You do not posit more entities than you need to do. You don't need to create a soul and spirit to explain what happens within us. So don't.
Razor in action. Xxx
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Razor in action. Xxx
Agreed and let's not forget the many contradictions in Qran from who pretended to be illiterate.
No it isn't, because you haven't established the lack of a necessity. Ockham's razor isn't meant to be a lazy thinkers crutch.
Your Ipse dixit is as pointless as your earlier statements about the Biblical text. You just don't know what you're talking about.
Well given that mental functioning including consciousness has been explained in terms of brain activity, in far more detail than just gesturing at a spirit/soul, what needs to still be explained?
Likewise, given that cosmology and evolution account for the world as we find it, why create the need for a God.
Dangerous to whom? And how do you know what is delusion and what is reality? All you are is matter in motion that has managed to find its way into a collection of cells that thinks it's conscious but isn't really conscious because its consciousness is an illusion. You don't know you're actually having this conversation, and the idea of "you" is preposterous because "you" don't even really exist. "You" are your own brain's feedback mechanism. And in a world where the Universe simply is, without rhyme or reason, in a constant state of flux, by definition so are we just "flux" and no one state of "flux" can be said to be more beneficial than another.
So how does MM seek to justify the fact that his doctrine is based on only a particular selection of manuscripts regarding his religion, but Is necessarily correct? What was the selection process? And why was it valid?
Last edited:
Human consciousness has not been explained. Even secular neuroscientists don't say that. They know there is a paradox in the concept of human consciousness being a product of brain function. You still haven't removed the ghost from the machine with that explanation.
Going all Buddhist on us now? Lol
The I that I am accustomed to experiencing is indeed my body/brain's feedback mechanism, though I can also envisage my physicality that remains unexperienced as also part of myself.
So what place for spirit, soul, or God in any of that?
To step into your more abstract portrayal, a valuing entity (particular instance of flux) generally sees its survival as a positive value, it may also value valuing, and thus other entities
There isn't actually a paradox there at all. It's a particular type of feedback mechanism that has gained that label.
Even then, given that there is no evidence of outside interference, or even a convenient location for it to occur, why should we accept a bit of magic called spirit? which doesn't explain how consciousness exists either.
I mean, just look at it: "The I that I am accustomed to experiencing is indeed my body/brain's feedback mechanism, though I can also envisage my physicality that remains unexperienced as also part of myself."
Do you not see what's wrong with this?
Last edited:
Struggling eh? It's putting some of Nozick's theories on metaphysics and morals very briefly into the language you used to question your deleterious effect on others.
It's pretty straightforward really.
Depends on your definition of oppressed. Christianity has a huge and largely harmful public presence in many democracies. The UK and Australia are quite bad but the US is far worse. We might not be stoning people to death for minor offenses but if that is the standard we might as well quit now. Governments should be entirely secular and religion a private matter of choice.
It kind of it. Religion/god is 100% assumption and therefore always gets sliced by Occram.
Your posts certainly have a deleterious effect on the confidence one can have in sentient life.
Rather like belief in flying spaghetti monsters then. Xxx
He was illiterate. He didn't pretend.
Answer me this - if we use the Bible and the life of Jesus (AS) as a template for Christianity, which it's meant to be - how can you reconcile the various pagan rituals which have now become an integral part of Christianity (Xmas, Easter)? To me Christianity is an amalgamation of different pagan beliefs and practices (along with orthodox Christian beliefs) and modern day Christians rationalise them in this context. To me, it seems that a religion that was once true has been corrupted by man, and therefore is no longer valid.
Furthermore, the nature of the Bible is a copy of a copy of a copy of a mistranslation of a copy of a copy of a mistranslation etc which means, the word and meaning has been changed over time and cannot be relied upon. Therefore, in terms of contradictions in a holy book, the Bible is rife with them.
If anything, I'd say the average Muslim follows the teaching of Jesus (AS) closer than the average Christian. The Bible forbids pork, alcohol, but the majority of Christians don't follow these. In fact, I'm sure as part of a Christian ritual there is one that involves the drinking of alcohol.
a) him existing and
b) stop people doing evil
It is that sort of nonsense that drives people nuts. What sort of allegedly all loving supreme being sets an impossible standard? More like a fecking sadist than all loving.
Huh? Wot?
So it is either or? Existence or no evil? Surely there is some wiggle room?
How about he just stops the big bits of evil and works his way up to judgement day? I suspect I know why not but ..........
It's more accurate than your very own:
I mean, just look at it: "The I that I am accustomed to experiencing is indeed my body/brain's feedback mechanism, though I can also envisage my physicality that remains unexperienced as also part of myself."
Do you not see what's wrong with this?
You don't know you're actually having this conversation, and the idea of "you" is preposterous because "you" don't even really exist. "You" are your own brain's feedback mechanism.
Actually, given your fellow materialists' favourite multiverse theories, there's an infinite number of flying spaghetti monsters out there in an infinite number of Universes, so I wouldn't be so incredulous, my noodly friend.
I love the way his first big chunk concerns the problems of stopping evil at some particular historical point, as if his God were incapable of designing the world in a way that solved it at origin.
And there is as much evidence for the noodly one in each universe as there is for any other supreme being.
But no Gods.
But no Gods.
Sorry to mess with unicorn paradigm, bud.
I am guessing he does think those slabs of pseudo-ethical verbiage constitute his answer to the problems of allowing evil to exist. The second part might take longer to demolish than I am willing to take though.
It was solved at origin; it doesn't make sense to talk of eternity in the same breath as the chronological unfolding of events in spacetime. There's a reason the Bible says "before the foundations of the earth".
Actually, reading that second part, it seems God could be a masochist, who loves to suffer with us.
Made us in his image and all that. Just obviously a much purer masochist than those he mercifully allows to suffer for as long as he seems fit.
Now that would be a God is Evil variant.
That's mostly because any sane person would disregard Leviticus and as its an old testament book its replaced by the teachings of the new testament.
http://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2012/06/13/76-things-banned-in-leviticus-and-their-penalties.html
It's already been established you lack reading comprehension; you don't have to drive the point home.
If the problem of evil/suffering WERE solved by a beneficent, omnipotent, omniscient God at creation there would be little suffering. If evil arose because of decisions made by our putative progenitors, then he knew about it, or we head off into free-will v total omniscience debate.
Of course, the whole Eden parable is rather contradicted by evolution. It's a story used to attempt to control people through fear and guilt.
To be fair there's a lot of written evidence about the other supreme beings. Santa Clause is a better example than this noodle bloke. That's just ridiculous.
Nope. Just your views lack coherence.
Which NT verses say it is ok to eat pork etc?
What is the rationale behind making it ok? Why was it changed?
Yeah, this is really a butcher of chronology. The pagan aspects of Christmas and Easter were co-opted later, and the rituals themselves have nothing to do with the celebration of Christ's birth, death and resurrection. None whatsoever.
Yeah, your basis for that opinion is refuted by manuscript evidence.
By the way, the purity laws of the old testament could not be maintained the moment the second Jewish temple was destroyed, so you in fact cannot follow them today.
So you think that the following explains why God allows suffering in the world?
The fact God allows for these violent acts is the same reason he allows you and me to exist. Mercy. Suffering is an extension of the same grace that saw Christ suffer and die on the cross. In fact, suffering is God's wisdom. Suffering says that God loves the world so much he will endure it even though it grieves him so bitterly.
Can't you see that any sane person would ask why not exclude suffering? Make the world such that we (and God) don't suffer so much. Unless God really wanted suffering? But then why?
No way that God appears as beneficent in your portrayal, so your solution fails. Spectacularly.
Still no word from you about the inherently arbitrary choice of texts for the Bible, nor the problems of which translations from Greek etc are most accurate.
Many older folks grew up with the King James which did have a number of notable mistranslations as well.
So you think that the following explains why God allows suffering in the world?
The fact God allows for these violent acts is the same reason he allows you and me to exist. Mercy. Suffering is an extension of the same grace that saw Christ suffer and die on the cross. In fact, suffering is God's wisdom. Suffering says that God loves the world so much he will endure it even though it grieves him so bitterly.
Can't you see that any sane person would ask why not exclude suffering? Make the world such that we (and God) don't suffer so much. Unless God really wanted suffering? But then why?
No way that God appears as beneficent in your portrayal, so your solution fails. Spectacularly.
Alright, this is the last one I'll entertain, and then I need to go and study.
Because if you'd follow the line of argument, you would see that God cannot exclude suffering without excluding you and me. In the world we live in, not some hypothetical one.
You can posit a hypothetical world in which everyone is perfect, but that hypothetical world would have to contain free will, because a world with free will is more perfect than a world without it. In fact, a world without free will necessitates that the world is without love, because love must be freely given, it cannot be taken. The world starts to look very Genesis-like at this point.
He was illiterate but he signed documents?, for me he was literate, but this would be an endless debate with nasty final. I already tried in other forums adding suras and more suras with historical mistakes and contradictions and I always receive a philosophical answer justifying all errors.
He misread it and Qran have many things without sense, just write "mistakes in Qran" in google.
I guess what He said had a easy adaptation to the medieval Arab society.
You are naming the old testament, I am not jew.
Surely the Bible has changes , many because of Constantine and the Council of Trent , but is easy to research and find the message(nag hammadi is not a copy of a copy...was well hidden).For example Jesus was born in 2bc and in my opinion was married, but I still believe the message of love. It not Christianity that says that everything that is in our book is sacred and perfect
Last edited:
Errm. Not according to the church actually. Those rituals are now part of the worship. The saviour's birth is celebrated at Xmas no matter when it might have been, the Easter festival is far more important to the salvation story too.
Or do you wish to imply that all Pagan elements were discarded?
Or just recognise that a God of the posited type is incoherent.