Just for entertainment purposes I'd like to see you argue with a Jesuit priest that the Inquisitors were not Christians.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Mega Churches
Mega ChurchesFollow
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Just for entertainment purposes I'd like to see you argue with a Jesuit priest that the Inquisitors were not Christians.
The tricky part is establishing the "if you're not a good Christian, you aren't really a Christian at all" link, but I'm pretty sure that's also doable with some work (not having a Jesuit priest to argue with, I can't say for sure).
were the beliefs in line with the founder's teachings or actions, and do they flow from it?
It does not matter. There are no "teachings". There is "arbitrary interpretation of vagueness".
For some things there may be honest doubt, but but it's really hard to see an inquisition in line with both jesus's teachings and the early church. If jesus said explicitly to seize power and use coercion to win believers, then yeah.
Clearly you don't know much about the early church, unless if by "early" you mean the first century CE.
its not pedantic at all, and it could be argued that the mormons don't fit this role at all, because christ isn't a supernatural being to them.
Yes, yes it is pedantic, and yes, Mormons do consider Christ supernatural. They think he was the son of God, that he was resurrected, and that after he was resurrected he strolled on over across the Atlantic and ministered to the Sioux. How shockingly ignorant can one person possibly?
Definition in religious matters is very important, because it's very easy to have a radical change just by altering a few beliefs. A gnostic conception of christ is so radically different from an orthodox one that it's almost a different religion, despite the shared terminology.
It's not even slightly important. No religion in history has maintained a consistent orthodoxy for any length of time. Those that attempt to fail and die out because, and I don't want to shock you here, THEY'RE ALL ******** YOU FUCKING RUBE.
because it destroys the sense we are free-willed moral agents.
No. You know what destroys the sense we are free-willed moral agents? Belief in an omniscient god. Were such a being to exist, free will could not, by definition.
That our actions are influenced by neurochemistry is a revelation only to ludicrously insecure control freaks clinging to some notion that they have the power to decide 100% of all of their actions and emotions. You don't. Oh well. You don't if God exists, you don't if the Easter Bunny really hides eggs. You, and everyone else can be trivially, easily manipulated into doing virtually anything. If there were great benefit to the ruling classes to be derived by you eating your children, you could be made to eat your children. EASILY. Welcome to the human condition.
Is it? If I am compelled by a third party to kill someone, as opposed to killing someone without compulsion, is that an academic difference?
Without proof that it's it occurring, yes, it's a completely meaningless distinction.
If it's proven we don't have any real choice in our behaviors due to other factors, it changes the tone of the moral act.
Of course it doesn't. You can't really be this slow. If there is no free will, then you becoming aware that there is no free will is predetermined as is your reaction to it, as are your moral judgments. The "tone" of morality can't change based on your awareness of the lack of free will because nothing changes in a deterministic situation. That's the fucking point. For the moral "tone" to change, there would have to be free will. So, without the existence a priori of free will, the entire concept of morality is meaningless.
Like say people are religious due to a specific section of the brain, or a certain gene expressed in the person. That wouldn't be academic, but it would cast doubt on the entire faith the person holds.
Of course it wouldn't. If evidence were able to dispel faith, faith wouldn't exist. The entire point of faith is belief in the face lack of evidence, belief in the face of contrary evidence, even belief in face of incalculable suffering. Read Job. Or Aquinas. Or the Koran. Or the Torah. Or the Bhagavad Gita. Or the Diamond Sutra. Or THE kitab-i-aqdas.
The only religions that can co-exist with sciene are those that not only require blind faith in the face of the lack of evidence, but those where it is the CENTRAL TENET.
To be moral agents, we have to be convinced we are choosing free of compulsion, be it biological or otherwise. Free will isn't meaningless, but one of the serious questions of modern ethics.
It's entirely meaningless. It's completely irrelevant to ethics except in the most esoteric sense. It's certainly completely irrelevant to APPLIED ethics.
If our brain actions ultimately decide the behavior, it does so without logical thought, and we use logic to justify something that is more or less biologically structured.
Learn to fucking read, or hire someone who can and go back and read my previous post.
It can't be objectively laughable, because laughable is a subjective term.
No, humor is a subjective term. Laughable may or may not be. It's objectively laughable to argue that George W Bush is 1000 feet tall. It may or may not be funny.
It doesn't terrify me though honestly. If we can have no real control or no answers, who cares about reductionist or mystical answers anyway? Why should what you say in the end matter as opposed to another? It would just be futility all around, and you would be peddling as much trash as the mystics you describe.
It clearly does terrify you. There's no other plausible explanation for the worldview you're demonstrating. Sorry. The particularly amusing part is that it's quite likely this terror is beyond your control, and you're doomed to have many of your thoughts and actions determined by it. Life's funny, isn't it? It'd be objectively laughable not to think so.
But are you going to die with no control and no real answers too?
Absolutely. Here's the difference, though. I am completely untroubled by this. The fact that I will certainly die, and that I will certainly die without knowing most things I'd be interested in knowing, and that it's a near certainty that once I die there will be not a single minuscule trace of my consciousness left in the universe apart from what I have or haven't accomplished while alive doesn't bother me at all. Maybe I don't have the gene or the brain chemistry that drives you to live such a miserable life of fear. Couldn't say.
If so, then why are you rational? If not, then why do you say that? Like it or not, I'm think you do see yourself as a rational agent, in control and able to find real answers out of the human experience, and you are talking out of both sides of your face on that.
You are, unsurprisingly, wrong. I see myself as human and flawed, incapable of escaping bias even when I'm aware of it and able to avoid acting on it with only the greatest of effort. Again, though, it doesn't bother me in the slightest, because free will and the illusion of free will are functionally identical. The experience of being alive is the point, not what happens at then end. Reason is just a way to avoid wasting large parts of one's life on utterly meaningless ********* In the grand hedonistic calculus of the human experience, does pondering unquestionably unknowable things really end up being a net positive? I'd argue it only ever could if one was terrified of the not knowing. Without that terror there's no particular reason to crave some magical parent figure who has all the answers.
If you believe in objectivity, you have to also believe in some measure of control enabling you to be such. You can't say you have no control, and yet say your decisions, observations, and beliefs are objective, any more than a drunk person could be objective.
Sure. Of course I believe I have free will. Again, let me point out the meaninglessness of this actually being the case or not. If I don't have free will, it's pre-determined that I will believe I will regardless and nothing will allow that to change. If I do have free will, I'm right. So rationally, it's impossible to make the case free will doesn't exist. Because of this, it's also rationally impossible to make the case for an omniscient being.
It's not compelling becuase ultimately people believe they act freely, and we base the weight of moral actions and objective testimony on that.
Yes, and again, it doesn't matter because either we're right OR we're determined to think so regardless. Do you get the paradox yet? Reason can never arrive at the conclusion of there being no free will because reason requires free will to exist at all.
No one says scientists only discover new things because their specific brain chemistry lets them see such, but because they freely and objectively look at the world and perceive it, without bias. No one becomes an atheist because they have no choice but to be one-they do because they have the freedom of thought to see and compare religion and existing reality, and accept or reject descriptions of it.
Because it doesn't matter, not because it's any more likely to be correct.
That's why i don't find it such, it seems to me to be sawing the branch off on which you are sitting.
Yes, well there is this tiny bit about you being a lightweight and me being well educated and smarter than you can conceive of being possible for a human. That aside, read the bit about free will not mattering. Read it in the context of Pascal's Wager if you find that bit of fluff convincing at all.
Some basis of stipulation shape the reasoning behind ethical thought though. You can only reason from the premises you already hold, and if your premise is that you don't have free will, you are making your own reasoning suspect.
You're confused, it seems. I'm not arguing there is no free will, I'm arguing it doesn't matter. See above.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Can you guys just argue about the immaculate conception again? It was funny, and shorter.
Hey, whatever you want to call your "facts" regardless religion still kicks your *** at having an entertaining story to go along with theirs.
Dude, logic doesn't say whether or not things are factual; it says what it would mean for things to be factual. Coherency is much more importance than correspondence. Entertaining stories need not even be that.
You don't really get to decide, especially when you're just picking some necessary conditions out of a hat that happen to please you.
I have met christian atheists before.
Edited, Dec 7th 2008 9:45pm by Pensive
Quote:
Hey, whatever you want to call your "facts" regardless religion still kicks your *** at having an entertaining story to go along with theirs.
Dude, logic doesn't say whether or not things are factual; it says what it would mean for things to be factual. Coherency is much more importance than correspondence. Entertaining stories need not even be that.
Quote:
Just because they utilize the trappings, symbology, and language of Christianity does not mean that they are christian by any measure.
You don't really get to decide, especially when you're just picking some necessary conditions out of a hat that happen to please you.
Quote:
You can't really say "I'm a christian" and not believe in God, for example, because it sends the whole thing tumbling down.
I have met christian atheists before.
Edited, Dec 7th 2008 9:45pm by Pensive
Quote:
Sure. Of course I believe I have free will. Again, let me point out the meaninglessness of this actually being the case or not. If I don't have free will, it's pre-determined that I will believe I will regardless and nothing will allow that to change. If I do have free will, I'm right. So rationally, it's impossible to make the case free will doesn't exist.
Are you being facetious?
***
After reading the rest of you post I have concluded that you are not being facetious. I am not certain that I agree; it sounds more like pascals wager than you perhaps meant it to.
Though if you could give a robust account of why determinism vs will is a meaningless debate it would be really nice. I wouldn't have to care about compatibilism any more.
Edited, Dec 7th 2008 9:53pm by Pensive
Quote:
If it's proven we don't have any real choice in our behaviors due to other factors, it changes the tone of the moral act.
Of course it doesn't. You can't really be this slow. If there is no free will, then you becoming aware that there is no free will is predetermined as is your reaction to it, as are your moral judgments. The "tone" of morality can't change based on your awareness of the lack of free will because nothing changes in a deterministic situation. That's the ******* point. For the moral "tone" to change, there would have to be free will. So, without the existence a priori of free will, the entire concept of morality is meaningless.
Of course it doesn't. You can't really be this slow. If there is no free will, then you becoming aware that there is no free will is predetermined as is your reaction to it, as are your moral judgments. The "tone" of morality can't change based on your awareness of the lack of free will because nothing changes in a deterministic situation. That's the ******* point. For the moral "tone" to change, there would have to be free will. So, without the existence a priori of free will, the entire concept of morality is meaningless.
You just contradicted yourself and validated their point. They are saying that if we don't have free will then the idea of a moral act wouldn't be the same as if we assumed had free will. You stated that they were wrong and then essentially said the same thing, that without free will the concept of morality is meaningless. If someone believed in free will then the concept would not be meaningless, therefore if we don't have free will then the tone or morality will change, specifically that it changes from meaningful to meaningless.
Perhaps you should stop jumping at every delusional chance to insult someone and actually try to understand their meaning.
Quote:
You stated that they were wrong and then essentially said the same thing, that without free will the concept of morality is meaningless.
Meaningless things don't really exist.. er well that's a bad way of saying it.
Meaningless things are sort of normatively compelled to not exist. We might say that free will is a sort of necessary grounding for us to have the debate at all, though I cannot say for certain if that is what shasm is saying, and arguments like that are notoriously difficult to do.
***
erm also, the following is assuming that we are not conflating "meaning" with "purpose"
Edited, Dec 7th 2008 10:03pm by Pensive
Quote:
Meaningless things don't really exist.. er well that's a bad way of saying it.
The "tone" of any action would certainly change were it dependent upon something that exists in one case and doesn't exist in another case.
Whats important is the author's meaning, not whatever meaning people try to twist the words into.
Quote:
Reason can never arrive at the conclusion of there being no free will because reason requires free will to exist at all.
Not really, what you consider reason could simply be your specific instructions from God in a deterministic universe.
Quote:
The "tone" of any action would certainly change were it dependent upon something that exists in one case and doesn't exist in another case.
If morals require free will, and we have morals, then free will exists, and it can't be otherwise. Following assumptions from something that cannot be is a fools endeavor.
Quote:
Not really, what you consider reason could simply be your specific instructions from God in a deterministic universe.
Not really, unless you're using an abysmally antiquated conception of reason.
Edited, Dec 7th 2008 10:20pm by Pensive
Quote:
If morals require free will, and we have morals, then free will exists, and it can't be otherwise. Following assumptions from something that cannot be is a fools endeavor.
Consider this. God created some people to carry out evil and some people to carry out good, knowing full well in advance what each person would do. This is a possible reality in which free will does not exist and morality does. Therefore, morality doesn't necessarily require free will to exist. Your assumption is false.
Quote:
Not really, unless you're using an abysmally antiquated conception of reason.
Not really sure what this means, but nothing that you sense, perceive, conceive, understand, or construct in your mind can escape determinism in a deterministic universe. All of your thoughts are already determined, including your "reasoning."
Quote:
This is a possible reality in which free will does not exist and morality does.
It's really not, not given the definitions of the words that you're using; that's the entire @#%^ing point. All you've done is play semantic musical chairs. You haven't actually conceived of a world like that, rather, you have tricked yourself into believing that you have by clever manipulations of words.\
When we expose a necessary ground for something, we don't have to manually eliminate every other possibility. We can also just show that the alternatives are incoherent and self-contradicting. If the alternative to free will contradicts itself, then free will must necessarily be true.
Quote:
Not really sure what this means, but nothing that you sense, perceive, conceive, understand, or construct in your mind can escape determinism in a deterministic universe. All of your thoughts are already determined, including your "reasoning."
Thoughts are not reason, and reason does not exist as a function of our thoughts. Reason is a set of norms which is governed by coherency, which is governed by modality. Logic does not need any particular universe to be validated; it is validated in all of them, or at the very least all of them in which things like sentient coherent thought exist.
Edited, Dec 8th 2008 12:38am by Pensive
soulshaver wrote:
Perhaps you should stop jumping at every delusional chance to insult someone and actually try to understand their meaning.
We need an emoticon for "butthurt."
Quote:
When we expose a necessary ground for something, we don't have to manually eliminate every other possibility. We can also just show that the alternatives are incoherent and self-contradicting. If the alternative to free will contradicts itself, then free will must necessarily be true.
I agree, but in no way does the particular alternative to free will I mentioned contradict itself (if you are stating that it does then you should probably state why.)
Its entirely possible to have morality in a deterministic universe, as long as you are not simply calling morality free will, which it isn't. You're argument would look much better if we were talking about ethical decisions, but its still not self contradictory.
You're not going to solve a millenniums old philosophical problem with a few words in a blog post.
Quote:
Thoughts are not reason, and reason does not exist as a function of our thoughts. Reason is a set of norms which is governed by coherency, which is governed by modality. Logic does not need any particular universe to be validated; it is validated in all of them, or at the very least all of them in which things like sentient coherent thought exist.
i disagree, but it doesn't matter. Coherency, modality, logic, sentience; anything that goes through your mind (including all perceived physical actions) has already been determined in a deterministic universe.
Also you are assuming knowledge of "universes" of which I don't think you have certain knowledge, but maybe you are omniscient.
Quote:
Also you are assuming knowledge of "universes" of which I don't think you have certain knowledge, but maybe you are omniscient.
Necessary things are necessary in all universes. That is part of what makes them necessary. For example, there is no universe whatsoever in which analytic judgments will be rendered false.
***
That's not actually an example of anything.
There is no universe whatsoever in which a widow has not been married.
Quote:
I agree, but in no way does the particular alternative to free will I mentioned contradict itself (if you are stating that it does then you should probably state why.)
