Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[Stranger]

A lot of assertions in there, care to justify?

#641 Do keep up.

[Dicky Underpants]

It's funny, they seem to be acting out of self interest.
I think it was Socrates years before in another country who suggested that a perfect human being were they to appear would be set upon and killed as a dead certainty.

One of Socrates' sillier statements. No one has any idea what a 'perfect human being' is, for a start. And people are daily being set upon and killed for all kinds of reasons, very often when they are completely innocent victims of other people's murderously deluded behaviour.

How would anyone recognise a 'perfect human being'? I suppose you wish to attribute such characteristics to Jesus, but if we are to believe the gospel testimony in certain verses (e.g. the walk to Emmaus in Luke) Jesus is referred to as no more than 'a great prophet', and most likely not thought to be 'perfect', Doubting Thomas from dubious John's testimony notwithstanding.

[Nearly Sane]

One of Socrates' sillier statements. No one has any idea what a 'perfect human being' is, for a start. And people are daily being set upon and killed for all kinds of reasons, very often when they are completely innocent victims of other people's murderously deluded behaviour.

How would anyone recognise a 'perfect human being'? I suppose you wish to attribute such characteristics to Jesus, but if we are to believe the gospel testimony in certain verses (e.g. the walk to Emmaus in Luke) Jesus is referred to as no more than 'a great prophet', and most likely not thought to be 'perfect', Doubting Thomas from dubious John's testimony notwithstanding.

The perfect human being is all human beings put together, it is a collective, it is all of us together that make perfection.

Socrates

[Gonnagle]

Dear Thread,

Wooohooo, wee Socrates, bring it on

The famous dictum, "The unexamined life is not worth living," is attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates.
Context:
This quote is often associated with Socrates' defense during his trial for impiety and corrupting the youth, as recorded by Plato in his "Apology".
Meaning:
Socrates' statement emphasizes the importance of self-reflection, questioning one's beliefs and values, and striving for a life of meaning and purpose.
Philosophical Significance:
The quote highlights the importance of critical thinking and the pursuit of knowledge, suggesting that a life without examination is not a fulfilling one.



Which always makes me think of and vicky verky,

"Take the beam out of your own eye" is a biblical metaphor, meaning to prioritize addressing your own flaws and shortcomings before criticizing or judging the flaws of others.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Biblical Context:
This phrase comes from Matthew 7:3-5, where Jesus warns against hypocrisy, where people are quick to point out the faults of others while ignoring their own.
The Metaphor:
The "beam" represents a significant fault or sin in one's own life, while the "speck" represents a minor fault in someone else's.
The Message:
Jesus is saying that before you can help someone else, you need to first address your own issues.
Self-Reflection:
The phrase encourages self-examination and humility, emphasizing the importance of focusing on personal growth and repentance.
Avoiding Hypocrisy:
The saying warns against the hypocrisy of judging others while being blind to one's own failings.
Focus on Personal Growth:
The "beam" metaphor encourages individuals to focus on their own character development and spiritual growth, rather than constantly criticizing others.

Which then leads you onto, wait for it, stand by yer beds

In Buddhism, "finding yourself" involves understanding the impermanence of the self and the interconnectedness of all things, rather than a fixed, separate entity, through practices like meditation and mindfulness, leading to a deeper understanding of reality and oneself.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
The Concept of "No-Self" (Anatta):
A core tenet of Buddhism is the idea that there is no permanent, unchanging self or soul (Anatta). Instead, we are a constantly changing collection of experiences, thoughts, and emotions.
Mindfulness and Meditation:
Practices like mindfulness and meditation help us observe our thoughts and feelings without judgment, allowing us to see the impermanence of everything, including our own sense of self.
Interconnectedness:
Buddhism emphasizes the interconnectedness of all things, highlighting that we are all part of a larger whole. This understanding can lead to greater compassion and a sense of belonging.
The Path to Enlightenment:
By understanding the nature of reality and letting go of clinging to a fixed self, we can move towards a state of enlightenment or liberation from suffering (Nirvana).
Practical Application:
Buddhist teachings offer practical guidance for living a meaningful and fulfilling life, focusing on ethical conduct, mental discipline, and wisdom.
Self-Reflection:
Buddhism encourages self-reflection and introspection, helping individuals understand their thoughts, emotions, and motivations.

Self reflection and introspection

Jesus, Socrates and Buddha all in the one post, I am spoiling you lot

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which makes Christianity utterly absurd and the Christian God an unjust, bloodthirsty, vindictive monster.

It's mad. God has decided that we all need punishing for being the way it made us,

But Stranger, this isn't what Christianity says since it misses out the foundational story of Genesis where mankind is made in Harmony and the likeness of God and maintains for a while a relationship with God and others. There was no programme for Mankind for wrong doing. Wrong doing is not a physically determined thing, heck, physics has no position on right or wrong. Christianity says that that choice to do wrong became part of humanity's heritage"

but we can get let off because it cosplayed a human

Again, that's your own take

and got itself tortured

Victim blaming and also Jesus could have easily Courted a quicker death at those times

to a temporary three-day death,

In a sense all human deaths will be temporary since we will be raised to judgment

but only if we believe this insanity. A clearly unjust fake substitute blood sacrifice

As mentioned before JESUS was put to death by human authorities in an unjust way. But he also bore the sins of the world and good, unintended by those authorities came out of that act which is God's plan for a fallen humanity, but He will not force that on us.

for the 'crime' of being human,

Wrong doing was a human innovation. Because of Christ the way back to God is open.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The perfect human being is all human beings put together, it is a collective, it is all of us together that make perfection.

Socrates

Perhaps that why we have a tendency to set upon and kill each other?

I'm minded of what Atheist philosopher John Gray reckoned.

"Humanity is just as much a work of the imagination as God".

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But Stranger, this isn't what Christianity says since it misses out the foundational story of Genesis where mankind is made in Harmony and the likeness of God and maintains for a while a relationship with God and others. There was no programme for Mankind for wrong doing. Wrong doing is not a physically determined thing, heck, physics has no position on right or wrong. Christianity says that that choice to do wrong became part of humanity's heritage"

Again, that's your own take

Victim blaming and also Jesus could have easily Courted a quicker death at those times

In a sense all human deaths will be temporary since we will be raised to judgment

As mentioned before JESUS was put to death by human authorities in an unjust way. But he also bore the sins of the world and good, unintended by those authorities came out of that act which is God's plan for a fallen humanity, but He will not force that on us.

Wrong doing was a human innovation. Because of Christ the way back to God is open.

This Reply is an odd mix of bad reasoning and blind faith assertions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Speak for yourself. I haven't self harmed.

Have you seen the quality of your posts lately?

[Stranger]

But Stranger, this isn't what Christianity says since it misses out the foundational story of Genesis where mankind is made in Harmony and the likeness of God and maintains for a while a relationship with God and others. There was no programme for Mankind for wrong doing. Wrong doing is not a physically determined thing, heck, physics has no position on right or wrong. Christianity says that that choice to do wrong became part of humanity's heritage"

You really can't see the injustice, can you? Talk about blind faith! Who decided that sin was heritable? Your unjust monster God had a hissy fit at Adam and Eve for eating the wrong fruit (or whatever you think that represents), and condemned all of humanity for it.

Now we are threatened with punishment for being punished for somebody else's actions.

Victim blaming and also Jesus could have easily Courted a quicker death at those times

This makes zero sense. Was it not God's plan for Jesus to get crucified?

As mentioned before JESUS was put to death by human authorities in an unjust way. But he also bore the sins of the world and good, unintended by those authorities came out of that act which is God's plan for a fallen humanity...

Being 'fallen' is all God's injustice. Nobody alive today is to blane for eating the wrong fruit.

Wrong doing was a human innovation.

Not in your story book, it isn't. Who put the tree in the garden and made the rule not to eat it?

[jeremyp]

Have you seen the quality of your posts lately?

It's clearly pretty high given that you can do nothing in response except write petty insults.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger,

Not in your story book, it isn't. Who put the tree in the garden and made the rule not to eat it?

Its a Myth, Ekim will be along in a minute to explain, better still read Karen Armstrong's "A brief history of myth".

Sometimes old chap you are more fundier than the fundies.

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

Dear Stranger,

Not in your story book, it isn't. Who put the tree in the garden and made the rule not to eat it?

Its a Myth, Ekim will be along in a minute to explain, better still read Karen Armstrong's "A brief history of myth".

Sometimes old chap you are more fundier than the fundies.

Except people like Vlad will happily it seems throw together a dog's breakfast Reply of myth, bad reasoning, unjustified assertions and blind faith claims as if they were epistemically equivalent. It's impossible to know therefore how each is intended to be received. Have a look at Reply 679 for a recent example.     

[Stranger]

Its a Myth, Ekim will be along in a minute to explain, better still read Karen Armstrong's "A brief history of myth".

Sometimes old chap you are more fundier than the fundies.

I know it's a myth. Jeez.

I've been putting "or whatever you think it represents" in most of my posts but you found one I didn't. Vlad appeared to be taking 'original sin' seriously, so presumably he thinks the myth represents something.

Whether or not you believe in 'original sin' the whole 'Jesus died for our sins' madness indicates an unjust God that condemns us for being how it made us.

[Gonnagle]

I know it's a myth. Jeez.

I've been putting "or whatever you think it represents" in most of my posts but you found one I didn't. Vlad appeared to be taking 'original sin' seriously, so presumably he thinks the myth represents something.

Whether or not you believe in 'original sin' the whole 'Jesus died for our sins' madness indicates an unjust God that condemns us for being how it made us.

Dear Stranger,

My apologies, original sin, St Augustine, nope, carry on beating old Vlad over the head, last time I heard about that was someone suggesting babies are born sinful, never liked that, and I never heard Jesus mention it.

Gonnagle.

PS: Don't blaspheme, baby Jesus does not like it✝️

[Dicky Underpants]

Dear Stranger,

Not in your story book, it isn't. Who put the tree in the garden and made the rule not to eat it?

Its a Myth, Ekim will be along in a minute to explain, better still read Karen Armstrong's "A brief history of myth".

Sometimes old chap you are more fundier than the fundies.

Gonnagle.

Dear Gonners
Karen Armstrong does have some interesting things to say about the difference between Mythos and Logos, and implies that the ancients knew full well how to distinguish between them. I'm not so sure. Maybe they took Genesis 2 as pure myth, and were encouraged to do so by their priests (interestingly there is no further mention of Genesis 2 in the whole OT, apart from a genealogy or two).
But what about Genesis 1? This is shakier ground. We know that the identified author (known as the Priestly Author) was obsessed with  accurate time details from his other writings. This would indicate he believed creation occurred within 6 literal days. Well, no doubt we can take that as myth, from a modern point of view, and since this story makes no mention of Original Sin, maybe we can ignore chapter 2.
However, Vlad and Alan like to weave in and out of myth and literal as the mood takes them, in order to shore up a faith position which they have previously based their lives on. Suffering and evil require a good deal of explaining, but I'm afraid the biblical (especially Pauline) myths don't cut the mustard for me.

[Dicky Underpants]

Dear Stranger,

My apologies, original sin, St Augustine, nope, carry on beating old Vlad over the head, last time I heard about that was someone suggesting babies are born sinful, never liked that, and I never heard Jesus mention it.

Gonnagle.

PS: Don't blaspheme, baby Jesus does not like it✝️

Well, at last you've put your cards on the table, Gonners. It is nice to be straight with people.

[Nearly Sane]

Well, at last you've put your cards on the table, Gonners. It is nice to be straight with people.

Has Gonzo ever not been straight with people,

[Dicky Underpants]

Has Gonzo ever not been straight with people,

He was beating about the bush on the question of Original Sin and the vicarious atonement and deflecting direct questions from Stranger, and indeed from myself

[Nearly Sane]

He was beating about the bush on the question of Original Sin and the vicarious atonement and deflecting direct questions from Stranger, and indeed from myself

Don't read it like that, i think he has a differerent approach to writing

[Gonnagle]

Dear Gonners
Karen Armstrong does have some interesting things to say about the difference between Mythos and Logos, and implies that the ancients knew full well how to distinguish between them. I'm not so sure. Maybe they took Genesis 2 as pure myth, and were encouraged to do so by their priests (interestingly there is no further mention of Genesis 2 in the whole OT, apart from a genealogy or two).
But what about Genesis 1? This is shakier ground. We know that the identified author (known as the Priestly Author) was obsessed with  accurate time details from his other writings. This would indicate he believed creation occurred within 6 literal days. Well, no doubt we can take that as myth, from a modern point of view, and since this story makes no mention of Original Sin, maybe we can ignore chapter 2.
However, Vlad and Alan like to weave in and out of myth and literal as the mood takes them, in order to shore up a faith position which they have previously based their lives on. Suffering and evil require a good deal of explaining, but I'm afraid the biblical (especially Pauline) myths don't cut the mustard for me.

Dear Dicky,

As I read it it is not a point of distinguishing, logos is 2+2=4, Mythos is 🎶 whats it all about alfie 🎵 two totally different ways of thinking, as in old Achilles or Samson, what is your Achilles heal Dicky, Mythos and Logos, two totally different ways of teaching.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Your mention of compatibilism suggests that you're making the same mistake that our Alan so frequently makes, in thinking determinism means fatalism and it's therefore pointless to try to persuade or argue a point. Obviously this is not the case because everything we experience changes us to some degree, so it's perfectly possible to persuade and be persuaded. Every word either of us posts will affect everybody who reads them in some way and to some degree.

Critical thinking is a learnable skill that people can choose or reject. Even just learning that it's better to challenge what you believe rather than just look for confirmation all the time, is useful.

Obviously you don't actually believe that it's pointless to argue a point of view and that people can't change because "all your beliefs are not chosen", otherwise you would never post a point of view at all, let alone have these sorts of argument. And you criticise my ability to be logically consistent...

Well,yes because I see the obvious conclusion that free will doesn't exist as uninteresting because on a daily basis because we act as if it does, whereas you desperatly need to deny that, rather like AB, using an argumentum ad consequentiam that fatalism which I don't argue for is wrong, because that's the caricature you need to make.

[Nearly Sane]

I can see why Gonnagle may think that way but that doesn't make it an accurate way of thinking.

It's his way of thinking. He's telling you that. Why is your way of thinking accurate, and his not? You both seem to be exprssing subjective ideas

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

I tell you this forum is a bloody education, I never really thought about my posts before, just me waffling, my opinions, my feelings, what great thinkers have to say on certain subjects ( especially if  appeal to me, a bit of confirmation bias ) but yes, my posts are mostly subjective.



Subjective ideas are those that are based on personal opinions, feelings, or perspectives, rather than objective facts or universal truths, and can vary significantly from person to person.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Definition:
Subjective ideas are rooted in an individual's unique experiences, beliefs, and interpretations, making them personal and potentially open to multiple interpretations.
Examples:
"This movie was boring" is a subjective opinion, as one person's experience of boredom can differ from another's.
"This painting is beautiful" is also subjective, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Contrast with Objective:
Objective ideas, on the other hand, are based on facts and can be verified independently, regardless of personal opinions or feelings.
Importance:
Understanding the difference between subjective and objective ideas is crucial for clear communication and critical thinking, as it helps us to recognize and differentiate between facts and opinions.
In Summary:
Subjective ideas are personal perspectives and opinions, while objective ideas are based on facts and can be verified independently.

But ( always a but ) the above definitions mention universal truths and it is just my opinion, my feelings, my perspective but that is where you will find God.

Universal truths are statements or principles that are considered to be true for all people, cultures, and times, such as the laws of physics or the inevitability of death.
Here's a deeper look:
Definition:
Universal truths are ideas or concepts that are widely accepted as being true and applicable across all contexts and individuals.
Examples:
Laws of Nature: The laws of physics, like gravity or the laws of thermodynamics, are considered universal truths because they apply to everything in the universe.
Human Nature: Certain aspects of human behavior or experience, such as the need for basic needs like food, water, and shelter, are often considered universal truths.
Life and Death: The fact that all living things are born and eventually die is a universal truth.
The Impermanence of Things: The concept that everything is constantly changing and nothing remains static is another commonly cited universal truth.
The Pursuit of Happiness: While the definition of happiness may vary, the desire for it is a universal human experience.
Distinction from Relative Truths:
Relative truths are those that are true in a specific context or for a particular group of people, but not necessarily for everyone.
Synonyms:
Axiom, general truth, home truth, intrinsic truth, postulate, self-evident truth, truism.

Lets talk about universal truths, I will go first, Happiness, for me I am more at home with the word contentment, I have a roof over my head, food in the fridge, money in the bank, I am content, I may not have those things in the future but right now I am content, am I happy, I do have my happy moments but I think I recognise them more because I am content.

Come on forum give this subjective poster your thoughts on Universal Truths

Gonnagle.

[Dicky Underpants]

Dear Dicky,

As I read it it is not a point of distinguishing, logos is 2+2=4, Mythos is 🎶 whats it all about alfie 🎵 two totally different ways of thinking, as in old Achilles or Samson, what is your Achilles heal Dicky, Mythos and Logos, two totally different ways of teaching.

Gonnagle.

Don't understand that at all. First you say it is not a point of distinguishing, then you say that they are two totally different ways of thinking.
I'm saying it's not always possible to be sure which way the ancients intended a text to be read. We can of course read all sorts of things into an ancient text, and we may be right or completely wrong to do so.
For example, when Paul wrote "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive", most modern non-fundamentalists would interpret 'Adam' as meaning the typical flawed human animal who had not seen the possibility of a more deeply fulfilled life which Christ's life had made possible. It's just as likely that Paul believed in a literal original Adam, who sinned and caused all subsequent generations to sin. And "who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Why Jesus of course...
Or maybe not.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Stranger,

My apologies, original sin, St Augustine, nope, carry on beating old Vlad over the head, last time I heard about that was someone suggesting babies are born sinful, never liked that, and I never heard Jesus mention it.

Gonnagle.

PS: Don't blaspheme, baby Jesus does not like it✝️

St Augustine's theory of Original sin, differs from that of many of his Eastern peers, but that aside there is a secular version of it including "Society is to blame","We are all flawed individuals" " only human etc" plus an acknowledgement of the problems bequeathed to us from previous generations due to morally bad choices.
But if those troubles are rooted in history, then the buck has to stop somewhere in a much reduced historical population.