• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Resurrection

Angel said:
Outside of mathematics and logic, give me one example of something you deem "proof" of anything you like that does not depend on belief.
Click to expand...

A proof has to be based on logic or it isn't a proof. If you want to try and make a proof that is outside of logic you seem to be missing the point
 
Quag said:
A proof has to be based on logic or it isn't a proof. If you want to try and make a proof that is outside of logic you seem to be missing the point
Click to expand...
Fine, be logical, but don't offer a schematic logical form without content. "Prove" anything you like without relying on a belief.
 
calamity said:
Today being Easter, everyone is celebrating something. But, many are celebrating something that probably didn't happen. Of course, I refer to the resurrection.

What is it about this Zombie Jesus story that makes it so appealing? Do you people really want to go on "living" for eternity? Do you have any idea how long that is?

Me, I look forward to death, if only for the chance to finally find some peace and quiet. The last thing I want is to spend forever and a day with a bunch of Bible thumpers. Good grief, can anyone think of a worse way to spend eternity than with the Jerry Falwells and Ted Cruzes of the world?

Anyway, take away the resurrection bull****, and that whole Jesus story starts to be really compelling. Love your neighbor; forgive people for their transgressions against you; spend a minute thinking of the plight of others; find god within yourself; piss on false prophets and be wary of ever joining in on a mob screaming "Crucify Him!" Good stuff, all of it.

Happy Easter. We're going to grill some salmon and eat butternut squash soup. :)
Click to expand...



Posting something like this, in such deliberately inflammatory language, *on Easter*... that takes a special level of class and character. Special. As in none.


For an encore do you go to children's birthday parties and tell the parents their kid is dimwitted and kinda ugly?


You could have expressed yourself in a more reasonable manner... you *chose* not to. All I am gonna say...
 
zyzygy said:
Present some of this evidence please. A Hindu would say that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of their gods. You just choose to deny it or ignore it.
Click to expand...
As I've already reminded you:
Angel said:
There's plenty of evidence and three "proofs" of God's existence right here:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/beliefs-and-skepticism/308927-god-and-meaning-life.html
Click to expand...

There is evidence for the existence of God, and then depending on which organized religion you consult, there's evidence of the nature of God. You continue to conflate these two different levels religious discourse in an attempt to catch your interlocutor. Instead of trying to catch believers, try to understand religious discourse. Lacking this understanding, your skeptical posts come across as disingenuous.

There's belief in God, and then there's belief in the nature of God. The twenty-something major religions of the world all believe in a transcendent Reality; they disagree on the nature of that transcendent Reality.
 
Goshin said:
Posting something like this, in such deliberately inflammatory language, *on Easter*... that takes a special level of class and character. Special. As in none.


For an encore do you go to children's birthday parties and tell the parents their kid is dimwitted and kinda ugly?


You could have expressed yourself in a more reasonable manner... you *chose* not to. All I am gonna say...
Click to expand...

The salmon and squash soup was very good. Thanks for asking.
 
Angel said:
Determined by chance then, not by human will.

Stochastic Is Not the Opposite of Deterministic

Clearly the two pictures— the deterministic picture of classical physics and the stochastic picture of QM— are completely different. However, it is a vast misinterpretation of QM to take its stochastic nature as evidence that reality works in any other sort of non-deterministic way you can think of.

On Quantum Mechanics : Stochastic is Not the Opposite of Deterministic – Galactic Interactions
Click to expand...
I'm just an engineer. So, I make no claim to know what the latest and greatest particle physicists are up to. However, I certainly have a reasonable grasp of the concept. And, that grasp basically spells out that the result of all those chemical reactions going on in our bodies which affects what spills out of our mind are not deterministic but rather probabilistic.

So, can we calculate a future? Not precisely. But, we can, given enough input and a big enough computer, calculate likely outcomes. That's sort of the science behind modeling. No one model is ever 100% correct. But, run enough of them, and you sort of zero in on the likely outcomes.
 
Angel said:
Valley-Girl-like assertions are not strong arguments. Science cannot account for subjectivity.
Click to expand...

Subjectivity is easily accounted for by science. Is your brain and nervous system exactly the same as mine and does it function exactly the same as mine? Subjectivity ain't no big thing.
 
Angel said:
Does the brain exist independently of the mind?
Click to expand...

The brain and the mind exist physically and simultaneously. It is not an either or proposition. But both are physical and depend on physical existence. Mind is simply a word that describes the effect of having a brain and nervous system. There are no non-physical brains or minds.
 
Angel said:
So it follows then from this opinion of yours (calamity & RAMOSS) -- namely, that our beliefs are strictly determined by brain activity -- it follows that this very opinion of yours is strictly determined by brain activity as well, an opinion "which can change on a whim after head trauma," and which must therefore be as much an "illusion at least" as gfm's beliefs about volition and choice. On your view (calamity & RAMOSS) your disagreement with gfm comes down to opposed illusions, brain activity v. brain activity.
Click to expand...

Here is how the believers in imaginary things paint themselves into a corner. The old "my illusion is no worse than your illusion" play. An outright admission that all is illusion. So which illusion should we choose? The one that has some reliable physical outcomes or the one that claims an invisible world that no one can be sure of or agree on the details?

But even deeper than this, this post is trying to defend a certain point of view while simultaneously undermining all points of view. So all the debates on this forum become just a theater of the absurd.
 
devildavid said:
Here is how the believers in imaginary things paint themselves into a corner. The old "my illusion is no worse than your illusion" play. An outright admission that all is illusion. So which illusion should we choose? The one that has some reliable physical outcomes or the one that claims an invisible world that no one can be sure of or agree on the details?

But even deeper than this, this post is trying to defend a certain point of view while simultaneously undermining all points of view. So all the debates on this forum become just a theater of the absurd.
Click to expand...

You're still having a tough time trying to substantiate your claim that the risen Christ, etc., are "imaginary beings," aren't you?

You've got zero credibility on that.

The only thing imaginary around here are your beliefs that such beings are imaginary.
 
devildavid said:
The brain and the mind exist physically and simultaneously. It is not an either or proposition. But both are physical and depend on physical existence. Mind is simply a word that describes the effect of having a brain and nervous system. There are no non-physical brains or minds.
Click to expand...

Does love exist?
 
calamity said:
Totally.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that.




The Biblical god is evil...well, that's not exactly correct. The Biblical god doesn't exist. So, I should say those who wrote the Bible are evil.
Click to expand...

Your reaction towards God - particularly, the Biblical God, is just way too intense.

Your reasons for it doesn't make any sense, either - they're more like babblings.
For Someone you claim to be fictional - He affects you so, and sure drives you to babble, doesn't He? :lol:


It's obvious.....you're drawn to God, reluctantly, like a moth to fire. It's all you ever talk about.
Just look at this thread, and your OP!
What's the point of it? :lol: To rile believers? Wasting what's left of your precious lifetime on it? For what? C'mon.



I still stand by my assessment (based on your own posts) that a part of you want to believe, but the other part resists.
You can deny it all you want. There's something going on inside you.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
They (the writers) are not admitting it is fiction. Instead, they say it is true,
Click to expand...

What is it to you?

What a lame rationale.
Think of the Blair Witch Project - they sell it, claiming it's based on something real.
They sell so many books that claim to have been based on true events!
So it's really interesting that you'd SINGLE OUT the Bible.

As long as you believe it's all fiction.....and you don't buy into it, why would that affect you so much that you end up lashing out.......wasting your time creating topic after topic?


Think for a minute. If your only purpose is to deliberately inflict hurt on believers - aren't you the one who's evil?




......and the tenets of the entire First Testament are unquestionably evil.
Click to expand...

What is it to you?

Does it prick you? By jove! It does, doesn't it?
It makes you "uncomfortable?" It does, doesn't it?
What else could it be?


Well........ don't blame the book, or its writers.
You're a grown up, aren't you? You should know how to keep yourself from getting carried away by something you believe
is fictional!
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
Define "incapacitated."
Click to expand...

If you're brain dead? If you can't make any rational decisions.
If you're being kept by others from enacting your rational decisions, and you're physically helpless to do anything about it, like you're held against your will.

Anyway - diagnosis can go sideways. Only God will know what's really going on in a person.
Doesn't He know what's in our hearts?


Luke 16
15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts.
What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight.





I'd argue someone with severe PTSD or those with a damaged prefrontal cortex are not in control of their behavior. But, that does not suggest I would not want them locked up if they fall outside the rules and laws of society.

It does however throw a huge monkey wrench into the whole "good people go to heaven and bad people to hell" garbage. Why would your god punish someone who has no control over his or her behavior? Ergo the premise of all Christian religion (free will) goes poof!
Click to expand...

How do you know God punishes people who has no control over their behaviour?
 
Last edited:
devildavid said:
Angel said:
So it follows then from this opinion of yours (calamity & RAMOSS) -- namely, that our beliefs are strictly determined by brain activity -- it follows that this very opinion of yours is strictly determined by brain activity as well, an opinion "which can change on a whim after head trauma," and which must therefore be as much an "illusion at least" as gfm's beliefs about volition and choice. On your view (calamity & RAMOSS) your disagreement with gfm comes down to opposed illusions, brain activity v. brain activity.
Click to expand...

Here is how the believers in imaginary things paint themselves into a corner. The old "my illusion is no worse than your illusion" play. An outright admission that all is illusion. So which illusion should we choose? The one that has some reliable physical outcomes or the one that claims an invisible world that no one can be sure of or agree on the details?

But even deeper than this, this post is trying to defend a certain point of view while simultaneously undermining all points of view. So all the debates on this forum become just a theater of the absurd.
Click to expand...

Your misreading of the post to which you here attempt an arch reply is rather telling, David, all in all.

The post to which you attempt a reply outlines the character and absurd consequences of reductive physicalism (a.k.a. reductive materialism, the paradigm of physical science, the view swallowed hook, line and sinker by you, calamity, RAMOSS, zyzygy, and a few others posting to this thread)—the post to which you attempt a reply, I say, is the reductio ad abdurdum of reductive physicalism (a.k.a. reductive materialism, the paradigm of physical science, the view swallowed hook, line and sinker by you, calamity, RAMOSS, zyzygy, and a few others posting to this thread). You miss this, naturally.

How you miss this one can only guess. How you miss this when the post to which you attempt a reply begins with and repeats the expression "it follows from this opinion of yours," references "this opinion of yours" three times, and identifies (parenthetically) whose opinion is being reduced to absurdity in this post to which you attempt an arch reply. Your archness misfires. The fish in a barrel that you think you're shooting are in fact reductive physicalists like yourself.

In other words, in another conceit, the post to which you attempt an arch reply in fact holds a mirror up to reductive physicalism. Your sneer is aimed at yourself.
 
calamity said:
I'm just an engineer. So, I make no claim to know what the latest and greatest particle physicists are up to. However, I certainly have a reasonable grasp of the concept. And, that grasp basically spells out that the result of all those chemical reactions going on in our bodies which affects what spills out of our mind are not deterministic but rather probabilistic.
Click to expand...

Therefore, you can't really use them for facts in an argument!
 
Logicman said:
You're still having a tough time trying to substantiate your claim that the risen Christ, etc., are "imaginary beings," aren't you?

You've got zero credibility on that.

The only thing imaginary around here are your beliefs that such beings are imaginary.
Click to expand...

Are Krishna, Shiva and Kali imaginary?
 
zyzygy said:
Are Krishna, Shiva and Kali imaginary?
Click to expand...
Why do you persist in this silliness?

Angel said:
...
There is evidence for the existence of God, and then depending on which organized religion you consult, there's evidence of the nature of God. You continue to conflate these two different levels religious discourse in an attempt to catch your interlocutor. Instead of trying to catch believers, try to understand religious discourse. Lacking this understanding, your skeptical posts come across as disingenuous.

There's belief in God, and then there's belief in the nature of God. The twenty-something major religions of the world all believe in a transcendent Reality; they disagree on the nature of that transcendent Reality.
Click to expand...
 
Angel said:
I didn't ask you for links. In your own words please. One "proof" that doesn't involve belief.
Click to expand...

Links did that but here ya go
If you stick a stick in the (sticky) ground, it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow but they dont.
Because the Earth is round, sticks placed at distant locations will throw shadows of different lengths.


There is no such thing as a proof based on belief thus any valid proof will not involve belief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom