[split] Debating Lion IRC
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-01-2013, 02:00 PM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2013 02:25 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
I never mentioned Lazarus. That was a lie. Death is not a "singularity". Nice try at redefining a word that has no such meaning. Death is the cessation of life processes. It's that simple. When your brain chemistry ceases, your consciousness ceases. That's it. There is no possible mechanism for continuation. It's all wishful thinking, because human individuals want to think they are individually importatant. It's childish, wishful fantasy. Tha's all there is evidence for. No one, or nothing living, ever once has resumed life, after death. As we pointed out many pages ago, that would require, (due to Pauli Exclusion), the "rearrangement" of the entire universe. Lion, you need a few, (high school level), science courses, in addition to some basic Bible crap. But by all means, get off by giving us another sermonette.
Genetics plays a part, because genetics is involved in memory, as was demonstrated this past year.
http://sciencefriday.com/segment/10/05/2...emory.html

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating Yogi, CAAT-LY.
Living daily with the high tragedy of being #2 on Laramie Hirsch's ignore list.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
26-01-2013, 02:11 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(26-01-2013 01:38 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(26-01-2013 12:56 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  ...In other words, you have the gospels vs all other historical books, authors of the time who make no mention of this character....

Well the claim that nobody makes mention of Jesus is simply false. (2 users Like Rahn127's post) Laughat

And yeah, We DO ''have'' the Gospels!
Just as we "have'' the writings of Tacitus and Josephus.

Just hold on right here.

Josephus's writings regarding Jewbus has been known to be a forgery for some time, it was added centuries after his death.

Tacitus supposed writing was made almost a century after jebus had died and rocketed off into space. I don't think he even mentioned jebus at all.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
26-01-2013, 02:23 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(26-01-2013 01:49 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  But where does the genetics come into play? That is the part I am curious about; It plays no part in the decision making process, unless you are factoring it in. The brain has already weighed and chosen the action before a person is consciously aware of the decision anyway..
I may be using the term genetics incorrectly but I'll try to explain better.


When you say that the brain has already chosen the action, I am saying that there was never any option to choose a different action. The brain makes the "choice", but I believe that the brains decision is based on it's previous experiences and genetic make up. Matters such as someones fight-or-flight mechanism, their favourite colour or film genre are originally (at birth) purely genetic to my understanding, and such preferences can only be altered by certain experiences.

If genetics has nothing to do with it then I would change the argument to say that choice is still an illusion, but one that depends instead purely on our life experiences.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes hedgehog648's post
26-01-2013, 02:26 PM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2013 02:48 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
You also have the gospels of Judas, and Mary Magdalene, and Thomas and Secret Mark, among many many others. Yet he conveniently ignores them. Yeah, you have the gospels, alright. All written by people in a non-scientific age, who generally believed in magical beings, and everyday miracles, and that many others rose from the dead, and knew absolutely nothing about science, and how the universe works. They are totally unreliable.
Tacitus mentions a "Chrestus", even while calling ChrIstians correctly, so there is doubt about what he was referring to. Chrestus was a title, not a name. Therefore there is no proof to whom he was referring. Certainly it was not first hand knowledge. Josephus has two references. Clearly the Chapter 18 one is an interpollated forgery, as everyone knows, (and can see for yourself in the Museo Ambrosiano in Milan, the earliest copy in existence, AND if he had said such a thing the early Fathers would have given their first borns for such a statement, so obviously it didn't exist then, and was clearly made up later by forging Christian monks). The reference in Chapter 20 to James, proves nothing about the claims made about him, and as stated above in the Epistle of James, even HE does not mention the resurrection, so that in itself is VERY strange, if he was his brother. The earliest gospel, (Mark), has no resurrection in it's earliest form, so obviously they cooked it up later to match all the other "rising" gods of the day.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating Yogi, CAAT-LY.
Living daily with the high tragedy of being #2 on Laramie Hirsch's ignore list.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
26-01-2013, 02:47 PM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2013 02:57 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(26-01-2013 01:18 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  @ Lion - I would like you to define "soul" please, as I personally to do not accept the existence of souls, unless the term is used to describe the emotions and thoughts produced by chemical reactions in the brain.

How can you say you dont accept the existence of something (soul) while admitting your own lack of understanding of what the word even means. And with all due respect, ''...the emotions and thoughts produced by chemical reactions in the brain'' is meaningless jargon. Lets keep it simple. Two categories. Agent. Mechanism.

[Image: jasmine_man-and-lever.jpeg]

Free will. An object which starts to move has a cause. (Kalam) Note the rock, the lever and the man are all made of molecules. Chemicals/hormones are just molecules as well. In your entire lifetime, the molecules that comprise your body arent permanent. When you die, none of the molecules which make up your body will be the same ones you had as a child. And yet memories (the mind/soul) transcends molecules.

