When the going gets rough, start bashing the Gays

[cybrsage]

If someone would like a nice little writeup on a logical questioning as to the existance of God, look here:

http://mally.stanford.edu/Papers/ontological-computational.pdf

In layman's terms it says:
1.We conceive of God as a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2.This being than which no greater can be conceived either exists in the mind alone or both in the mind and in reality.
3.Assume that this being than which no greater can be conceived exists in the mind alone.
a.Existing both in the mind and in reality is greater than existing solely in the mind.
b.This being, existing in the mind alone, can also be conceived to exist in reality.
c.This being existing in the mind alone is not therefore the being than which no greater can be conceived. (See statement 1 above.)
4.Therefore, this being than which no greater can be conceived exists in reality as well as exists in the mind.

It is short, but hard reading, and requires a LOT of logic.

The full on logic is included in that link, but they expose the only weakness in the logic. It is this:

"if the conceivable thing than which nothing greater is conceivable fails to exist, then something greater than it is conceivable." This claim has no secondary support. It assumes our ability to conceive is unlimited. We do not know if this is true or false, and there is no way to know.

 

[zsdersw]

What makes you think it is not logical?

It depends on an assumption for which there is no proof.

It is impossible to know at this point. This is why faith is required.

I'm not at all interested in faith.

Why should be conclude they are not correct? Correct or not correct is our only two choices. Neither is provable.

Claiming to have been in communication with a supposedly immortal being is an extraordinary claim. As such, it requires extraordinary proof. We shouldn't conclude whether it is correct or not correct, but we should continue to question the issue and not take an opinion one way or another simply on faith.

I have the book written by those who received these wishes from God. I read this book and I know the wishes on God. I am not the authority, the book from which I obtain the information is the authority.

Until or unless it is proven that those who wrote the book actually received the word of God, the book is only an authority on the names of those who wrote it.

Absent of that proof, you only have faith... which is a poor justification for judging the actions of others as moral/immoral, right/wrong.

How well has that worked out for us so far? Take note that we are slowly destroying the only place we have in the universe to live (the Earth), we slaughter millions in wars, we waste food in one area while millions starve in other areas.

Seems we are pretty bad at deciding what rules we should follow and which we should not.

If you look over the entire course of recorded history, it is quite obvious that we are better off than we were hundreds of years ago. We live longer and know more about ourselves, our world, and our universe. We've set foot on the moon, sent devices to other planets, and an object we created has left our solar system and crossed the heliopause into interstellar space.

Yes, we have done and continue to do damage to our planet's environment, killed many of ourselves, and various inequities remain. We will either learn and change or not learn and die off. That's what free will is all about.

 

[cybrsage]

It depends on an assumption for which there is no proof.

All assumptions lack proof. If they had proof, they would not be assumptions.

I'm not at all interested in faith.

Sure you are. Remembering that faith is belief without proof, you have faith that the basic underpinnings of science are true (at least I assume you do). We assume the rules by which the universe runs have not changed since they were first set in stone after the big bang. We have absolutely no way of knowing if this is true or not. It is, frankly, impossible to know. However, we need a starting point in order to move forward and making this assumption is needed, so we apply a faith based belief to science and move on.

Isaac Asimov is the guy I learned that from:

An assumption according to Asimov is...

...something accepted without proof, and it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption). It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality. ... On the other hand, it seems obvious that assumptions are the weak points in any argument, as they have to be accepted on faith in a philosophy of science that prides itself on its rationalism. Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible.​

​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Claiming to have been in communication with a supposedly immortal being is an extraordinary claim. As such, it requires extraordinary proof. We shouldn't conclude whether it is correct or not correct, but we should continue to question the issue and not take an opinion one way or another simply on faith.

You really cannot say it is both correct and not correct at the same time. It is either correct, or it is not correct. Both choices require faith. Either God did provide this knowledge or God did not...there is no middle ground.

Until or unless it is proven that those who wrote the book actually received the word of God, the book is only an authority on the wishes of those who wrote it.

Which is why faith is required, as proof for or against is impossible to obtain.

Absent of that proof, you only have faith... which is a poor justification for judging the actions of others as moral/immoral, right/wrong.

In your personal opininion, it is a poor justification. In mine, it is the correct justification.

If you look over the entire course of recorded history, it is quite obvious that we are better off than we were hundreds of years ago. We live longer and know more about ourselves, our world, and our universe. We've set foot on the moon, sent devices to other planets, and an object we created has left our solar system and crossed the heliopause into interstellar space.

Depends on our definition of better off. If unhappiness, loneliness, etc. are a good definition of better off, then I would agree with you.

Life is far more than the stuff we buy to fill the void in our lives.

Yes, we have done and continue to do damage to our planet's environment, killed many of ourselves, and various inequities remain. We will either learn and change or not learn and die off. That's what free will is all about.

Correct, we have the freedom to continue to do wrong and destroy ourselves.

 

[momeNt]

Nah, unlike you, I know how to type...and I can read at a rather brisk pace as well. Basically, I probably both type and read around 5 times as fast as you. Add to it that I probably can think around 5 times as fast as you, and you have me being able to do 15 times (give or take some depending on overlaps and synergies) the amount of posting as you can do in the same amount of time.

Of course, if my posts we also as short or a lacking in substance as yours, I could most likely do around 50 posts for each of yours...


EDIT: When you set yourself up to be so easily taken down, it is unfair not to do it.

Just 5 times as fast genius, you don't add them together....

eg. 5+5+5 vs 1+1+1 = 15 vs 3. Genius.

Also you wouldn't need edits 4 minutes later if you thought fast enough.

What you do for Ausm I might start doing for you.

Jingle jingle little cybrsage, jingle jingle.

 

[cybrsage]

..I love you so much I am going to start copying you, since I want to be more like you...

Aww...how sweet! I love you too.

 

[zsdersw]

Sure you are. Remembering that faith is belief without proof, you have faith that the basic underpinnings of science are true (at least I assume you do). We assume the rules by which the universe runs have not changed since they were first set in stone after the big bang. We have absolutely no way of knowing if this is true or not. It is, frankly, impossible to know. However, we need a starting point in order to move forward and making this assumption is needed, so we apply a faith based belief to science and move on.

Isaac Asimov is the guy I learned that from:


[/INDENT]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Incorrect. I'm skeptical of everything... including science and what it assumes.

You really cannot say it is both correct and not correct at the same time. It is either correct, or it is not correct. Both choices require faith. Either God did provide this knowledge or God did not...there is no middle ground.

I'm not saying it is both correct and incorrect. I'm saying we don't know and that we should continue to ask questions and seek proof.

Which is why faith is required, as proof for or against is impossible to obtain.

Faith is required only if you seek to regard the book as anything more or less than what it is... a book; one arrangement of conjecture among hundreds of others. I don't seek to do that.

In your personal opininion, it is a poor justification. In mine, it is the correct justification.

So, in your view, we should judge each other's actions... even actions that do not affect us... on the basis of our faith that a book we've chosen contains the one and only inexorable truth?

Interesting, but not unexpected.

Depends on our definition of better off. If unhappiness, loneliness, etc. are a good definition of better off, then I would agree with you.

I would define "better off" as not only living longer but having more and more varied experiences during that life.

Life is far more than the stuff we buy to fill the void in our lives.

I agree.

 

[thraashman]

A pine and an oak are both trees, but they are not the same. A homosexual civil union and a heterosexual civil union are both civil unions, but they are not the same.

Unless you say we should call all oaks pines, you really should not say we should call homosexual civil unions hetersexual civil unions.

Same rights, different name. Over time, the general populous will just call the marriages anyway...just like some people call furs pines.

The problem with your analogy is that it's inappropriate to the situation. Oak and pine are different species of tree. So you're associating homosexual human beings and heterosexual human beings to not being the same species. And as a result example is analogous to treating homosexuals as if they're not of the same species as other humans. But they are. The problem is that what you're suggesting is more like "even though a pine starts as a pine and an oak starts as an oak, they shouldn't be allowed to have the same seasons as eachother. An oak can have summer, spring, autumn, and winter. A pine can have lesser summer, somewhat spring, shitty autumn, and you're less of a being than me winter." A pine can't understand the concept of being given a title that's lesser, but a human being can.

 

[cybrsage]

The problem with your analogy is that it's inappropriate to the situation. Oak and pine are different species of tree.

They are different types of the same thing. The word species is irrelevant.

So you're associating homosexual human beings and heterosexual human beings to not being the same species.

No, but I understand your entire premise rests on this bit of faulty info so you will refuse to accept it.

Oh, and a pine is not lesser, neither is an oak. They are different so they have been given different names, regardless of how much you want to say it is because people think of pines as lesser trees.

 

[mattpegher]

Cybersage, Christ's message was forgiveness and love for your fellow man, you show neither.
You use a literal translation of a book, a very good book with many great teaching points. However you fail to realize that this book has been manipulated by man for mans purposes. Passages have been added and deleted, entire scriptures excluded and political rivalries enacted within its pages. I have read the bible many times and have seen many passages that many bible scholars admit are suggestive of editing. You adhere to the word of man, cruel manipulative men who drunk with the power of religion have corrupted the word of God. This does not mean the book is without lessons but it also has potential for evil when weilded as a unquestionable source for hatred. You do our Lord a disservice.

 

[JSt0rm]

Cybersage, Christ's message was forgiveness and love for your fellow man, you show neither.
You use a literal translation of a book, a very good book with many great teaching points. However you fail to realize that this book has been manipulated by man for mans purposes. Passages have been added and deleted, entire scriptures excluded and political rivalries enacted within its pages. I have read the bible many times and have seen many passages that many bible scholars admit are suggestive of editing. You adhere to the word of man, cruel manipulative men who drunk with the power of religion have corrupted the word of God. This does not mean the book is without lessons but it also has potential for evil when weilded as a unquestionable source for hatred. You do our Lord a disservice.

Matt,

You are a busy man. Do not waste your time talking to that dude. No good can come of it.

 

[dank69]

They are different types of the same thing. The word species is irrelevant.



No, but I understand your entire premise rests on this bit of faulty info so you will refuse to accept it.

Oh, and a pine is not lesser, neither is an oak. They are different so they have been given different names, regardless of how much you want to say it is because people think of pines as lesser trees.

Actually, the bolded part of his premise does not rest on whether or not the word 'species' is relevant:

The problem with your analogy is that it's inappropriate to the situation. Oak and pine are different species of tree. So you're associating homosexual human beings and heterosexual human beings to not being the same species. And as a result example is analogous to treating homosexuals as if they're not of the same species as other humans. But they are. The problem is that what you're suggesting is more like "even though a pine starts as a pine and an oak starts as an oak, they shouldn't be allowed to have the same seasons as eachother. An oak can have summer, spring, autumn, and winter. A pine can have lesser summer, somewhat spring, shitty autumn, and you're less of a being than me winter." A pine can't understand the concept of being given a title that's lesser, but a human being can.

 

[onlyCOpunk]

I didn't bother reading all 11 pages of the thread because it's all the same loonies trying to justify their dissatisfaction about nothing that really effects them.

What I have to say is, I think it's silly people still even make this subject a talking point. Gays are here, they aren't going away and will eventually have marriage rights in the USA as it is inevitable.

I just can't figure out though why some people spend so much time and effort being against it when there are so many other important topics and problems that need to be hammered out first.

Hunger, homelessness, violence, and that fucking recession. You know what Americans fix your fucking economy that is shitting all over the rest of the world, and then you can start bickering over the small stuff.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I just can't figure out though why some people spend so much time and effort being against it when there are so many other important topics and problems that need to be hammered out first.

Hunger, homelessness, violence, and that fucking recession. You know what Americans fix your fucking economy that is shitting all over the rest of the world, and then you can start bickering over the small stuff.

Don't worry Americans can multitask and argue about all these issues simultaneously.

 

[cybrsage]

Incorrect. I'm skeptical of everything... including science and what it assumes.

You either accept the assumptions as true or you do not. You cannot kinda accept the assumptions as true. You cannot select both, which is what you are trying to do.

You either believe the rules by which the universe operates have not changed (once they were set after the bang) or you believe they have. You cannot believe both.

I'm not saying it is both correct and incorrect. I'm saying we don't know and that we should continue to ask questions and seek proof.

And what do you do while you seek proof? Do you follow the rules or not? Do you fail safe and follow then just incase you later find God did order them, or do you not follow them due to feeling you will never find enough proof?

Faith is required only if you seek to regard the book as anything more or less than what it is... a book; one arrangement of conjecture among hundreds of others. I don't seek to do that.

Correct. A faith based belief requires there to be a belief. If you do not believe, then you cannot have a faith based belief. At the same time, you cannot claim I am wrong for believing unless you claim my position is wrong. Claiming this without proof would be a faith based belief.

So, in your view, we should judge each other's actions... even actions that do not affect us... on the basis of our faith that a book we've chosen contains the one and only inexorable truth?

First, remember that everyone expects people to be judged by their actions regardless of if they personally are affected. I lost no money to Madoff...I expect him to be judged for his actions.

For the second part, yes.

I would define "better off" as not only living longer but having more and more varied experiences during that life.

There is an ancient Chinese curse which says "may you live in interesting times". Interesting is usually bad wrt the times. Having a war fought in your neighborhood is anything but boring...and most people would eagerly choose boring over the interesting time.

A longer life that is shallow, meaningless, and devoid of close interpersonal ties is not something to strive to have.

We have different views of what makes people better off. What profit is there if you gain everything in the world but are a bitter, lonely, man? To me, we would all be better off if we simply followed the altered version of the famous lines from Hillel (altered by Y'shua - Jesus). Hillel basically said "Do not do to others what you do not wish them to do to you." This is a passive phrase. Jesus changed it to "Do to others what you wish them to do to you." This is an active phrase and it includes the passive one the great Hillel said previously.

BTW, that is an example of the slowly changing view of the Torah, gained by more study and understanding. Hillel was asked, by a smart-ass, if he could teach someone the Torah while standing on one leg. Hillel answered simply "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn." Jesus improved upon the saying.

 

[cybrsage]

Cybersage, Christ's message was forgiveness and love for your fellow man, you show neither.

There is a difference between forgiveness and allowing people to do whatever they want.

Jesus did not die to give people a free pass to sin as much as they like. Rules are rules. Jesus did not come to destroy the Law, but as the goal of the Law.

You use a literal translation of a book, a very good book with many great teaching points. However you fail to realize that this book has been manipulated by man for mans purposes. Passages have been added and deleted, entire scriptures excluded and political rivalries enacted within its pages. I have read the bible many times and have seen many passages that many bible scholars admit are suggestive of editing. You adhere to the word of man, cruel manipulative men who drunk with the power of religion have corrupted the word of God. This does not mean the book is without lessons but it also has potential for evil when weilded as a unquestionable source for hatred. You do our Lord a disservice.

That is why you need to use an Interlinear Bible. One which shows the original language, the Strong's definition numbers, and the English. The PC Study Bible is a very good source for this, as it makes it easy to search. An Interlinear allows you to see the words which have been added during a translation and see if they are needed. Hebrew does not have words which we need in English due to syntax differences.

You bring up a good point, though. If you believe the Bible is tainted, then you cannot use any of it any more. You may say verse A is not tainted, but you cannot prove it, so therefor it is all useless. How can you even say any of the Jesus quotes in the Bible are correct when you claim the Bible is tainted and corrupted. I can simply say that verse is corrupted and wrong and you can no longer use it.

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, they were able to check the books we have today against copies made around 2000 years ago. Isaiah was a very popular book and many scrolls were found. They were almost identical, the differences between then were negligable and did not impact the information being passed.

You also have to look at how Torah scrolls were made. They were written in STAM (a stylized Hebrew). Each page was made seperately and tied to the others after complete. No errors are allowed at all, else the entire page is redone. Several people would read it over, with the knowledge they were reading it for correctness for their God...and in accordance to the commands of their God. That is a VERY powerful incentive to get it right.

I have personally written my own Mezzuzah scroll. It contains only a few lines of verse, but it took me forever. I had to restart several times. But I understood the importance of it...that it had to be perfect. I would not try to honor God by purposefully giving him imperfection. Both He and I would know I was doing wrong. So I spent an entire day writing, using a caligraphy pen, kosher ink, kosher scroll. I gave the errored sheets to my Rabbi's wife for proper disposal, as they contained the written name of God and should not be simply tossed into a trash dump.


All that said, you are also correct in that anyone can abuse and misuse something to their own personal gain. Religion is not unique nor exempt from this.

 

[cybrsage]

I didn't bother reading all 11 pages of the thread because it's all the same loonies trying to justify their dissatisfaction about nothing that really effects them.

I know, yet Australians still comment on issues inside the US.


Come on, you set yourself up for it.

What I have to say is, I think it's silly people still even make this subject a talking point. Gays are here, they aren't going away and will eventually have marriage rights in the USA as it is inevitable.

Agreed. They would have them already had they not demanded the word marriage be altered. Possibly, by now, most people would call a homosexual civil union marriage anyway...so they would have both the rights and the use of the word.

Instead, they have neither.

Also, I can disagree with the lifestyle from a moral and ethical stance, yet also say they should have the same rights from a legal standpoint. Only liberals demand a person embrace something as moral and ethical in order to say legal rights should be granted.

I just can't figure out though why some people spend so much time and effort being against it when there are so many other important topics and problems that need to be hammered out first.

Hunger, homelessness, violence, and that fucking recession. You know what Americans fix your fucking economy that is shitting all over the rest of the world, and then you can start bickering over the small stuff.

What Londo_Jowo said.

 

[zsdersw]

You either accept the assumptions as true or you do not. You cannot kinda accept the assumptions as true. You cannot select both, which is what you are trying to do.

You either believe the rules by which the universe operates have not changed (once they were set after the bang) or you believe they have. You cannot believe both.

That's not at all what I'm "trying to do". Being skeptical of everything means I don't automatically accept any assumption as true.

And what do you do while you seek proof? Do you follow the rules or not? Do you fail safe and follow then just incase you later find God did order them, or do you not follow them due to feeling you will never find enough proof?

I follow rules that have led me, in the past, to both happiness and success. I follow those rules unless doing so would not lead to happiness and success.

Correct. A faith based belief requires there to be a belief. If you do not believe, then you cannot have a faith based belief. At the same time, you cannot claim I am wrong for believing unless you claim my position is wrong. Claiming this without proof would be a faith based belief.

I'm saying the Torah/Bible are books written by humans... nothing more, nothing less. You have faith that your chosen book is more than just a book. I do not.

First, remember that everyone expects people to be judged by their actions regardless of if they personally are affected. I lost no money to Madoff...I expect him to be judged for his actions.

For the second part, yes.

While you were not personally harmed by Madoff, the point is that someone was.

The judgements I'm referring to are ones made about actions that do not affect anyone except the person who chose to commit the action. That is not a judgement that everyone expects to be made.

There is an ancient Chinese curse which says "may you live in interesting times". Interesting is usually bad wrt the times. Having a war fought in your neighborhood is anything but boring...and most people would eagerly choose boring over the interesting time.

A longer life that is shallow, meaningless, and devoid of close interpersonal ties is not something to strive to have.

Indeed.

We have different views of what makes people better off.

Only inasmuch as you think your faith-based religious beliefs are essential to making people better off.

 

[cybrsage]

That's not at all what I'm "trying to do". Being skeptical of everything means I don't automatically accept any assumption as true.

ALL assumptions are faith based. If there is proof, it is no longer an assumption. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You cannot. You either accept an assumption is true or you do not. It really is that simple.

I will pin you down. Do you accept the assumption that the rules by which the universe operate have been the same since they were set shortly after the big bang or do you not accept it?

I follow rules that have led me, in the past, to both happiness and success. I follow those rules unless doing so would not lead to happiness and success.

If I understand your position correctly, you are saying you would not follow a rule even if it was 100% proven to be given by God unless you personally gain from it.

Am I correct? If not, then clarify.

I'm saying the Torah/Bible are books written by humans... nothing more, nothing less. You have faith that your chosen book is more than just a book. I do not.

Are you saying Leviticus (for example) was not a someone simply writing down the words God literally spoke to Moses? Is this your claim?

While you were not personally harmed by Madoff, the point is that someone was.

The judgements I'm referring to are ones made about actions that do not affect anyone except the person who chose to commit the action. That is not a judgement that everyone expects to be made.

There are many victemless crimes. I still expect those who commit them to be punished. For example, it is against the law to have sex in public. If someone is caught having sex on the sidewalk in a city, they are punished. There was no victem, yet a crime was still committed and punishment is still meeted out.

There is no requirement for an act to have a victem in order for the act to be considered wrong and rules made to prevent it.

Only inasmuch as you think your faith-based religious beliefs are essential to making people better off.

They are.

 

[zsdersw]

ALL assumptions are faith based. If there is proof, it is no longer an assumption. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You cannot. You either accept an assumption is true or you do not. It really is that simple.

There is no "trying to have your cake and eat it too". You haven't, up until this point, presented a specific assumption that you claim I can either accept or not. I do not accept assumptions... I question them.

I will pin you down. Do you accept the assumption that the rules by which the universe operate have been the same since they were set shortly after the big bang or do you not accept it?

I do not accept that assumption.

If I understand your position correctly, you are saying you would not follow a rule even if it was 100% proven to be given by God unless you personally gain from it.

Am I correct? If not, then clarify.

Yes. In that scenario I would follow the rule only if I personally gained from it or was not unnecessarily inconvenienced or unnecessarily hindering myself or anyone else by following it. I don't need everything to be codified in a rule to determine whether or not I do it. There are rules against many things that I would never do anyway, whether there's a rule or not.

Are you saying Leviticus (for example) was not a someone simply writing down the words God literally spoke to Moses? Is this your claim?

Leviticus (for example) was writing down what he believed happened and/or what he believed he observed happening. Anything more than that requires faith.

There are many victemless crimes. I still expect those who commit them to be punished. For example, it is against the law to have sex in public. If someone is caught having sex on the sidewalk in a city, they are punished. There was no victem, yet a crime was still committed and punishment is still meeted out.

There is no requirement for an act to have a victem in order for the act to be considered wrong and rules made to prevent it.

"Victimless crime" is an oxymoron.

They are.

According to you.

 

[cybrsage]

I do not accept that assumption.

Then you say all scientific theories about how the universe was formed are wrong. You say all Einstein's theories are wrong. Hawking is wrong too, according to you.

Yes. In that scenario I would follow the rule only if I personally gained from it or was not unnecessarily inconvenienced or unnecessarily hindering myself or anyone else by following it. I don't need everything to be codified in a rule to determine whether or not I do it. There are rules against many things that I would never do anyway, whether there's a rule or not.

Well, then we should stop here. No sense going forward. You just said that if you had 100% proof of God you would still claim His rules are less important than your personal gain.

There can be no rational discussion with you. The Revelations of John said your kind exist, but your view is so out there and so irrational that I had strong doubts. How could anyone, when faced with 100% proof of God, still deny God...yet here you are.

 

[zsdersw]

Then you say all scientific theories about how the universe was formed are wrong. You say all Einstein's theories are wrong. Hawking is wrong too, according to you.

I do not accept all theories, scientific and otherwise, about how the universe formed.

Well, then we should stop here. No sense going forward. You just said that if you had 100% proof of God you would still claim His rules are less important than your personal gain.

There can be no rational discussion with you. The Revelations of John said your kind exist, but your view is so out there and so irrational that I had strong doubts. How could anyone, when faced with 100% proof of God, still deny God...yet here you are.

We'll always have Paris.

 

[cybrsage]

I do not accept all theories, scientific and otherwise, about how the universe formed.

You do not accept ANY scientific theory about how the universe formed.

 

[zsdersw]

You do not accept ANY scientific theory about how the universe formed.

Right... nor do I accept any religious or spiritual theory about how the universe formed.

 

[cybrsage]

Out of curiosity, how do you think it formed?

 

[zsdersw]

Out of curiosity, how do you think it formed?

I don't know how it formed. I've heard and read about many different theories, though.