I believe that smash has already set this forth; I am not going to repeat it, because he has not yet responded; however, if I understand what he is saying, then he is just doing a very simple reductio concerning the consequences of determinism. They lead to a paradox. I do not know if that statement turns out to be true, but if they do actually lead to a paradox, then determinism is necessarily false. Your alternative doesn't have to contradict itself; if it contains a contradictory concept, then it can't even be thought.
I am not sure that it is that simple however, since he has at no point rejected the possibility of determinism, but rather stated something like it not mattering whether or not it is the case, which I also believe, but I have not ever been able to put forth a robust account of that belief.
Edited, Dec 8th 2008 2:08pm by Pensive
Has anyone considered that the rules or laws or logic of your "Free Wills" and "Morals" may be strictly subordinate to a type of hierarchical level of governance?
let me translate:
We're I to interpret "free-will" as a random act (random as defined as something that cannot be totally predicted based on the rules presented) ... then a ball rolling down a confined track has free-will to the extent that it can bounce back and forth between the walls and gravity that keep the ball on it's course.
However, I should I add that I do understand Smasheroo's statement that the ball WILL never know that it is on in a track to begin with thus rendering any talk about this pointless, irrelevant, and redundant, and that we should all just shut the hell up about it now before he is forced to shred us all with his Cuisinart of awesome truth and finality.
I also should add that I disagree with the notion that "ball cannot know".
But anyway, WERE I to interpret "free-will" as a random act and "NON-free-will" as a causal act I would argue as WHY there could not be some nesting involved here; as in a certain a deterministic rule-set is governing a thing in certain matters but also that there is a level of chaos involved.. and not to get all William Blake, but matters such as common logic being the foundation of of the entirely of the deterministic rule-set of a thing is always folly due to all unrealized potential that exists for every speck of something realized. This potential is the unseen winds that cause everything around us to happen... we all know that something is going to happen.... we all know that the wind will make the leaves move.. but we cannot determine the pattern in which the leaves move... We do not know where that photon is going to be at a certain time.
Who can deny that **** HAPPENS? I say that is your Free-Will. The Free Will is your soul's wiggle-room within the confinement of it's destiny. Destiny is merely another name for the logical outcome of the "path" that you as an entity happen to be heading toward. The lack of free will there means that you do not have the free will to turn back the clock or fly to the moon. You do have the free will to alter your destiny however but your own awareness of your path operates on a distinctly different level than your existence on the path.
But yeah, I suppose these things that I am saying are easy to discount and disbelieve.. they are only blatantly apparent in all things in nature and science.
math=reductionism=
let me translate:
We're I to interpret "free-will" as a random act (random as defined as something that cannot be totally predicted based on the rules presented) ... then a ball rolling down a confined track has free-will to the extent that it can bounce back and forth between the walls and gravity that keep the ball on it's course.
However, I should I add that I do understand Smasheroo's statement that the ball WILL never know that it is on in a track to begin with thus rendering any talk about this pointless, irrelevant, and redundant, and that we should all just shut the hell up about it now before he is forced to shred us all with his Cuisinart of awesome truth and finality.
I also should add that I disagree with the notion that "ball cannot know".
But anyway, WERE I to interpret "free-will" as a random act and "NON-free-will" as a causal act I would argue as WHY there could not be some nesting involved here; as in a certain a deterministic rule-set is governing a thing in certain matters but also that there is a level of chaos involved.. and not to get all William Blake, but matters such as common logic being the foundation of of the entirely of the deterministic rule-set of a thing is always folly due to all unrealized potential that exists for every speck of something realized. This potential is the unseen winds that cause everything around us to happen... we all know that something is going to happen.... we all know that the wind will make the leaves move.. but we cannot determine the pattern in which the leaves move... We do not know where that photon is going to be at a certain time.
Who can deny that **** HAPPENS? I say that is your Free-Will. The Free Will is your soul's wiggle-room within the confinement of it's destiny. Destiny is merely another name for the logical outcome of the "path" that you as an entity happen to be heading toward. The lack of free will there means that you do not have the free will to turn back the clock or fly to the moon. You do have the free will to alter your destiny however but your own awareness of your path operates on a distinctly different level than your existence on the path.