(26-01-2013 01:18 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  ...The reason we have not challenged God's motive is because it is irrelevant unless you can show he actually exists first.

We? Who is ''we''? Are you typing in a room full of other people looking over your shoulder? Are you the official spokesperson?
If your argument against the Resurrection is that God doesnt exist, then you are straining at gnats because the bible report tons of other stuff done by the same God.
And God is a soul. (Remember you earlier admitted you werent clear about the meaning of the word soul.) So it seems like you are walking away backwards from the debate and retreating to the default...oh yeah well God is imaginary.

The Resurrection is not a theistic evidence for the existence of God. It is evidence about the motive of God.
The Gospel writers already believed in the God of Abraham! Jesus didnt prove to them that God exists.

Does your entire atheism and proof/disproof of God really hinge on empirical data supporting this one particular religious story about a man called Jesus of Nazareth? There are many skeptics who, even if they did see an actual physical resurrection (or a ghost) STILL wouldnt believe their own eyes, such is their scientistic/naturalist bias.



(26-01-2013 01:18 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  ...Nor do I accept the concept of free will. I think of choice as an illusion - when presented with several options, each person's genetic make up and life experiences make them predisposed towards one option more than the others, meaning that while it feels like a choice, no actual choice is present.

Look at you! Sitting there typing out your considered analysis of the data, contemplating stuff, acting all rational and thoughtful about whether or not there is free will. Taking into account the options to which we may or may not be predisposed. If I disagree with your opinion then that creates a new problem. Because someone reading both our points of view then has to decide which of us is right.
Wouldnt they need free will to do that? Consider

(26-01-2013 01:18 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  ...You also seem to have missed the point about the gospels. If there is no other comparative text with such detail, that does not speak towards the gospels having historical validity - indeed it makes them less valid because they have nothing to back them up.

Wut?
So, the best historical text is rendered unreliable because it is without equal?
What do you do when there is only one historical record of an ancient event?
Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy is a book I regard as being without equal. Should I bin it?

(26-01-2013 01:18 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  ...Further, the gospels do not corroborate each other.

Yes they do!

(26-01-2013 01:18 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  They contradict each other, making them even less valid for historical reference.

Nope. They do not contradict each other.

* Lion IRC whistles
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2013, 03:49 PM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2013 03:53 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(26-01-2013 02:00 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I never mentioned Lazarus. That was a lie.

Sorry. It was Jarius' daughter that you mentioned. I apologize. (Please note that a mistake isnt a lie.)

I had you mixed up with Atothetheist who mentioned Lazarus way back when several posters were commenting on biblical instances of resurrection and folk coming out of their graves.


(26-01-2013 02:00 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...Death is not a "singularity". Nice try at redefining a word that has no such meaning.

Well I did make it clear that I wasnt using it in the astro-physics sense of the word. But it is a ''singularity'' of another kind. Theres so much woo in cosmology these days, an afterlife space/time dimension may as well on the list of multiverse options. A holographic universe called heaven. A wormhole which opens up when you die. Dark energy sucking you into a quantum vacuum where matter is created out of nothing. Advanced alien beings with abilities we find miraculous. Blink

And death is not sufficiently well-understood that you can claim to know more than anyone else about what comes afterwards UNLESS you wade out of your depth and into metaphysics and theology.

(26-01-2013 02:00 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...Death is the cessation of life processes. It's that simple. When your brain chemistry ceases, your consciousness ceases. That's it. There is no possible mechanism for continuation. It's all wishful thinking, because human individuals want to think they are individually importatant. It's childish, wishful fantasy. That's all there is evidence for. No one, or nothing living, ever once has resumed life, after death.

Yawn. Welcome to the party pal! Where have you been?
Folk who hope theres no afterlife are gonna flock to your wishful fantasy religion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2013, 04:05 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(26-01-2013 03:49 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Folk who hope theres no afterlife are gonna flock to your wishful fantasy religion.

Ain't a matter of hope, more like no other plausible outcome. Silly boy. Tongue

This is not my signature.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
26-01-2013, 04:36 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
@ Lion

1) In my experience when people describe souls they usually refer to some sort of spiritual entity within you that lives on after death. Something that is responsible for all your feelings and thoughts, for which the body is only a vessel. This is why I wanted you to define what you mean when you say soul, because I do not accept this definition as having any basis in reality. If someone wants to call the sum of their feelings their soul I don't mind, because it's a reasonable definition in my view. But those emotions are a result of electrochemical reactions in the brain, without the brain they don't exist. And the brain also plays the role of memory storage and thought processor - no brain means no thoughts and no memories. So the soul in that latter sense no longer exists when the brain is dead. And the soul in the former sense has no evidence to back up it's existence. Hence my question. What do you mean when you talk about souls?

