer to conclude the existence of God is inevitable because of the impossibility of the existence of logical truths independent of a mind is, imo, Platonism nevertheless, and is as irrelevant a philosophical argument in favor of the existence of God as I have ever heard.
Honestly, I think die-hard philosophical rationalism is overrated. In light of Richard Rorty?s anti-representationalism, I am actually satisfied in accepting the coexistence of atheists and Christians, and it doesn?t bother me in the slightest whether you remain Christian or not.
