Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Einstein said...

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 2:39:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

And my point here is that Einstein didn't say that. Then again, can we know that he never said that... perhaps while in the shower, riding his bicycle, quietly to himself while engaged in a thought experiment? But we don't know that Einstein said it, even though a number of people like to claim that he did. So are we wrong when we attribute this comment to Einstein as an authority to put behind the statement?

I think we are. I think we owe it to ourselves to practice intellectual honesty. And nowhere is this more important, than when we're seeking truth. One cannot rationally expect to succeed in a search for truth by using falsehoods,

And so we come to God, Jesus, and the Bible. We never run short of people claiming that Jesus said this, God said that... because it's in the Bible. Any honest research in regard to the origins of the writings in the Bible, and the selection of those writings themselves - if they do nothing more - at least provide a very good reason to doubt these claims and to doubt that what is offered as quotations, actually are. (I would say "they're definitely not", but I'm trying to give in to the benefit of doubt). So what makes it any more honest or ethical to say "Jesus said, 'As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.'", than to credit Einstein with the comment mentioned above?

If you're concerned with truth, honesty and integrity, then when you're tempted to attribute things from the Bible to Jesus, or statements from the Bible to God, how can it be anything but wrong, not to do so with a caveat in the name of integrity, honesty, and the pursuit of truth?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 2:58:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 2:39:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

And my point here is that Einstein didn't say that. Then again, can we know that he never said that... perhaps while in the shower, riding his bicycle, quietly to himself while engaged in a thought experiment? But we don't know that Einstein said it, even though a number of people like to claim that he did. So are we wrong when we attribute this comment to Einstein as an authority to put behind the statement?

I think we are. I think we owe it to ourselves to practice intellectual honesty. And nowhere is this more important, than when we're seeking truth. One cannot rationally expect to succeed in a search for truth by using falsehoods,

And so we come to God, Jesus, and the Bible. We never run short of people claiming that Jesus said this, God said that... because it's in the Bible. Any honest research in regard to the origins of the writings in the Bible, and the selection of those writings themselves - if they do nothing more - at least provide a very good reason to doubt these claims and to doubt that what is offered as quotations, actually are. (I would say "they're definitely not", but I'm trying to give in to the benefit of doubt). So what makes it any more honest or ethical to say "Jesus said, 'As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.'", than to credit Einstein with the comment mentioned above?

If you're concerned with truth, honesty and integrity, then when you're tempted to attribute things from the Bible to Jesus, or statements from the Bible to God, how can it be anything but wrong, not to do so with a caveat in the name of integrity, honesty, and the pursuit of truth?

You can always say "It is written" if you have evidence that it has been written somewhere. It makes no difference who wrote it. Once something has been recorded in black and white "it is written" and all can safely presume it was written by a human. Then they can decide to believe it or not and quote it till their heats content.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 3:00:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 2:58:23 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:39:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

And my point here is that Einstein didn't say that. Then again, can we know that he never said that... perhaps while in the shower, riding his bicycle, quietly to himself while engaged in a thought experiment? But we don't know that Einstein said it, even though a number of people like to claim that he did. So are we wrong when we attribute this comment to Einstein as an authority to put behind the statement?

I think we are. I think we owe it to ourselves to practice intellectual honesty. And nowhere is this more important, than when we're seeking truth. One cannot rationally expect to succeed in a search for truth by using falsehoods,

And so we come to God, Jesus, and the Bible. We never run short of people claiming that Jesus said this, God said that... because it's in the Bible. Any honest research in regard to the origins of the writings in the Bible, and the selection of those writings themselves - if they do nothing more - at least provide a very good reason to doubt these claims and to doubt that what is offered as quotations, actually are. (I would say "they're definitely not", but I'm trying to give in to the benefit of doubt). So what makes it any more honest or ethical to say "Jesus said, 'As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.'", than to credit Einstein with the comment mentioned above?

If you're concerned with truth, honesty and integrity, then when you're tempted to attribute things from the Bible to Jesus, or statements from the Bible to God, how can it be anything but wrong, not to do so with a caveat in the name of integrity, honesty, and the pursuit of truth?

You can always say "It is written" if you have evidence that it has been written somewhere. It makes no difference who wrote it. Once something has been recorded in black and white "it is written" and all can safely presume it was written by a human. Then they can decide to believe it or not and quote it till their heats content.

I agree. It's a very safe claim.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 10:01:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 2:39:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

And my point here is that Einstein didn't say that. Then again, can we know that he never said that... perhaps while in the shower, riding his bicycle, quietly to himself while engaged in a thought experiment? But we don't know that Einstein said it, even though a number of people like to claim that he did. So are we wrong when we attribute this comment to Einstein as an authority to put behind the statement?

I think we are. I think we owe it to ourselves to practice intellectual honesty. And nowhere is this more important, than when we're seeking truth. One cannot rationally expect to succeed in a search for truth by using falsehoods,

And so we come to God, Jesus, and the Bible. We never run short of people claiming that Jesus said this, God said that... because it's in the Bible. Any honest research in regard to the origins of the writings in the Bible, and the selection of those writings themselves - if they do nothing more - at least provide a very good reason to doubt these claims and to doubt that what is offered as quotations, actually are. (I would say "they're definitely not", but I'm trying to give in to the benefit of doubt). So what makes it any more honest or ethical to say "Jesus said, 'As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.'", than to credit Einstein with the comment mentioned above?

If you're concerned with truth, honesty and integrity, then when you're tempted to attribute things from the Bible to Jesus, or statements from the Bible to God, how can it be anything but wrong, not to do so with a caveat in the name of integrity, honesty, and the pursuit of truth?

Many things have been written or said by people. It is left to us to discern whether it rings any truth. What seems to be a truthful statement to me might not to you. It is our own personal experience applied to what is said that gives any statement validity.

The same goes to honesty. There is someone we both know who claims to be something extraordinary. No one believes this person. Does he believe himself? I think so. Because he believes himself to be extraordinary, by saying it he is speaking with honesty. He is not a liar. Do I think what he says holds truth. No, but I could be wrong.

Integrity is in my definition is sticking to what you believe to be right. Here I'll give an example. You are strongly against animal cruelty. You do not eat meat. You are avid about this and you share these views with others, only to find some strongly disagree. But you stick to your argument and you stand strong in your resolve. Nothing they can say will change your heart. You have integrity. But they might also.

No one can change another person's perception of truth, honesty or integrity. Personal experience is the only way that people learn or change. The important thing is to always remember that perhaps none of us is 100% correct in our conclusions and that what is true and honest is in the eye of the beholder. A subjective position.

Are the God and Jesus that are portrayed in the Bible true? Well that depends on who you are asking. I think the philosophical statements made by Jesus hold validity. Did he say them or did the person writing the story say it? I don't know for sure. Was he extraordinary? I don't know. Depending on who you're talking to, I could lack integrity for even saying that. I don't think I lack integrity for being honest. I would be the first to admit I have changed my mind if my experiences prove to me that my position is wrong. But a subjective position that I hold would be impossible for someone else to modify without imposing an actual life changing scenario on me. And that might just lack integrity.

We're all right and we're all wrong. Depending on the observer.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 10:25:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 2:39:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

And my point here is that Einstein didn't say that. Then again, can we know that he never said that... perhaps while in the shower, riding his bicycle, quietly to himself while engaged in a thought experiment? But we don't know that Einstein said it, even though a number of people like to claim that he did. So are we wrong when we attribute this comment to Einstein as an authority to put behind the statement?

I think we are. I think we owe it to ourselves to practice intellectual honesty. And nowhere is this more important, than when we're seeking truth. One cannot rationally expect to succeed in a search for truth by using falsehoods,

And so we come to God, Jesus, and the Bible. We never run short of people claiming that Jesus said this, God said that... because it's in the Bible. Any honest research in regard to the origins of the writings in the Bible, and the selection of those writings themselves - if they do nothing more - at least provide a very good reason to doubt these claims and to doubt that what is offered as quotations, actually are. (I would say "they're definitely not", but I'm trying to give in to the benefit of doubt). So what makes it any more honest or ethical to say "Jesus said, 'As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.'", than to credit Einstein with the comment mentioned above?

If you're concerned with truth, honesty and integrity, then when you're tempted to attribute things from the Bible to Jesus, or statements from the Bible to God, how can it be anything but wrong, not to do so with a caveat in the name of integrity, honesty, and the pursuit of truth?

Acts 17
24: The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,
25: nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything.
26: And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
27: that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us,
28: for ..In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, ..For we are indeed his offspring.'
29: Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 11:07:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 10:01:20 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:39:10 AM, Beastt wrote:

If you're concerned with truth, honesty and integrity, then when you're tempted to attribute things from the Bible to Jesus, or statements from the Bible to God, how can it be anything but wrong, not to do so with a caveat in the name of integrity, honesty, and the pursuit of truth?

Many things have been written or said by people. It is left to us to discern whether it rings any truth. What seems to be a truthful statement to me might not to you. It is our own personal experience applied to what is said that gives any statement validity.

The same goes to honesty. There is someone we both know who claims to be something extraordinary. No one believes this person. Does he believe himself? I think so. Because he believes himself to be extraordinary, by saying it he is speaking with honesty. He is not a liar. Do I think what he says holds truth. No, but I could be wrong.

Integrity is in my definition is sticking to what you believe to be right. Here I'll give an example. You are strongly against animal cruelty. You do not eat meat. You are avid about this and you share these views with others, only to find some strongly disagree. But you stick to your argument and you stand strong in your resolve. Nothing they can say will change your heart. You have integrity. But they might also.

No one can change another person's perception of truth, honesty or integrity. Personal experience is the only way that people learn or change. The important thing is to always remember that perhaps none of us is 100% correct in our conclusions and that what is true and honest is in the eye of the beholder. A subjective position.

Are the God and Jesus that are portrayed in the Bible true? Well that depends on who you are asking. I think the philosophical statements made by Jesus hold validity. Did he say them or did the person writing the story say it? I don't know for sure. Was he extraordinary? I don't know. Depending on who you're talking to, I could lack integrity for even saying that. I don't think I lack integrity for being honest. I would be the first to admit I have changed my mind if my experiences prove to me that my position is wrong. But a subjective position that I hold would be impossible for someone else to modify without imposing an actual life changing scenario on me. And that might just lack integrity.

We're all right and we're all wrong. Depending on the observer.

I disagree partially. I do agree that if someone actually believes something to be true, it's not intentional deception for them to present it as truth. But there's a caveat here; IF they have good reason to believe it to be true. If they "feel" that it's true, or claim that it's "true for them", in most cases... I simply can't agree. Saying "it's true for me" is an evasion for something which isn't true in reality. And while some people don't seem to persist in a mental state of reality, reality still doesn't bend to their perceptions. We can confirm that with a look at the calendar.

Truth is indicated by a consistency with reality. If Einstein didn't actually say it, then it's wrong to present it as though he did, if you have any reason to understand that he didn't. Some things are subjective. When someone claims that blue is a more pleasing color than yellow, that's subjective. There is no standard of truth for such a claim. When someone claims that blue is a shorter wavelength of light than yellow, that's true. And to claim the opposite is false. These are simply things for which reality provides an absolute answer.

So while many of the sayings attributed to Jesus may well be true, that doesn't mean that it's not deception to claim Jesus said them, if one is familiar with the works in the Bible, and their origins. There is no link to Jesus for those sayings, and many of them are little more than paraphrased "wisdom" from much older sources.

So while it's false for me to claim that Einstein said, "My body will not be a tomb for other creatures.", it is true that he didn't consume the bodies of other animals. But the statement provided comes from Leonardo Da Vinci.

If I claimed that Sir Isaac Newton said, "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.", that would be intentional deception because those are the words of Albert Einstein.

And if I claimed that Leonardo Da Vinci said, "But for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh, we deprive a soul of the sun and light, and of the proportion of life and time it had been born into the world to enjoy", the quotation demonstrates consistency with reality, but the credit to Da Vinci is false, because that was Plutarch.

If statements are not consistent with reality, and one has reason to know that they lack that consistency, then it is irresponsible to make those statements. And in the case of quotations or conveyed ideas, we need to be sure to separate the truth of the statement itself, from the truth (or lack thereof), in regard to who is credited for saying it.

Claiming that Pythagorus said "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you", is without support in reality and is no more appropriate than to claim that Jesus said, "As long as Man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings, he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love."

The former statement - while commonly attributed to Jesus, can offer no credibility for him as the source. Meanwhile, the latter statement is attributable to Pythagorus. If one believes that truth is important, then one needs to seek consistency with reality in their statements.

So we can have a false source, for a statement of strong moral value, and a true source for statements which are false. But simply believing something for yourself - especially when you lack rational cause to believe, is not an attempt to present truth.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 11:09:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 10:25:37 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:39:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

And my point here is that Einstein didn't say that. Then again, can we know that he never said that... perhaps while in the shower, riding his bicycle, quietly to himself while engaged in a thought experiment? But we don't know that Einstein said it, even though a number of people like to claim that he did. So are we wrong when we attribute this comment to Einstein as an authority to put behind the statement?

I think we are. I think we owe it to ourselves to practice intellectual honesty. And nowhere is this more important, than when we're seeking truth. One cannot rationally expect to succeed in a search for truth by using falsehoods,

And so we come to God, Jesus, and the Bible. We never run short of people claiming that Jesus said this, God said that... because it's in the Bible. Any honest research in regard to the origins of the writings in the Bible, and the selection of those writings themselves - if they do nothing more - at least provide a very good reason to doubt these claims and to doubt that what is offered as quotations, actually are. (I would say "they're definitely not", but I'm trying to give in to the benefit of doubt). So what makes it any more honest or ethical to say "Jesus said, 'As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.'", than to credit Einstein with the comment mentioned above?

If you're concerned with truth, honesty and integrity, then when you're tempted to attribute things from the Bible to Jesus, or statements from the Bible to God, how can it be anything but wrong, not to do so with a caveat in the name of integrity, honesty, and the pursuit of truth?

Acts 17
24: The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,
25: nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything.
26: And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
27: that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us,
28: for ..In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, ..For we are indeed his offspring.'
29: Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man.

Classic examples of statements lacking consistency with the standards of reality. YOU may believe God said and did these things, just as a child can believe that Jack chopped down the beanstalk, killing the giant. But your perceptions do not create consistency with reality.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 11:50:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 11:07:13 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/2/2014 10:01:20 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:39:10 AM, Beastt wrote:

If you're concerned with truth, honesty and integrity, then when you're tempted to attribute things from the Bible to Jesus, or statements from the Bible to God, how can it be anything but wrong, not to do so with a caveat in the name of integrity, honesty, and the pursuit of truth?

Many things have been written or said by people. It is left to us to discern whether it rings any truth. What seems to be a truthful statement to me might not to you. It is our own personal experience applied to what is said that gives any statement validity.

The same goes to honesty. There is someone we both know who claims to be something extraordinary. No one believes this person. Does he believe himself? I think so. Because he believes himself to be extraordinary, by saying it he is speaking with honesty. He is not a liar. Do I think what he says holds truth. No, but I could be wrong.

Integrity is in my definition is sticking to what you believe to be right. Here I'll give an example. You are strongly against animal cruelty. You do not eat meat. You are avid about this and you share these views with others, only to find some strongly disagree. But you stick to your argument and you stand strong in your resolve. Nothing they can say will change your heart. You have integrity. But they might also.

No one can change another person's perception of truth, honesty or integrity. Personal experience is the only way that people learn or change. The important thing is to always remember that perhaps none of us is 100% correct in our conclusions and that what is true and honest is in the eye of the beholder. A subjective position.

Are the God and Jesus that are portrayed in the Bible true? Well that depends on who you are asking. I think the philosophical statements made by Jesus hold validity. Did he say them or did the person writing the story say it? I don't know for sure. Was he extraordinary? I don't know. Depending on who you're talking to, I could lack integrity for even saying that. I don't think I lack integrity for being honest. I would be the first to admit I have changed my mind if my experiences prove to me that my position is wrong. But a subjective position that I hold would be impossible for someone else to modify without imposing an actual life changing scenario on me. And that might just lack integrity.

We're all right and we're all wrong. Depending on the observer.

I disagree partially. I do agree that if someone actually believes something to be true, it's not intentional deception for them to present it as truth. But there's a caveat here; IF they have good reason to believe it to be true. If they "feel" that it's true, or claim that it's "true for them", in most cases... I simply can't agree. Saying "it's true for me" is an evasion for something which isn't true in reality. And while some people don't seem to persist in a mental state of reality, reality still doesn't bend to their perceptions. We can confirm that with a look at the calendar.

Truth is indicated by a consistency with reality. If Einstein didn't actually say it, then it's wrong to present it as though he did, if you have any reason to understand that he didn't. Some things are subjective. When someone claims that blue is a more pleasing color than yellow, that's subjective. There is no standard of truth for such a claim. When someone claims that blue is a shorter wavelength of light than yellow, that's true. And to claim the opposite is false. These are simply things for which reality provides an absolute answer.

So while many of the sayings attributed to Jesus may well be true, that doesn't mean that it's not deception to claim Jesus said them, if one is familiar with the works in the Bible, and their origins. There is no link to Jesus for those sayings, and many of them are little more than paraphrased "wisdom" from much older sources.

So while it's false for me to claim that Einstein said, "My body will not be a tomb for other creatures.", it is true that he didn't consume the bodies of other animals. But the statement provided comes from Leonardo Da Vinci.

If I claimed that Sir Isaac Newton said, "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.", that would be intentional deception because those are the words of Albert Einstein.

And if I claimed that Leonardo Da Vinci said, "But for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh, we deprive a soul of the sun and light, and of the proportion of life and time it had been born into the world to enjoy", the quotation demonstrates consistency with reality, but the credit to Da Vinci is false, because that was Plutarch.

If statements are not consistent with reality, and one has reason to know that they lack that consistency, then it is irresponsible to make those statements. And in the case of quotations or conveyed ideas, we need to be sure to separate the truth of the statement itself, from the truth (or lack thereof), in regard to who is credited for saying it.

Claiming that Pythagorus said "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you", is without support in reality and is no more appropriate than to claim that Jesus said, "As long as Man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings, he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love."

The former statement - while commonly attributed to Jesus, can offer no credibility for him as the source. Meanwhile, the latter statement is attributable to Pythagorus. If one believes that truth is important, then one needs to seek consistency with reality in their statements.

So we can have a false source, for a statement of strong moral value, and a true source for statements which are false. But simply believing something for yourself - especially when you lack rational cause to believe, is not an attempt to present truth.

I understand how reality differs from a false reality. There is no arguing reality. How an individual perceives reality makes all the difference. When someone is absolutely 100% sure that their observation of reality is correct, it is nearly impossible to change that for them. Some people are able to understand another person's perception from an empathetical standpoint and change their own perception as a result if they see that there is truth to it. Not very many people have that trait and typically we don't even see when that happens.

This is the reason why so many people are stubbornly stuck in the mud when presented with a new concept outside of their scope of understanding and belief. It is an impossible task to change another person's perspective. And if you think you have succeeded think again, they were open to changing perspectives because their experiences and observations lead them to look for a new reality.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 8:16:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 11:09:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/2/2014 10:25:37 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:39:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

And my point here is that Einstein didn't say that. Then again, can we know that he never said that... perhaps while in the shower, riding his bicycle, quietly to himself while engaged in a thought experiment? But we don't know that Einstein said it, even though a number of people like to claim that he did. So are we wrong when we attribute this comment to Einstein as an authority to put behind the statement?

I think we are. I think we owe it to ourselves to practice intellectual honesty. And nowhere is this more important, than when we're seeking truth. One cannot rationally expect to succeed in a search for truth by using falsehoods,

And so we come to God, Jesus, and the Bible. We never run short of people claiming that Jesus said this, God said that... because it's in the Bible. Any honest research in regard to the origins of the writings in the Bible, and the selection of those writings themselves - if they do nothing more - at least provide a very good reason to doubt these claims and to doubt that what is offered as quotations, actually are. (I would say "they're definitely not", but I'm trying to give in to the benefit of doubt). So what makes it any more honest or ethical to say "Jesus said, 'As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.'", than to credit Einstein with the comment mentioned above?

If you're concerned with truth, honesty and integrity, then when you're tempted to attribute things from the Bible to Jesus, or statements from the Bible to God, how can it be anything but wrong, not to do so with a caveat in the name of integrity, honesty, and the pursuit of truth?

Acts 17
24: The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,
25: nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything.
26: And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
27: that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us,
28: for ..In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, ..For we are indeed his offspring.'
29: Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man.

Classic examples of statements lacking consistency with the standards of reality. YOU may believe God said and did these things, just as a child can believe that Jack chopped down the beanstalk, killing the giant. But your perceptions do not create consistency with reality.

Do you believe God has to be consistent and logical?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 10:15:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 8:16:12 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/2/2014 11:09:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/2/2014 10:25:37 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:39:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

And my point here is that Einstein didn't say that. Then again, can we know that he never said that... perhaps while in the shower, riding his bicycle, quietly to himself while engaged in a thought experiment? But we don't know that Einstein said it, even though a number of people like to claim that he did. So are we wrong when we attribute this comment to Einstein as an authority to put behind the statement?

I think we are. I think we owe it to ourselves to practice intellectual honesty. And nowhere is this more important, than when we're seeking truth. One cannot rationally expect to succeed in a search for truth by using falsehoods,

And so we come to God, Jesus, and the Bible. We never run short of people claiming that Jesus said this, God said that... because it's in the Bible. Any honest research in regard to the origins of the writings in the Bible, and the selection of those writings themselves - if they do nothing more - at least provide a very good reason to doubt these claims and to doubt that what is offered as quotations, actually are. (I would say "they're definitely not", but I'm trying to give in to the benefit of doubt). So what makes it any more honest or ethical to say "Jesus said, 'As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.'", than to credit Einstein with the comment mentioned above?

If you're concerned with truth, honesty and integrity, then when you're tempted to attribute things from the Bible to Jesus, or statements from the Bible to God, how can it be anything but wrong, not to do so with a caveat in the name of integrity, honesty, and the pursuit of truth?

Acts 17
24: The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,
25: nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything.
26: And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
27: that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us,
28: for ..In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, ..For we are indeed his offspring.'
29: Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man.

Classic examples of statements lacking consistency with the standards of reality. YOU may believe God said and did these things, just as a child can believe that Jack chopped down the beanstalk, killing the giant. But your perceptions do not create consistency with reality.

Do you believe God has to be consistent and logical?

I believe a God who doesn't exist, is not the best source of information or morals. But since we receive logic from the universe around us, were we to live in a created universe, it would be created by a "logical" God. But "logical" simply means, how things work.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 12:13:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 10:15:15 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:16:12 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/2/2014 11:09:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/2/2014 10:25:37 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:39:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

And my point here is that Einstein didn't say that. Then again, can we know that he never said that... perhaps while in the shower, riding his bicycle, quietly to himself while engaged in a thought experiment? But we don't know that Einstein said it, even though a number of people like to claim that he did. So are we wrong when we attribute this comment to Einstein as an authority to put behind the statement?

I think we are. I think we owe it to ourselves to practice intellectual honesty. And nowhere is this more important, than when we're seeking truth. One cannot rationally expect to succeed in a search for truth by using falsehoods,

And so we come to God, Jesus, and the Bible. We never run short of people claiming that Jesus said this, God said that... because it's in the Bible. Any honest research in regard to the origins of the writings in the Bible, and the selection of those writings themselves - if they do nothing more - at least provide a very good reason to doubt these claims and to doubt that what is offered as quotations, actually are. (I would say "they're definitely not", but I'm trying to give in to the benefit of doubt). So what makes it any more honest or ethical to say "Jesus said, 'As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.'", than to credit Einstein with the comment mentioned above?

If you're concerned with truth, honesty and integrity, then when you're tempted to attribute things from the Bible to Jesus, or statements from the Bible to God, how can it be anything but wrong, not to do so with a caveat in the name of integrity, honesty, and the pursuit of truth?

Acts 17
24: The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,
25: nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything.
26: And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
27: that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us,
28: for ..In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, ..For we are indeed his offspring.'
29: Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man.

Classic examples of statements lacking consistency with the standards of reality. YOU may believe God said and did these things, just as a child can believe that Jack chopped down the beanstalk, killing the giant. But your perceptions do not create consistency with reality.

Do you believe God has to be consistent and logical?

I believe a God who doesn't exist, is not the best source of information or morals. But since we receive logic from the universe around us, were we to live in a created universe, it would be created by a "logical" God. But "logical" simply means, how things work.

I know that god exists because I speak for Him. He first came into my mind on December 7th, 1979. After obeying all His commands for 28 1/2 years, He finally had me start testifying to the knowledge that He created me as. I am the Word of God and everything you see, hear, smell, taste, touch, feel emotionally and all the other senses you use to experience life with came from me.

This knowledge is not logical or consistent with God's people who believed this universe was real. But once you understand what I know to be true, then you can see how God's illusions will never be consistent or logical because we'll continue to experience new illusions ( visions and dreams ) forever.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,965
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 12:18:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ask yourself if your truthful or honest when asserting that colors objectively exist and exist as an intrinsic property of light. Ask yourself if you're honest when you assert that the human body would be the design of a "blithering idiot". You have the rational faculties to know otherwise. This intentional deception is anything except a search for truth.
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 12:26:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 12:13:43 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/3/2014 10:15:15 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:16:12 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/2/2014 11:09:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/2/2014 10:25:37 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:39:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

And my point here is that Einstein didn't say that. Then again, can we know that he never said that... perhaps while in the shower, riding his bicycle, quietly to himself while engaged in a thought experiment? But we don't know that Einstein said it, even though a number of people like to claim that he did. So are we wrong when we attribute this comment to Einstein as an authority to put behind the statement?

I think we are. I think we owe it to ourselves to practice intellectual honesty. And nowhere is this more important, than when we're seeking truth. One cannot rationally expect to succeed in a search for truth by using falsehoods,

And so we come to God, Jesus, and the Bible. We never run short of people claiming that Jesus said this, God said that... because it's in the Bible. Any honest research in regard to the origins of the writings in the Bible, and the selection of those writings themselves - if they do nothing more - at least provide a very good reason to doubt these claims and to doubt that what is offered as quotations, actually are. (I would say "they're definitely not", but I'm trying to give in to the benefit of doubt). So what makes it any more honest or ethical to say "Jesus said, 'As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.'", than to credit Einstein with the comment mentioned above?

If you're concerned with truth, honesty and integrity, then when you're tempted to attribute things from the Bible to Jesus, or statements from the Bible to God, how can it be anything but wrong, not to do so with a caveat in the name of integrity, honesty, and the pursuit of truth?

Acts 17
24: The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,
25: nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything.
26: And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
27: that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us,
28: for ..In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, ..For we are indeed his offspring.'
29: Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man.

Classic examples of statements lacking consistency with the standards of reality. YOU may believe God said and did these things, just as a child can believe that Jack chopped down the beanstalk, killing the giant. But your perceptions do not create consistency with reality.

Do you believe God has to be consistent and logical?

I believe a God who doesn't exist, is not the best source of information or morals. But since we receive logic from the universe around us, were we to live in a created universe, it would be created by a "logical" God. But "logical" simply means, how things work.

I know that god exists because I speak for Him. He first came into my mind on December 7th, 1979. After obeying all His commands for 28 1/2 years, He finally had me start testifying to the knowledge that He created me as. I am the Word of God and everything you see, hear, smell, taste, touch, feel emotionally and all the other senses you use to experience life with came from me.

This knowledge is not logical or consistent with God's people who believed this universe was real. But once you understand what I know to be true, then you can see how God's illusions will never be consistent or logical because we'll continue to experience new illusions ( visions and dreams ) forever.

If it weren't real it wouldn't need escaping. I would agree though that Samsara needs escaping.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 12:48:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 12:13:43 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/3/2014 10:15:15 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:16:12 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/2/2014 11:09:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/2/2014 10:25:37 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:39:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

And my point here is that Einstein didn't say that. Then again, can we know that he never said that... perhaps while in the shower, riding his bicycle, quietly to himself while engaged in a thought experiment? But we don't know that Einstein said it, even though a number of people like to claim that he did. So are we wrong when we attribute this comment to Einstein as an authority to put behind the statement?

I think we are. I think we owe it to ourselves to practice intellectual honesty. And nowhere is this more important, than when we're seeking truth. One cannot rationally expect to succeed in a search for truth by using falsehoods,

And so we come to God, Jesus, and the Bible. We never run short of people claiming that Jesus said this, God said that... because it's in the Bible. Any honest research in regard to the origins of the writings in the Bible, and the selection of those writings themselves - if they do nothing more - at least provide a very good reason to doubt these claims and to doubt that what is offered as quotations, actually are. (I would say "they're definitely not", but I'm trying to give in to the benefit of doubt). So what makes it any more honest or ethical to say "Jesus said, 'As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.'", than to credit Einstein with the comment mentioned above?

If you're concerned with truth, honesty and integrity, then when you're tempted to attribute things from the Bible to Jesus, or statements from the Bible to God, how can it be anything but wrong, not to do so with a caveat in the name of integrity, honesty, and the pursuit of truth?

Acts 17
24: The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,
25: nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything.
26: And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
27: that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us,
28: for ..In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, ..For we are indeed his offspring.'
29: Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man.

Classic examples of statements lacking consistency with the standards of reality. YOU may believe God said and did these things, just as a child can believe that Jack chopped down the beanstalk, killing the giant. But your perceptions do not create consistency with reality.

Do you believe God has to be consistent and logical?

I believe a God who doesn't exist, is not the best source of information or morals. But since we receive logic from the universe around us, were we to live in a created universe, it would be created by a "logical" God. But "logical" simply means, how things work.

I know that god exists because I speak for Him. He first came into my mind on December 7th, 1979. After obeying all His commands for 28 1/2 years, He finally had me start testifying to the knowledge that He created me as. I am the Word of God and everything you see, hear, smell, taste, touch, feel emotionally and all the other senses you use to experience life with came from me.

This knowledge is not logical or consistent with God's people who believed this universe was real. But once you understand what I know to be true, then you can see how God's illusions will never be consistent or logical because we'll continue to experience new illusions ( visions and dreams ) forever.

If I agree that you are the word of God, I'm also agreeing that the word of God is shear lunacy. Sorry, that's simply the obvious reality. I'll not pretend otherwise. It would be disrespectful to practice such deceit.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 12:54:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 12:18:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Ask yourself if your truthful or honest when asserting that colors objectively exist and exist as an intrinsic property of light. Ask yourself if you're honest when you assert that the human body would be the design of a "blithering idiot". You have the rational faculties to know otherwise. This intentional deception is anything except a search for truth.

I see we've decided to adopt one of Anna's bad habits of trying to drag topics from other threads into threads on different subjects. But.... just because you're you;
- "Color" is the word we use to describe our perception of the wavelengths of light. (This has already been explained.)
- Wavelengths of light do exist as a physical property of light. This is objectively confirmed.
- Our perceptions form as electro-chemical (physical) changes in the neurons of our brains.
- These neurons and the electro-chemical changes are physical, and confirmed to exist.
- Therefore, yes; colors do objectively exist. Giving a name to a perception, does not vanquish that perception to a realm outside of the physical.

Now please copy that down so that you won't be tempted to ask the question another 50-times.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 1:03:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 2:39:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

And my point here is that Einstein didn't say that. Then again, can we know that he never said that... perhaps while in the shower, riding his bicycle, quietly to himself while engaged in a thought experiment? But we don't know that Einstein said it, even though a number of people like to claim that he did. So are we wrong when we attribute this comment to Einstein as an authority to put behind the statement?

I think we are. I think we owe it to ourselves to practice intellectual honesty. And nowhere is this more important, than when we're seeking truth. One cannot rationally expect to succeed in a search for truth by using falsehoods,

And so we come to God, Jesus, and the Bible. We never run short of people claiming that Jesus said this, God said that... because it's in the Bible. Any honest research in regard to the origins of the writings in the Bible, and the selection of those writings themselves - if they do nothing more - at least provide a very good reason to doubt these claims and to doubt that what is offered as quotations, actually are. (I would say "they're definitely not", but I'm trying to give in to the benefit of doubt). So what makes it any more honest or ethical to say "Jesus said, 'As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.'", than to credit Einstein with the comment mentioned above?

If you're concerned with truth, honesty and integrity, then when you're tempted to attribute things from the Bible to Jesus, or statements from the Bible to God, how can it be anything but wrong, not to do so with a caveat in the name of integrity, honesty, and the pursuit of truth?

Honestly the wisdom coming from whoever said the words of Jesus or Buddha are credit worthy. Others not so much. It doesn't make a difference to me if Buddha or Jesus are true. They are philosophical implications and the truth of a saying doesn't take away from attributing it to the wrong person. So me agreeing with the Einstein quote, for me, has little to nothing to do with it coming from Einstein.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 1:39:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 1:03:19 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:39:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

And my point here is that Einstein didn't say that. Then again, can we know that he never said that... perhaps while in the shower, riding his bicycle, quietly to himself while engaged in a thought experiment? But we don't know that Einstein said it, even though a number of people like to claim that he did. So are we wrong when we attribute this comment to Einstein as an authority to put behind the statement?

I think we are. I think we owe it to ourselves to practice intellectual honesty. And nowhere is this more important, than when we're seeking truth. One cannot rationally expect to succeed in a search for truth by using falsehoods,

And so we come to God, Jesus, and the Bible. We never run short of people claiming that Jesus said this, God said that... because it's in the Bible. Any honest research in regard to the origins of the writings in the Bible, and the selection of those writings themselves - if they do nothing more - at least provide a very good reason to doubt these claims and to doubt that what is offered as quotations, actually are. (I would say "they're definitely not", but I'm trying to give in to the benefit of doubt). So what makes it any more honest or ethical to say "Jesus said, 'As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.'", than to credit Einstein with the comment mentioned above?

If you're concerned with truth, honesty and integrity, then when you're tempted to attribute things from the Bible to Jesus, or statements from the Bible to God, how can it be anything but wrong, not to do so with a caveat in the name of integrity, honesty, and the pursuit of truth?

Honestly the wisdom coming from whoever said the words of Jesus or Buddha are credit worthy. Others not so much. It doesn't make a difference to me if Buddha or Jesus are true. They are philosophical implications and the truth of a saying doesn't take away from attributing it to the wrong person. So me agreeing with the Einstein quote, for me, has little to nothing to do with it coming from Einstein.

I agree partially with what you've said. But it's outside of the context. This is really a very simple point; if you claim to value truth, yet offer quotations attributed to people for which there is no objective reason to credit them, you're violating your own claim to value truth. It's fine to produce the quotation to stand on its own merits. But people are easy suckers for claims of authority, which is why it is so widely misused.

If the proclaimed "words of Jesus" hold such profundity, then they should lose nothing if not attributed to him. Quotations of true value, stand on their own. Many of the quotations of Samuel Clemons would fair better than those of Jesus, if devoid of attribution.

- "Dad, I'm thinking about going to college."

- "That's just silliness son! Give no thought for the morrow!"

Somehow, left vacant of the attribution to Jesus, the true value and nature of the advice comes through and it's horrific. Once asserted to be from Jesus, pleas for context will abound - not due to the value of the advice - but only for the desire to profess all from Jesus to be of great value. So when people falsely attribute to Jesus, while having cause to know the attribution is doubtful or fallacious, it's an attempt to focus not on the quality of the statement itself, but upon the proclaimed source.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,965
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 5:16:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 12:54:07 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/3/2014 12:18:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Ask yourself if your truthful or honest when asserting that colors objectively exist and exist as an intrinsic property of light. Ask yourself if you're honest when you assert that the human body would be the design of a "blithering idiot". You have the rational faculties to know otherwise. This intentional deception is anything except a search for truth.

I see we've decided to adopt one of Anna's bad habits of trying to drag topics from other threads into threads on different subjects. But.... just because you're you;
- "Color" is the word we use to describe our perception of the wavelengths of light. (This has already been explained.)
- Wavelengths of light do exist as a physical property of light. This is objectively confirmed.
- Our perceptions form as electro-chemical (physical) changes in the neurons of our brains.
- These neurons and the electro-chemical changes are physical, and confirmed to exist.
- Therefore, yes; colors do objectively exist. Giving a name to a perception, does not vanquish that perception to a realm outside of the physical.

Now please copy that down so that you won't be tempted to ask the question another 50-times.

Well if you're a stickler for honesty and truth see if you agree with the following statements then I'll show you where you contradict yourself.

(1) objective reality is everything that exists. Agree?
(2) everything that exists is physical. Agree?
(3) everything that exists would still exist independent of all consciousness. Agree?
(3a) reality doesn't depend on conscious perception in order to exist. Agree?
(4) Varying wavelengths of light exist independently of all consciousness. Agree?
(5) colors (blue, red, yellow, green) exist independently of all consciousness. Agree?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 6:06:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 5:16:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/3/2014 12:54:07 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/3/2014 12:18:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Ask yourself if your truthful or honest when asserting that colors objectively exist and exist as an intrinsic property of light. Ask yourself if you're honest when you assert that the human body would be the design of a "blithering idiot". You have the rational faculties to know otherwise. This intentional deception is anything except a search for truth.

I see we've decided to adopt one of Anna's bad habits of trying to drag topics from other threads into threads on different subjects. But.... just because you're you;
- "Color" is the word we use to describe our perception of the wavelengths of light. (This has already been explained.)
- Wavelengths of light do exist as a physical property of light. This is objectively confirmed.
- Our perceptions form as electro-chemical (physical) changes in the neurons of our brains.
- These neurons and the electro-chemical changes are physical, and confirmed to exist.
- Therefore, yes; colors do objectively exist. Giving a name to a perception, does not vanquish that perception to a realm outside of the physical.

Now please copy that down so that you won't be tempted to ask the question another 50-times.

Well if you're a stickler for honesty and truth see if you agree with the following statements then I'll show you where you contradict yourself.

(1) objective reality is everything that exists. Agree?
Everything that exists, has existed and will exist

(2) everything that exists is physical. Agree?
And actions of the physical, yes.

(3) everything that exists would still exist independent of all consciousness. Agree?
Everything aside from the process we call "consciousness". Nothing would cease to exist except for this interactive process. Perhaps your confusion is over the fact that we use the word consciousness as a noun, when it's actually a verb - it describes a state or an action, not a thing. If you thaw a chunk of ice, does the "frozen" cease to exist? Or is "frozen" simply a state (energy state) which can be applied to matter?

(3a) reality doesn't depend on conscious perception in order to exist. Agree?
Yes

(4) Varying wavelengths of light exist independently of all consciousness. Agree?
Yes

(5) colors (blue, red, yellow, green) exist independently of all consciousness. Agree?
It depends on how you wish to play the word-game that you're playing. But I believe you sincerely don't realize that it is a word game.
Light has a wavelength, independent of consciousness.
Our perception of the wavelength is called "color". Said another way, "color" is the state of the neurons which react to the neural responses to wavelengths of light. It is a physical state of neurons in our brain.
If the perception is performed by a frequency counter with an output to a dial-type instrument, wavelength is expressed as "needle movement". If connected to a digital display, wavelength is perceived as a number. Color, needle-movment, and number are all perceptions of the light's wavelength. Just as we call a sonic vibration "tone", and when certain molecules bind with receptors in our nose, we call it "smell".

Without consciousness, the only thing missing is the perception (verb), of the wavelengths of light.

I see the game you're playing. I don't think you understand the game you're playing because you're not seeking to understand it. You're seeking to misunderstand it - to make it be what you wish it to be. Consciousness IS perception. You're seeking to have me proclaim that perception exists independently of consciousness which I will not do because that is incorrect. They are the same thing. "Colors" means perceived light wavelengths. In essence, it's a verb. It describes a neural action, though we tend to express it as a noun.

"Color" is state of neurons when stimulated by signals sent by other neurons, reacting to light wavelengths. So if you want to claim that "color" doesn't exist independent of consciousness, you may do so. But only because "color" means "perceived wavelength", and that perception is a conscious function.

Perhaps this will be easier for you to grasp. A sausage is a shaped wad of meat and spices. If you don't shape it, does the sausage cease to exist?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 7:11:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 12:26:03 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 11/3/2014 12:13:43 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/3/2014 10:15:15 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:16:12 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/2/2014 11:09:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/2/2014 10:25:37 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:39:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

And my point here is that Einstein didn't say that. Then again, can we know that he never said that... perhaps while in the shower, riding his bicycle, quietly to himself while engaged in a thought experiment? But we don't know that Einstein said it, even though a number of people like to claim that he did. So are we wrong when we attribute this comment to Einstein as an authority to put behind the statement?

I think we are. I think we owe it to ourselves to practice intellectual honesty. And nowhere is this more important, than when we're seeking truth. One cannot rationally expect to succeed in a search for truth by using falsehoods,

And so we come to God, Jesus, and the Bible. We never run short of people claiming that Jesus said this, God said that... because it's in the Bible. Any honest research in regard to the origins of the writings in the Bible, and the selection of those writings themselves - if they do nothing more - at least provide a very good reason to doubt these claims and to doubt that what is offered as quotations, actually are. (I would say "they're definitely not", but I'm trying to give in to the benefit of doubt). So what makes it any more honest or ethical to say "Jesus said, 'As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.'", than to credit Einstein with the comment mentioned above?

If you're concerned with truth, honesty and integrity, then when you're tempted to attribute things from the Bible to Jesus, or statements from the Bible to God, how can it be anything but wrong, not to do so with a caveat in the name of integrity, honesty, and the pursuit of truth?

Acts 17
24: The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,
25: nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything.
26: And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
27: that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us,
28: for ..In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, ..For we are indeed his offspring.'
29: Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man.

Classic examples of statements lacking consistency with the standards of reality. YOU may believe God said and did these things, just as a child can believe that Jack chopped down the beanstalk, killing the giant. But your perceptions do not create consistency with reality.

Do you believe God has to be consistent and logical?

I believe a God who doesn't exist, is not the best source of information or morals. But since we receive logic from the universe around us, were we to live in a created universe, it would be created by a "logical" God. But "logical" simply means, how things work.

I know that god exists because I speak for Him. He first came into my mind on December 7th, 1979. After obeying all His commands for 28 1/2 years, He finally had me start testifying to the knowledge that He created me as. I am the Word of God and everything you see, hear, smell, taste, touch, feel emotionally and all the other senses you use to experience life with came from me.

This knowledge is not logical or consistent with God's people who believed this universe was real. But once you understand what I know to be true, then you can see how God's illusions will never be consistent or logical because we'll continue to experience new illusions ( visions and dreams ) forever.

If it weren't real it wouldn't need escaping. I would agree though that Samsara needs escaping.

We're not going to escape anything. As our body dies, we can no longer participate in this dream but we'll awaken in new bodies in the next dream experiences.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 7:20:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 6:06:15 PM, Beastt wrote:

Perhaps this will be easier for you to grasp. A sausage is a shaped wad of meat and spices. If you don't shape it, does the sausage cease to exist?

If you do not shape the meat and spices into a sausage shape, the sausage cannot cease to exist since you did not create the sausage in the first place, you only have meat and spices. You can shape them into a hamburger and then a hamburger will exist. If you eat the hamburger then it will cease to exist in the form of a hamburger but take on the form of chewed up meat and spices in your stomach.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 7:23:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 12:48:54 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/3/2014 12:13:43 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/3/2014 10:15:15 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:16:12 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/2/2014 11:09:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/2/2014 10:25:37 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:39:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

And my point here is that Einstein didn't say that. Then again, can we know that he never said that... perhaps while in the shower, riding his bicycle, quietly to himself while engaged in a thought experiment? But we don't know that Einstein said it, even though a number of people like to claim that he did. So are we wrong when we attribute this comment to Einstein as an authority to put behind the statement?

I think we are. I think we owe it to ourselves to practice intellectual honesty. And nowhere is this more important, than when we're seeking truth. One cannot rationally expect to succeed in a search for truth by using falsehoods,

And so we come to God, Jesus, and the Bible. We never run short of people claiming that Jesus said this, God said that... because it's in the Bible. Any honest research in regard to the origins of the writings in the Bible, and the selection of those writings themselves - if they do nothing more - at least provide a very good reason to doubt these claims and to doubt that what is offered as quotations, actually are. (I would say "they're definitely not", but I'm trying to give in to the benefit of doubt). So what makes it any more honest or ethical to say "Jesus said, 'As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.'", than to credit Einstein with the comment mentioned above?

If you're concerned with truth, honesty and integrity, then when you're tempted to attribute things from the Bible to Jesus, or statements from the Bible to God, how can it be anything but wrong, not to do so with a caveat in the name of integrity, honesty, and the pursuit of truth?

Acts 17
24: The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,
25: nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything.
26: And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
27: that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us,
28: for ..In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, ..For we are indeed his offspring.'
29: Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man.

Classic examples of statements lacking consistency with the standards of reality. YOU may believe God said and did these things, just as a child can believe that Jack chopped down the beanstalk, killing the giant. But your perceptions do not create consistency with reality.

Do you believe God has to be consistent and logical?

I believe a God who doesn't exist, is not the best source of information or morals. But since we receive logic from the universe around us, were we to live in a created universe, it would be created by a "logical" God. But "logical" simply means, how things work.

I know that god exists because I speak for Him. He first came into my mind on December 7th, 1979. After obeying all His commands for 28 1/2 years, He finally had me start testifying to the knowledge that He created me as. I am the Word of God and everything you see, hear, smell, taste, touch, feel emotionally and all the other senses you use to experience life with came from me.

This knowledge is not logical or consistent with God's people who believed this universe was real. But once you understand what I know to be true, then you can see how God's illusions will never be consistent or logical because we'll continue to experience new illusions ( visions and dreams ) forever.

If I agree that you are the word of God, I'm also agreeing that the word of God is shear lunacy. Sorry, that's simply the obvious reality. I'll not pretend otherwise. It would be disrespectful to practice such deceit.

God didn't make you agree with Him so don't worry about it.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 7:38:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 7:20:10 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/3/2014 6:06:15 PM, Beastt wrote:

Perhaps this will be easier for you to grasp. A sausage is a shaped wad of meat and spices. If you don't shape it, does the sausage cease to exist?

If you do not shape the meat and spices into a sausage shape, the sausage cannot cease to exist since you did not create the sausage in the first place, you only have meat and spices. You can shape them into a hamburger and then a hamburger will exist. If you eat the hamburger then it will cease to exist in the form of a hamburger but take on the form of chewed up meat and spices in your stomach.

Which is precisely my point. "Sausage" is a particular state of the meat/spice mixture. It continues to exist, because it does exist, regardless of whether it's a "sausage", or just a lump of meat.
And this is an analog to "color" which doesn't cease to exist, simply because it isn't perceived by a neural network. It's the same thing that it would be if perceived. But when we say "color" we mean "perceived wavelength of light". Just as "Sausage" means meat and spices in a particular shape. It's a game of words, not a question of existence.

Benshapiro - in his bid to proclaim that consciousness actually causes reality - wishes to suggest that color does not exist unless perceived, and is therefore "created" by consciousness.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 7:40:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 7:23:24 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/3/2014 12:48:54 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/3/2014 12:13:43 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/3/2014 10:15:15 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:16:12 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/2/2014 11:09:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/2/2014 10:25:37 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:39:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

And my point here is that Einstein didn't say that. Then again, can we know that he never said that... perhaps while in the shower, riding his bicycle, quietly to himself while engaged in a thought experiment? But we don't know that Einstein said it, even though a number of people like to claim that he did. So are we wrong when we attribute this comment to Einstein as an authority to put behind the statement?

I think we are. I think we owe it to ourselves to practice intellectual honesty. And nowhere is this more important, than when we're seeking truth. One cannot rationally expect to succeed in a search for truth by using falsehoods,

And so we come to God, Jesus, and the Bible. We never run short of people claiming that Jesus said this, God said that... because it's in the Bible. Any honest research in regard to the origins of the writings in the Bible, and the selection of those writings themselves - if they do nothing more - at least provide a very good reason to doubt these claims and to doubt that what is offered as quotations, actually are. (I would say "they're definitely not", but I'm trying to give in to the benefit of doubt). So what makes it any more honest or ethical to say "Jesus said, 'As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.'", than to credit Einstein with the comment mentioned above?

If you're concerned with truth, honesty and integrity, then when you're tempted to attribute things from the Bible to Jesus, or statements from the Bible to God, how can it be anything but wrong, not to do so with a caveat in the name of integrity, honesty, and the pursuit of truth?

Acts 17
24: The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,
25: nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything.
26: And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
27: that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us,
28: for ..In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, ..For we are indeed his offspring.'
29: Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man.

Classic examples of statements lacking consistency with the standards of reality. YOU may believe God said and did these things, just as a child can believe that Jack chopped down the beanstalk, killing the giant. But your perceptions do not create consistency with reality.

Do you believe God has to be consistent and logical?

I believe a God who doesn't exist, is not the best source of information or morals. But since we receive logic from the universe around us, were we to live in a created universe, it would be created by a "logical" God. But "logical" simply means, how things work.

I know that god exists because I speak for Him. He first came into my mind on December 7th, 1979. After obeying all His commands for 28 1/2 years, He finally had me start testifying to the knowledge that He created me as. I am the Word of God and everything you see, hear, smell, taste, touch, feel emotionally and all the other senses you use to experience life with came from me.

This knowledge is not logical or consistent with God's people who believed this universe was real. But once you understand what I know to be true, then you can see how God's illusions will never be consistent or logical because we'll continue to experience new illusions ( visions and dreams ) forever.

If I agree that you are the word of God, I'm also agreeing that the word of God is shear lunacy. Sorry, that's simply the obvious reality. I'll not pretend otherwise. It would be disrespectful to practice such deceit.

God didn't make you agree with Him so don't worry about it.

True. God didn't do anything, and never has.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 7:43:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 8:16:12 AM, bornofgod wrote:

Do you believe God has to be consistent and logical?

How are we supposed to know that considering all we ever hear and see are the illogical consistencies from His followers. We never hear or see any gods, logical or otherwise.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 7:53:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 7:40:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/3/2014 7:23:24 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/3/2014 12:48:54 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/3/2014 12:13:43 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/3/2014 10:15:15 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:16:12 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/2/2014 11:09:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/2/2014 10:25:37 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:39:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

And my point here is that Einstein didn't say that. Then again, can we know that he never said that... perhaps while in the shower, riding his bicycle, quietly to himself while engaged in a thought experiment? But we don't know that Einstein said it, even though a number of people like to claim that he did. So are we wrong when we attribute this comment to Einstein as an authority to put behind the statement?

I think we are. I think we owe it to ourselves to practice intellectual honesty. And nowhere is this more important, than when we're seeking truth. One cannot rationally expect to succeed in a search for truth by using falsehoods,

And so we come to God, Jesus, and the Bible. We never run short of people claiming that Jesus said this, God said that... because it's in the Bible. Any honest research in regard to the origins of the writings in the Bible, and the selection of those writings themselves - if they do nothing more - at least provide a very good reason to doubt these claims and to doubt that what is offered as quotations, actually are. (I would say "they're definitely not", but I'm trying to give in to the benefit of doubt). So what makes it any more honest or ethical to say "Jesus said, 'As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.'", than to credit Einstein with the comment mentioned above?

If you're concerned with truth, honesty and integrity, then when you're tempted to attribute things from the Bible to Jesus, or statements from the Bible to God, how can it be anything but wrong, not to do so with a caveat in the name of integrity, honesty, and the pursuit of truth?

Acts 17
24: The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,
25: nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything.
26: And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
27: that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us,
28: for ..In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, ..For we are indeed his offspring.'
29: Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man.

Classic examples of statements lacking consistency with the standards of reality. YOU may believe God said and did these things, just as a child can believe that Jack chopped down the beanstalk, killing the giant. But your perceptions do not create consistency with reality.

Do you believe God has to be consistent and logical?

I believe a God who doesn't exist, is not the best source of information or morals. But since we receive logic from the universe around us, were we to live in a created universe, it would be created by a "logical" God. But "logical" simply means, how things work.

I know that god exists because I speak for Him. He first came into my mind on December 7th, 1979. After obeying all His commands for 28 1/2 years, He finally had me start testifying to the knowledge that He created me as. I am the Word of God and everything you see, hear, smell, taste, touch, feel emotionally and all the other senses you use to experience life with came from me.

This knowledge is not logical or consistent with God's people who believed this universe was real. But once you understand what I know to be true, then you can see how God's illusions will never be consistent or logical because we'll continue to experience new illusions ( visions and dreams ) forever.

If I agree that you are the word of God, I'm also agreeing that the word of God is shear lunacy. Sorry, that's simply the obvious reality. I'll not pretend otherwise. It would be disrespectful to practice such deceit.

God didn't make you agree with Him so don't worry about it.

True. God didn't do anything, and never has.

You will have a change of mind soon.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 7:57:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 7:43:31 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:16:12 AM, bornofgod wrote:

Do you believe God has to be consistent and logical?

How are we supposed to know that considering all we ever hear and see are the illogical consistencies from His followers. We never hear or see any gods, logical or otherwise.

Those who think they're followers of God are truly illogical and inconsistent. They have to lie because they have no knowledge of God to know that we're not following anything.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 7:57:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 7:53:38 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/3/2014 7:40:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/3/2014 7:23:24 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/3/2014 12:48:54 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/3/2014 12:13:43 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/3/2014 10:15:15 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:16:12 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/2/2014 11:09:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/2/2014 10:25:37 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:39:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

And my point here is that Einstein didn't say that. Then again, can we know that he never said that... perhaps while in the shower, riding his bicycle, quietly to himself while engaged in a thought experiment? But we don't know that Einstein said it, even though a number of people like to claim that he did. So are we wrong when we attribute this comment to Einstein as an authority to put behind the statement?

I think we are. I think we owe it to ourselves to practice intellectual honesty. And nowhere is this more important, than when we're seeking truth. One cannot rationally expect to succeed in a search for truth by using falsehoods,

And so we come to God, Jesus, and the Bible. We never run short of people claiming that Jesus said this, God said that... because it's in the Bible. Any honest research in regard to the origins of the writings in the Bible, and the selection of those writings themselves - if they do nothing more - at least provide a very good reason to doubt these claims and to doubt that what is offered as quotations, actually are. (I would say "they're definitely not", but I'm trying to give in to the benefit of doubt). So what makes it any more honest or ethical to say "Jesus said, 'As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.'", than to credit Einstein with the comment mentioned above?

If you're concerned with truth, honesty and integrity, then when you're tempted to attribute things from the Bible to Jesus, or statements from the Bible to God, how can it be anything but wrong, not to do so with a caveat in the name of integrity, honesty, and the pursuit of truth?

Acts 17
24: The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,
25: nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything.
26: And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
27: that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us,
28: for ..In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, ..For we are indeed his offspring.'
29: Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man.

Classic examples of statements lacking consistency with the standards of reality. YOU may believe God said and did these things, just as a child can believe that Jack chopped down the beanstalk, killing the giant. But your perceptions do not create consistency with reality.

Do you believe God has to be consistent and logical?

I believe a God who doesn't exist, is not the best source of information or morals. But since we receive logic from the universe around us, were we to live in a created universe, it would be created by a "logical" God. But "logical" simply means, how things work.

I know that god exists because I speak for Him. He first came into my mind on December 7th, 1979. After obeying all His commands for 28 1/2 years, He finally had me start testifying to the knowledge that He created me as. I am the Word of God and everything you see, hear, smell, taste, touch, feel emotionally and all the other senses you use to experience life with came from me.

This knowledge is not logical or consistent with God's people who believed this universe was real. But once you understand what I know to be true, then you can see how God's illusions will never be consistent or logical because we'll continue to experience new illusions ( visions and dreams ) forever.

If I agree that you are the word of God, I'm also agreeing that the word of God is shear lunacy. Sorry, that's simply the obvious reality. I'll not pretend otherwise. It would be disrespectful to practice such deceit.

God didn't make you agree with Him so don't worry about it.

True. God didn't do anything, and never has.

You will have a change of mind soon.

Well, "soon" has been holding out for the past 2,000 years in regard to Christianity so I'm not going to hold my breath. And since there's no indication that any of what you claim is true, perhaps the most accurate response is simply... "or not".
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 7:59:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 7:57:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/3/2014 7:53:38 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/3/2014 7:40:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/3/2014 7:23:24 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/3/2014 12:48:54 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/3/2014 12:13:43 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/3/2014 10:15:15 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:16:12 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/2/2014 11:09:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/2/2014 10:25:37 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:39:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

And my point here is that Einstein didn't say that. Then again, can we know that he never said that... perhaps while in the shower, riding his bicycle, quietly to himself while engaged in a thought experiment? But we don't know that Einstein said it, even though a number of people like to claim that he did. So are we wrong when we attribute this comment to Einstein as an authority to put behind the statement?

I think we are. I think we owe it to ourselves to practice intellectual honesty. And nowhere is this more important, than when we're seeking truth. One cannot rationally expect to succeed in a search for truth by using falsehoods,

And so we come to God, Jesus, and the Bible. We never run short of people claiming that Jesus said this, God said that... because it's in the Bible. Any honest research in regard to the origins of the writings in the Bible, and the selection of those writings themselves - if they do nothing more - at least provide a very good reason to doubt these claims and to doubt that what is offered as quotations, actually are. (I would say "they're definitely not", but I'm trying to give in to the benefit of doubt). So what makes it any more honest or ethical to say "Jesus said, 'As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.'", than to credit Einstein with the comment mentioned above?

If you're concerned with truth, honesty and integrity, then when you're tempted to attribute things from the Bible to Jesus, or statements from the Bible to God, how can it be anything but wrong, not to do so with a caveat in the name of integrity, honesty, and the pursuit of truth?

Acts 17
24: The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,
25: nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything.
26: And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
27: that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us,
28: for ..In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, ..For we are indeed his offspring.'
29: Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man.

Classic examples of statements lacking consistency with the standards of reality. YOU may believe God said and did these things, just as a child can believe that Jack chopped down the beanstalk, killing the giant. But your perceptions do not create consistency with reality.

Do you believe God has to be consistent and logical?

I believe a God who doesn't exist, is not the best source of information or morals. But since we receive logic from the universe around us, were we to live in a created universe, it would be created by a "logical" God. But "logical" simply means, how things work.

I know that god exists because I speak for Him. He first came into my mind on December 7th, 1979. After obeying all His commands for 28 1/2 years, He finally had me start testifying to the knowledge that He created me as. I am the Word of God and everything you see, hear, smell, taste, touch, feel emotionally and all the other senses you use to experience life with came from me.

This knowledge is not logical or consistent with God's people who believed this universe was real. But once you understand what I know to be true, then you can see how God's illusions will never be consistent or logical because we'll continue to experience new illusions ( visions and dreams ) forever.

If I agree that you are the word of God, I'm also agreeing that the word of God is shear lunacy. Sorry, that's simply the obvious reality. I'll not pretend otherwise. It would be disrespectful to practice such deceit.

God didn't make you agree with Him so don't worry about it.

True. God didn't do anything, and never has.

You will have a change of mind soon.

Well, "soon" has been holding out for the past 2,000 years in regard to Christianity so I'm not going to hold my breath. And since there's no indication that any of what you claim is true, perhaps the most accurate response is simply... "or not".

God's people don't know what's true or not because they don't have the knowledge of God to know who they are.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,965
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 8:01:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 6:06:15 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/3/2014 5:16:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/3/2014 12:54:07 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/3/2014 12:18:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Ask yourself if your truthful or honest when asserting that colors objectively exist and exist as an intrinsic property of light. Ask yourself if you're honest when you assert that the human body would be the design of a "blithering idiot". You have the rational faculties to know otherwise. This intentional deception is anything except a search for truth.

I see we've decided to adopt one of Anna's bad habits of trying to drag topics from other threads into threads on different subjects. But.... just because you're you;
- "Color" is the word we use to describe our perception of the wavelengths of light. (This has already been explained.)
- Wavelengths of light do exist as a physical property of light. This is objectively confirmed.
- Our perceptions form as electro-chemical (physical) changes in the neurons of our brains.
- These neurons and the electro-chemical changes are physical, and confirmed to exist.
- Therefore, yes; colors do objectively exist. Giving a name to a perception, does not vanquish that perception to a realm outside of the physical.

Now please copy that down so that you won't be tempted to ask the question another 50-times.

Well if you're a stickler for honesty and truth see if you agree with the following statements then I'll show you where you contradict yourself.

(1) objective reality is everything that exists. Agree?
Everything that exists, has existed and will exist

(2) everything that exists is physical. Agree?
And actions of the physical, yes.

(3) everything that exists would still exist independent of all consciousness. Agree?
Everything aside from the process we call "consciousness". Nothing would cease to exist except for this interactive process. Perhaps your confusion is over the fact that we use the word consciousness as a noun, when it's actually a verb - it describes a state or an action, not a thing. If you thaw a chunk of ice, does the "frozen" cease to exist? Or is "frozen" simply a state (energy state) which can be applied to matter?

(3a) reality doesn't depend on conscious perception in order to exist. Agree?
Yes

(4) Varying wavelengths of light exist independently of all consciousness. Agree?
Yes

(5) colors (blue, red, yellow, green) exist independently of all consciousness. Agree?
It depends on how you wish to play the word-game that you're playing. But I believe you sincerely don't realize that it is a word game.
Light has a wavelength, independent of consciousness.
Our perception of the wavelength is called "color". Said another way, "color" is the state of the neurons which react to the neural responses to wavelengths of light. It is a physical state of neurons in our brain.
If the perception is performed by a frequency counter with an output to a dial-type instrument, wavelength is expressed as "needle movement". If connected to a digital display, wavelength is perceived as a number. Color, needle-movment, and number are all perceptions of the light's wavelength. Just as we call a sonic vibration "tone", and when certain molecules bind with receptors in our nose, we call it "smell".

Without consciousness, the only thing missing is the perception (verb), of the wavelengths of light.

I see the game you're playing. I don't think you understand the game you're playing because you're not seeking to understand it. You're seeking to misunderstand it - to make it be what you wish it to be. Consciousness IS perception. You're seeking to have me proclaim that perception exists independently of consciousness which I will not do because that is incorrect. They are the same thing. "Colors" means perceived light wavelengths. In essence, it's a verb. It describes a neural action, though we tend to express it as a noun.

"Color" is state of neurons when stimulated by signals sent by other neurons, reacting to light wavelengths. So if you want to claim that "color" doesn't exist independent of consciousness, you may do so. But only because "color" means "perceived wavelength", and that perception is a conscious function.

Perhaps this will be easier for you to grasp. A sausage is a shaped wad of meat and spices. If you don't shape it, does the sausage cease to exist?

So from what you've said, you should agree to the following statements.

(1) Colors (red, blue, yellow) do not exist until they are perceived by consciousness. Agree?

(2) in a universe devoid of all consciousness, color would not exist because color is necessarily a conscious perception. Agree?

Next:

(3) colors (red, blue, orange) are part of objective reality. They exist. Agree?
(4) colors (red, green, etc.) objectively exist in a world without all consciousness. Agree?

...

A sausage is still a sausage no matter what mold it's in. When sausage can no longer be perceived as part of reality is when the sausage will no longer exist.