But yeah, I suppose these things that I am saying are easy to discount and disbelieve.. they are only blatantly apparent in all things in nature and science.
math=reductionism=
#68REDACTED,
Posted: Dec 08 2008 at 2:16 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) there has been an ever increasing distortion to what the bible says as mega churches and even smaller churches will negate the bibles teaching to draw people in. basically a watered down version of what christianity stands for. i have seen the hippocrits that will say all the right things and even do "religious" events. yet they lack the personal relationship with God. i have seen christians say abortion is ok. how is that possible? how can you convince yourself that is moral? the apostle Paul put it good. he said beware of people preaching a "different Jesus". as we know the bible says Jesus is the way the truth and the life and no man comes to the father but by him. i have known churches that remove the cross from the sanctuary cuz it offends people and make them feel convicted of their sins. well that is what the holy spirit does. also your own conscience. it convicts you and leads you to repent. people want a feel good environment where they can be told by a pastor they are fine the way they are. christ calls us to die to ourselves and be renewed in him. this may sound weird to people who don't believe in God. but the Bible says its words are foolish to an unbeliever. they are already have preconceived ideas that there is no God so why would they believe in the bible. it is sad to say that we are stepping further and further away from the simple teachings of the bible. new cults are happening everywhere. so people read the bible for yourself. i can't apologize for all the people claiming to live a Godly lifestyle. only encourage you to look into your heart and see that there is a heaven and hell. and find a church that holds people accountable to the word of God, remember no one is perfect and we all have issues. it saddens my heart to see people that are put on a pedestal and yet they live another life behind the scenes. sin is real and anyone can be deceived. our goal is to live life the way God commands. none of this feel good, give money so you can be blessed garbage. God blesses the rich and poor. it is in him that we find joy. personally i like a smaller church, when it gets to big it gets less personal and eventually it seems that being a christians is only a sunday recreational thing. live life to the fullest and live for God. i am not afraid to tell a fellow christian that what they are doing is wrong. stand up for morality with love not condescending actions. remember some people will refuse to change. they are not real christians. the bible commands us to watch out for our fellow man. i hope that some one reading this truly asks themselves do they really believe in what they say? i challenge you to be real. - dave
davybaby wrote:
there has been an ever increasing distortion to what the bible says as mega churches and even smaller churches will negate the bibles teaching to draw people in. basically a watered down version of what christianity stands for. i have seen the hippocrits that will say all the right things and even do "religious" events. yet they lack the personal relationship with God. i have seen christians say abortion is ok. how is that possible? how can you convince yourself that is moral? the apostle Paul put it good. he said beware of people preaching a "different Jesus". as we know the bible says Jesus is the way the truth and the life and no man comes to the father but by him. i have known churches that remove the cross from the sanctuary cuz it offends people and make them feel convicted of their sins. well that is what the holy spirit does. also your own conscience. it convicts you and leads you to repent. people want a feel good environment where they can be told by a pastor they are fine the way they are. christ calls us to die to ourselves and be renewed in him. this may sound weird to people who don't believe in God. but the Bible says its words are foolish to an unbeliever. they are already have preconceived ideas that there is no God so why would they believe in the bible. it is sad to say that we are stepping further and further away from the simple teachings of the bible. new cults are happening everywhere. so people read the bible for yourself. i can't apologize for all the people claiming to live a Godly lifestyle. only encourage you to look into your heart and see that there is a heaven and hell. and find a church that holds people accountable to the word of God, remember no one is perfect and we all have issues. it saddens my heart to see people that are put on a pedestal and yet they live another life behind the scenes. sin is real and anyone can be deceived. our goal is to live life the way God commands. none of this feel good, give money so you can be blessed garbage. God blesses the rich and poor. it is in him that we find joy. personally i like a smaller church, when it gets to big it gets less personal and eventually it seems that being a christians is only a sunday recreational thing. live life to the fullest and live for God. i am not afraid to tell a fellow christian that what they are doing is wrong. stand up for morality with love not condescending actions. remember some people will refuse to change. they are not real christians. the bible commands us to watch out for our fellow man. i hope that some one reading this truly asks themselves do they really believe in what they say? i challenge you to be real. - dave
My brain hurts from even attempting to read that.
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
Quote:
But anyway, WERE I to interpret "free-will" as a random act and "NON-free-will" as a causal act I would argue as WHY there could not be some nesting involved here; as in a certain a deterministic rule-set is governing a thing in certain matters but also that there is a level of chaos involved.. and not to get all William Blake, but matters such as common logic being the foundation of of the entirely of the deterministic rule-set of a thing is always folly due to all unrealized potential that exists for every speck of something realized. This potential is the unseen winds that cause everything around us to happen... we all know that something is going to happen.... we all know that the wind will make the leaves move.. but we cannot determine the pattern in which the leaves move... We do not know where that photon is going to be at a certain time.
Who can deny that sh*t HAPPENS? I say that is your Free-Will. The Free Will is your soul's wiggle-room within the confinement of it's destiny. Destiny is merely another name for the logical outcome of the "path" that you as an entity happen to be heading toward. The lack of free will there means that you do not have the free will to turn back the clock or fly to the moon. You do have the free will to alter your destiny however but your own awareness of your path operates on a distinctly different level than your existence on the path.
Who can deny that sh*t HAPPENS? I say that is your Free-Will. The Free Will is your soul's wiggle-room within the confinement of it's destiny. Destiny is merely another name for the logical outcome of the "path" that you as an entity happen to be heading toward. The lack of free will there means that you do not have the free will to turn back the clock or fly to the moon. You do have the free will to alter your destiny however but your own awareness of your path operates on a distinctly different level than your existence on the path.
If I were to try to write something about what I actually believe, it would look something like this.
However, if we're talking about the unknown, I think anything conceived is a possible reality as long as it is not self-contradicting.
Quote:
but the Bible says its words are foolish to an unbeliever. they are already have preconceived ideas that there is no God so why would they believe in the bible. it is sad to say that we are stepping further and further away from the simple teachings of the bible.
I have notions that the earth is not the center of the universe and the sun can't stand still, the earth is older than 10,000 years old, and that it would be biologically next to impossible for all humans to have been descendants of Adam and Eve (among others), but you're right I have been biased by deductive logic and empirical information.
Quote:
We're I to interpret "free-will" as a random act
No one considers free will as random. Free will is an extremely odd amalgam of causality and chance. Hume has a really nice passage on this; let me see if I can find it.
Quote:
i have seen the hippocrits that will say all the right things and even do "religious" events. yet they lack the personal relationship with God.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You mean that there exist christians who aren't southern protestants?
No. *******. Way.
We're I to interpret "free-will" as a random act (random as defined as something that cannot be totally predicted based on the rules presented) ... then a ball rolling down a confined track has free-will to the extent that it can bounce back and forth between the walls and gravity that keep the ball on it's course.
One can unerringly predict the path of the ball given enough information. Now an electron in one of the molecules that make up the ball, now you've got something to argue.
There is a fair amount of not quite compelling but suggestive evidence at the more complex ranges of both physics and math that suggest free will is very likely an illusion or a human construct in tribute to our own ego. You know, like God. That said, it again matters not at all. You can't choose not to believe you have free will.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Okay it's actually really long and cumbersome, but the relevant material is basically 2.3.1.10-2.3.1.15 in the treatise of human nature.
You can't conceive of self-contradictions.
Quote:
I think anything conceived is a possible reality as long as it is not self-contradicting.
You can't conceive of self-contradictions.
Quote:
That said, it again matters not at all. You can't choose not to believe you have free will.
Wait was that really all you were saying?
Wait was that really all you were saying?
Yes. I think you'll find my whole point was that the matter of free well isn't relevant at all if there's no way to demonstrate it doesn't exist by unerringly being able to predict outcomes.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Recent Visitors: 274
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (274)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Mega Churches
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC