Religous debates and questions [2]

It's easy for different authors to line up their stories if they all use the same source material. This would probably be Mark. There is absolutely no reason to believe they were being held in police custody as it were, writing out confessions in solitary. There was stuff floating around, and they would have access to it.

matching up to the old testament is also easy if you are willing to do what Matthew does and not really get the genealogy to match up exactly, or as Luke does and invent a census to force a family to go to Bethlehem. These are all games played in the name of persuasion, in some cases by people who weren't actually there (Luke) so they have an easier time molding the story to fit their purposes.

At the time the concept of historical reporting, despite the Greek historians, was not well established the way it is today. Even modern reporters are well aware how slippery the truth can be (in fact reporters are probably more aware of it than the general public), and in the age of the internet, even more so. I just don't think the gospel writers would feel the same burden of responsibility to report a strictly factual time line. Josephus is probably the closest thing we have to a modern reporter, but he was only reporting what was happening right then, not looking decades back as the gospel writers were.

I think you are both making good points, but I see it differently. I never had hopes of converting the forum, that would take too much time, and it's hard to coerce with burning at the stake online. The main goal of posting was to present an alternative viewpoint, and to hopefully convince some of you that you don't need to entirely check your brain at the door to be a believer. It also seemed apparent to me that most people here have had very negative interactions with Christians. The way I feel about people who call themselves Christians but do not live it is probably the same way all of you feel about people who call themselves Tolkien fans but who have only seen the movies.

Enjoy whatever holiday you may celebrate, whether it's Christmas, Hanukah, Festivus or The Solstice Drunk and Puke. To friendship!

It also seemed apparent to me that most people here have had very negative interactions with Christians.- Hillbilly

Can't speak for everyone but I can count on one hand the amount of actual properly practising Christians Ive ever met. And I quite liked them!
I have on the other hand not encountered such positives when dealing with Scotlands ugly sectarian divide (the genius of which is its fought between two sides who rarely ever actually go anywhere near a church or chapel and its over an argument in someone else's country   ) which does tend to leave the impression religion is divisive and prone to sudden outbursts of inexplicable violence.
Add to that growing up whilst bombings in the UK were in the news regularly in the name of politics and God.
And then into adulthood and 9/11 and crazy people calling themselves Muslims  and murdering yet more innocent people who couldn't give a monkeys about their god.

So Id say on a personal interaction level- Ive liked all the Christians Ive met- but from a broader perspective life has rather given me the message religion is just an accuse for bastards to act like bigger bastards.

You yourself Hillbilly are a perfect example of this difference for me between the individual and the broader religion- you are a Christian I enjoy engaging with and having discussions with- there is good will and humour in what you say and genuine sincerity (all things I value highly in a person)- you are another example of a Christian I like, but I still dont like religion in the big sense, if you see what I mean.

But however it is have a good holiday however you celebrate it.

Thanks petty, that's quite a compliment. Most of the violence here is not religiously motivated, usually person on person for money or just general insanity. I am of course familiar with the violence between Protestants and Catholics, but being here and not there, have not thought about how big of an impact that could have on the population.

Enjoy the season, may the buckie run like water.

Happy Christmas Hillbilly   

Yes happy christmas!

I like that you accept you can't convince people who haven't yet been convinced, just trying to show believers aren't necessarily mindlessly nodding their heads to everything. This willingness to accept other viewpoints makes all the difference. I will say that you have made a better impression of scriptural literalists...which is normally where I have the most trouble with religion.

Unfortunately the most visible representatives of either side are those who are so rigid that they feel their message must be right so they have a right to shove it in other people's faces and call them names. I've seen atheist friends try to 'convert' teenagers, an action I strongly disagree with. Plant the seeds and let them grow or die depending on the soil, don't keep coming back to smother them with mulch and water.

Anyway, I think you've done a good job validating your viewpoint, Hillbilly...a task well worth doing.

Thank you halfwise for your kind words. I would be happy to stand in as forumshire's resident evangelical, available for questioning or perspective, if that role is not currently being filled by anyone. I believe Eldo said I was the only one here he knew of.

Yep, you're it. Despite many comments that have been bandied about in various threads that are critical of religion, your viewpoints are quite welcome. But it takes a unique type of mind to realize that and feel comfortable. May be why you're the only one here!

Lorient took a quite conservative view of religion as well, but he's a Mormon so there's a number of differences there. I think he's doing his mission service at that point which is why he hasn't posted here for quite some time.

I much prefer talking about serious issues like Martians. Things that are believable.

Mind you, Hillbilly, you are welcome to believe what you want to believe here. The worst you'll get from me is irreverence and the occasional barb. But I expect you'll be fine with that coming from the proud Christian Martyr tradition as you do - as all Christians do, please don't think I'm singling you out for that irreverent barb.

Do we know where Lorient ended up?

Don't they go and live on another Planet or something?

I don't mind barbs Orwell, just keep the lions away. And yes, my understanding is that good Mormons aspire to reach another planet and populate it with their many offspring.

That doesnt sound to bad a plan actually- space travel and sex   

Why am I me and not you? What naturalistic framework can be proposed to answer this question? There is nothing in the physical universe as presently understood which defines why one is themselves and not another. The simplest solution to this problem is to suppose we sentient beings are living in a simulation bound by the laws of physics (the forces of the universe). Ie a matrix, the difference being that our mental processes (as experienced) are generated (determined) by the simulation. This leaves open the possibility of metaphysical libertarian free will (powers of will), given an indeterministic universe. It is also reminiscent of the copenhagen interpretation; irrespective of the conscious conditions for the collapse of superpositioned probability waves there cannot be a measurement without an observer, which suggests our environment is being intimately computed for us. This is the kind of world we might expect to see customised avatars.

Otherwise we are going to need to start developing a new physics. The physical universe as presently understood including the evolution of complex life does not necessitate mental existence. The unwavering belief in mental existence is perhaps an adaptation; however the reality of this belief is irrelevant to the natural world - it is redundant (overdetermined) by all present accounts.

There is however a deeper problem not addressed by this analysis. Why does the physical construct exist? Why does any construct exist? (The simulation model does not explain the existence of the simulator). The only comfort identifiable here being that there must be a first cause, or as Aristotle described, an unmoved mover. Define that cause what you will.

The problem with how religions deal with these questions for me Richard is that they assume as definite the idea there has to a 'first cause' but then make it sentient and claim to know what it thinks and how it wants everyone to live, and then they threaten those who disagree with eternal punishment and severance from their loved ones (and in the past and and present with torture and gruesome murders)

I dont trust them, I dont believe them, I dont see any evidence at all to back up their claims and I find it highly suspect, and by a strange coincidence its also a very useful tool for controlling people and getting them to do what you want.   

Richard - I'm afraid I don't understand your original conundrum or your answer to it. I'm me because I'm looking at the world from a different vantage point from you, so even if my body and mind were identical to you I still wouldn't confuse myself with you.

But even if this was somehow a problem I don't know where the 'simulation' idea comes from. Simulation of what? A simulation mimics something which already exists, so you seem to be arguing in a loop, solving nothing.

As to why the universe exists, until someone comes up with more comprehensive physics that explains more things (including the origin of the universe), the question is metaphysical. To me metaphysics is a purely mental construct that explains nothing. I'm happy to wait until we have moved beyond that.

The introductory rhetoric could certainly be interpreted in a way that doesn't make sense. It can be reframed into something unambiguous, yet I don't think this is required for the audience here. Why do mental properties of a given sentient being map onto one physical subset of the universe (the CNS of human being x) and not another (the CNS of human being y).

Given this is obviously a speculative framework (as I suggest must be formulated regardless; for philosophical naturalism also), I am interested to know what differentiates a self-contained system that does not define the sentient being but only the experience of a sentient being from a simulation? Is there a better analogy?

Metaphysics does not explain nothing as we need to accept certain metaphysical axioms (non-physical abstract objects) to perform science, and live our lives for that matter. In the former case this includes causality and logic. In the latter, there not too many who refuse to accept the model (conviction) of their own existence as stored and represented in their physical mind (brain). If one were to refuse that programming, they would have trouble surviving amongst other things.

(That is a fair call Petty; but I don't think all religion is like this, taking Buddhism for example. And a lot of ritual is designed to facilitate the consistent application of belief, not create or maintain belief).

I am not opposed to the notion that there is 'first cause' I am just opposed to the notion any human being who has ever lived so far knows not only what it is, but exactly how it wants everyone to live and worship it (and why does it need worshipped- are they a narcissist?). I simply dont believe them and they never seem to be able to present any proof of how they know these things.

Hillbilly wrote:I don't mind barbs Orwell, just keep the lions away.  And yes, my understanding is that good Mormons aspire to reach another planet and populate it with their many offspring.

So long as you don't tell the Spanish Inquisition or those Salem Christians where I am.     

That Mormon thing sounds quite credible, I must say. At least, it sounds no less credible than what all you Superstitionists believe.  

I have never heard of a god needing worship (perhaps some pagan gods?) It sounds like an abstraction. I imagine that people worship gods because they think it is right to do so. In a free society (and not one educated to believe that it is free while its citizens are systematically subjected to manipulation) people might value their existence enough to do so. I don't think religion creates morality, it just identifies it in the natural order (of course this natural order includes the hard coded presupposition of what is inherently supernatural; sentience that demand moral value and action).

Surely moral actions comes out of need and success?

If I kill my neighbour and steal all his grain I get more grain and thats good, for a bit.
If I strike a deal with my neighbour and I get some grain all the time in return for some eggs I can afford to go without then I benefit much, much more for a longer period of time and  so does make my neighbour, making my neighbour less likely to view me as a threat or someone to kill to steal the eggs.
Nothing supernatural about it.
Its not thats its immoral from on High to kill my neighbour, its that its a stupid strategy.
Morality is a result and product of evolution.

I have never heard of a god needing worship- Richard

There is strong evidence for various cross-cultural moral intuitions being adaptive (eg reciprocal altruism) and these are therefore likely to be genetically endowed subconscious heuristics rather than social constructions. It would be difficult however convincing someone that it would be possible to respect another person with anything other than a cognitive rationale.