2) I am aware that the molecules in humans are replaced continuously. That doesn't mean there is something other than normal matter storing those memories. You seem to think that once a molecule is lost, the bit of memory that it contained is gone forever, but that's just not how it works. Memories are formed by the brain making new connections between neurons, that's it. Sometimes those connections deteriorate and the memory is lost. But as long as the connection is there, you can replace the molecules with other molecules of the same stuff as much as you like, the connection (and hence the memory) will still be intact. Without those connections there are no memories, so the physical brain is essential to remembering or knowing anything.

Incidentally, do you really think the Cosmological Argument has any validity? It's been shown to be a fallacy many times over.

3) I said "we" because other people have already said something to the same effect and I was merely reiterating the point. You should have paid attention to when it was said earlier. My argument against the resurrection is not that God doesn't exist. My argument was that if you want to use the motive of a god, any god, to explain any event you must first prove that the god exists. If you cannot do that then the motive of that god is irrelevant because if their existence cannot be verified, then neither can the motive. I even offered you an explanation for how the resurrection could have occurred without any supernatural intervention at all - Lazarus Syndrome. Jesus's body could have shut down and then rebooted later on when he was in his tomb, upon which he got up and left it. Such an event would surely have seemed miraculous at the time and would explain the sightings of him after his death, hence why the story was repeated so often, and in repetition details often change, especially in a population where most transmission of information occurred by word of mouth.

Indeed people such as William Lane Craig often try to use the resurrection to prove God exists, however even if the resurrection happened, I argue that it proves nothing of the sort, as other natural (and hence more likely) explanations have not been discounted.

4) No. Upon reading what both sides have to say, everyone's brains would react in a unique way and their personality/previous experience would make them predisposed to agree with one sides arguments over the other (or remain unconvinced by either and continue to hold to their own opinion). No will or choice involved at any stage.

5) If you mean without equal in it's lack of reliability, then yes. Even if the Bible was the best historical text available, that would not make it a reliable historical text unless there is evidence to back up it's claims. The best is not always good enough.

When there is only one historical record of an ancient event, there are certain questions that must be asked:

- Is the record biased? Is it trying to push one point of view ahead of another? If so then even if the events took place then the record is not a good way of ascertaining the truth of what happened, as you are only seeing one point of view.
- Is there any archeaological evidence to support that the event took place? If so, does it support the point of view presented by the text, or does it suggest a different perspective?
- Is it likely that the event took place given what we already know about the time period? If so is it likely that there should be more records or evidence than has been found? If so then this makes the record less valid until such time as that evidence is discovered.
- Are there other accounts of similar events that have been shown to be true or false? This may also shed some light on to the validity of the claims.

There are probably other things to ask too, but you are getting the idea I hope. The Bible is certainly biased, the events it contains either have very little archaeological evidence or none at all to back them up. The events are not likely because they involve supernatural elements that can be explained better by natural things and should really have left far more evidence than has been found. And there are other stories very similar to those in the bible, stories which were abandoned a long time ago.

I cannot speak about the Bertrand Russell book you mentioned because I have not read it, so I will leave comment on that to others.

6) Really? No contradictions at all?

Then why does Luke say that Mary and Joseph went from their house in Nazareth to Bethlehem, where Jesus is then born, while Matthew claims that they lived in a house in Bethlehem and later moved to Nazareth upon their return from Egypt, where they had gone to flee from Herod?

Is that not a contradiction?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like hedgehog648's post
26-01-2013, 05:40 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Jesus was not the son of God.

Surat An-Nisā'
(4:171)
O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.

Q.E.D. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
26-01-2013, 07:11 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(26-01-2013 02:47 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(26-01-2013 01:18 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  Nope. They do not contradict each other.

* Lion IRC whistles
As usual, he whistles in the wind. They contradict themselves in may ways, all mentioned above, all unaddressed. For example did Jebus say anything during the trial ? Yes or no ? One he gives a speech, some he remains silent. The day he died ? Passover ? Or the day of Preparation ? etc etc etc. IRC wouldn't (apparently) know a contradiction, if it walked up and bit him on the ass.
Absence of belief is not belief in absence. Tell us HOW consciousness continues after death, EXACTLY, since we know it's damaged by brain damage. The mechanism, IRC. What is it ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating Yogi, CAAT-LY.
Living daily with the high tragedy of being #2 on Laramie Hirsch's ignore list.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: