|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 17, 2020 2:40:08 GMT
You are talking rubbish. What about my life as it is right now and going back to it? Where did it go to begin with? You don’t know what you are talking about, or how to express yourself with clarity or logical reason, so quit pretending that you know s<>t, when you don’t. Blah, blah, blah . . . You're avoiding the question. Might as well just admit I'm correct and you're wrong. So this is at the core of your belief, to prove others are wrong, when you can’t even prove how right you think you are. You need to question yourself before others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on May 17, 2020 2:43:14 GMT
Yes, and especially people you think are experts, and I'm a bit proud of it. I'm sorry there isn't a better way to help you out of your situation than to describe it rather bluntly. Why are acknowledged experts in a field NOT experts, Arlon? How many degrees in science do you have, positions in Universities or scientific laboratories and years and years of study and practice perfecting your expertise, so that your peers review your work and acknowledge it as of scientific value and worth being added to the compendium of human knowledge? Personally I don't have any however I admire people who do and read their work and take advantage of the benefits that come from such work in my everyday life. I think Ar’s position is, these people all went into science with the wrong notion of what science is and they just kept going down the wrong path. The near 100% fail rate of scientific endeavors I’m sure is his evidence that they were all fools wasting their time.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 17, 2020 3:07:29 GMT
I think God, Allah and Yaweh are the same God, with different names. And I don't believe God really cares if you are a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, or a Hindu. As long as you are a good person. So why does one have to have this belief thing? You got to praise God through prayer and action if you want the benefits, and not the consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 17, 2020 3:09:09 GMT
Blah, blah, blah . . . You're avoiding the question. Might as well just admit I'm correct and you're wrong. So this is at the core of your belief, to prove others are wrong, when you can’t even prove how right you think you are. You need to question yourself before others. If you don't want to believe, don't. It's a free country. I'm not telling you what to do. It's your decision. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 17, 2020 3:13:15 GMT
Then you also weren't around to know if the authors intended it as a parable. It certainly doesn't read like a parable, it reads like an historical account. That's what we were taught. The Bible is a collection of parables. Not an historical account. Your teaching was very atypical then. The problem with reading it all as parable is manifold, including the fact that Jesus's own parables would then be parables within parables. Plus, parables tend not to be historic in nature, and there's plenty of actual history mentioned in The Gospels. There are theories out there that The Gospels are historic in the same way, say, Spider-Man is historic, meaning that it mentions real places and people but the narratives themselves are fictional; but even then that wouldn't make all the stories parables. Parables tend to be short, allegorical and aphoristic, and most of the Gospels are none of those things.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 17, 2020 3:17:04 GMT
So this is at the core of your belief, to prove others are wrong, when you can’t even prove how right you think you are. You need to question yourself before others. If you don't want to believe, don't. It's a free country. I'm not telling you what to do. It's your decision. Hang on a minute! You called we non-believers non-understanding of religion, presuming assuming and making arses of ourselves. You may not be telling us what to do, butt you have called us stupid and ignorant, if we don't believe as you do!
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 17, 2020 3:22:14 GMT
And I already told you that to pretend that believing something's true just because it makes you happy can be extremely foolish, especially if that belief affects other choices you make that end up being the wrong decisions because of that belief. Would you seriously tell someone who went around pretending to be a millionaire, and acting/spending like they were, to keep doing so because if made them happy even if you knew they were actually harming themselves? You can use a million examples to illustrate that same point; dangerous drugs can make people happy, until they overdose; smoking can make people happy, until they get cancer, or suffer a heart-attack or stroke; drinking can make people happy until they get in an auto accident because their judgment's impaired; etc. So, what is one supposed to do if they don't know which --- of two choices --- they are supposed to chose? I say try them both and pick the one that works the best. That's what I did. It's called rationality. You assess the evidence and place confidence levels/probabilities on the various options according to that reasoning, while avoiding irrational pitfalls like Wishful Thinking. I do this all the time in my profession of poker. I rarely know with 100% certainty what the right choice is (unless I have the best hand possible), but I use probabilistic reasoning based on many factors to make the best choice given that information. In poker, just as in life, you will be frequently wrong, and there's no way to never be wrong, but you can try to minimize the amount of times your wrong and maximize the amount of times you're right by reasoning correctly from the evidence. Again, "try them both and pick which works for you" can just as easily apply to the fake-millionaire, to the heroin addict, to the alcoholic, and to the smoker. They all pick which seems to "work best for them." The problem is that the rush of feel-good chemicals they get when they engage in their addiction/pastime is outweighed by the harm they're doing to themselves long term. Same thing in poker. You can make choices based on what feels good/right, and you will be right sometimes, and it will feel good those times you're right; but there's no way to win long-term by just going with your gut and what feels right. You win long term with stone cold rationality, by knowing and utilizing the math of the game, and life is the exact same way. That's why science advances in real, tangible, undeniable ways while religion does not; because science is applying reason to how reality functions and testing its hypothesis. It isn't just saying "well, this seems right" and leaving it there. Maybe in some cases religion is more benign than any of the above, but I'd argue that the same "make a decision based on what feels right" thinking you used to believe in religion will probably be the same kind of thinking you'll inevitably apply to other real life matters, and unfortunately reality doesn't care about your feelings, and your feelings are, again, not a reliable gauge for what's true or even what's good.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 17, 2020 3:24:03 GMT
That's what we were taught. The Bible is a collection of parables. Not an historical account. Your teaching was very atypical then. The problem with reading it all as parable is manifold, including the fact that Jesus's own parables would then be parables within parables. Plus, parables tend not to be historic in nature, and there's plenty of actual history mentioned in The Gospels. There are theories out there that The Gospels are historic in the same way, say, Spider-Man is historic, meaning that it mentions real places and people but the narratives themselves are fictional; but even then that wouldn't make all the stories parables. Parables tend to be short, allegorical and aphoristic, and most of the Gospels are none of those things. Baloney. The Bible says God created everything in 6 days --- including man. No mention of dinosaurs. But archeologists keep finding dinosaur bones. No, the Bible is a collection of parables losely based on human history around the Mediterranean Sea. No mention of India, China, Japan or the Western Hemisphere. It wasn't written by God. It wasn't even written by humanity. It was written by men who lived around the Mediterranean with little to no knowledge of the rest of the world, solar system, galaxy or cosmos. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 17, 2020 3:25:09 GMT
So, what is one supposed to do if they don't know which --- of two choices --- they are supposed to chose? I say try them both and pick the one that works the best. That's what I did. It's called rationality. You assess the evidence and place confidence levels/probabilities on the various options according to that reasoning, while avoiding irrational pitfalls like Wishful Thinking. I do this all the time in my profession of poker. I rarely know with 100% certainty what the right choice is (unless I have the best hand possible), but I use probabilistic reasoning based on many factors to make the best choice given that information. In poker, just as in life, you will be frequently wrong, and there's no way to never be wrong, but you can try to minimize the amount of times your wrong and maximize the amount of times you're right by reasoning correctly from the evidence. Again, "try them both and pick which works for you" can just as easily apply to the fake-millionaire, to the heroin addict, to the alcoholic, and to the smoker. They all pick which seems to "work best for them." The problem is that the rush of feel-good chemicals they get when they engage in their addiction/pastime is outweighed by the harm they're doing to themselves long term. Same thing in poker. You can make choices based on what feels good/right, and you will be right sometimes, and it will feel good those times you're right; but there's no way to win long-term by just going with your gut and what feels right. You win long term with stone cold rationality, by knowing and utilizing the math of the game, and life is the exact same way. That's why science advances in real, tangible, undeniable ways while religion does not; because science is applying reason to how reality functions and testing its hypothesis. It isn't just saying "well, this seems right" and leaving it there. Maybe in some cases religion is more benign than any of the above, but I'd argue that the same "make a decision based on what feels right" thinking you used to believe in religion will probably be the same kind of thinking you'll inevitably apply to other real life matters, and unfortunately reality doesn't care about your feelings, and your feelings are, again, not a reliable gauge for what's true or even what's good. Okay. Did you do that? |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 17, 2020 3:36:15 GMT
Your teaching was very atypical then. The problem with reading it all as parable is manifold, including the fact that Jesus's own parables would then be parables within parables. Plus, parables tend not to be historic in nature, and there's plenty of actual history mentioned in The Gospels. There are theories out there that The Gospels are historic in the same way, say, Spider-Man is historic, meaning that it mentions real places and people but the narratives themselves are fictional; but even then that wouldn't make all the stories parables. Parables tend to be short, allegorical and aphoristic, and most of the Gospels are none of those things. Baloney. The Bible says God created everything in 6 days --- including man. No mention of dinosaurs. But archeologists keep finding dinosaur bones. No, the Bible is a collection of parables losely based on human history around the Mediterranean Sea. No mention of India, China, Japan or the Western Hemisphere. It wasn't written by God. It wasn't even written by humanity. It was written by men who lived around the Mediterranean with little to no knowledge of the rest of the world, solar system, galaxy or cosmos. Whoah, you've jumped from talking about The Gospels to the entire Bible. Genesis, if taken fictionally, would be an allegory or creation myth, not a parable. Genesis is far more complex than any parable, which is why it's been read in a variety of ways, with different aspects symbolizing different things to whomever was doing the interpreting. It's far more "open" than an actual parable like The Prodigal Son or The Ten Virgins. I think you need to read up a bit more on what a parable is. I wish I could find the post way back where I explained the difference between different modes of symbolic storytelling. Frequently, parables are little more than extended similes or metaphors, while in allegories the simile/metaphor aspect is not directly stated but is merely implied. That's also probably why many people DO take Genesis (or even Revelation) literally, because they don't explicitly state their symbolic nature. However, it's a trivial point that, even if you take all of The Bible as being symbolic storytelling (it's not; much of it also functioned as Jewish law) it wouldn't all be parables.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 17, 2020 3:37:34 GMT
It's called rationality. You assess the evidence and place confidence levels/probabilities on the various options according to that reasoning, while avoiding irrational pitfalls like Wishful Thinking. I do this all the time in my profession of poker. I rarely know with 100% certainty what the right choice is (unless I have the best hand possible), but I use probabilistic reasoning based on many factors to make the best choice given that information. In poker, just as in life, you will be frequently wrong, and there's no way to never be wrong, but you can try to minimize the amount of times your wrong and maximize the amount of times you're right by reasoning correctly from the evidence. Again, "try them both and pick which works for you" can just as easily apply to the fake-millionaire, to the heroin addict, to the alcoholic, and to the smoker. They all pick which seems to "work best for them." The problem is that the rush of feel-good chemicals they get when they engage in their addiction/pastime is outweighed by the harm they're doing to themselves long term. Same thing in poker. You can make choices based on what feels good/right, and you will be right sometimes, and it will feel good those times you're right; but there's no way to win long-term by just going with your gut and what feels right. You win long term with stone cold rationality, by knowing and utilizing the math of the game, and life is the exact same way. That's why science advances in real, tangible, undeniable ways while religion does not; because science is applying reason to how reality functions and testing its hypothesis. It isn't just saying "well, this seems right" and leaving it there. Maybe in some cases religion is more benign than any of the above, but I'd argue that the same "make a decision based on what feels right" thinking you used to believe in religion will probably be the same kind of thinking you'll inevitably apply to other real life matters, and unfortunately reality doesn't care about your feelings, and your feelings are, again, not a reliable gauge for what's true or even what's good. Okay. Did you do that? How in the world am I supposed to know what your "that" is referring to given that you quoted my entire lengthy post?
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 17, 2020 3:52:35 GMT
Baloney. The Bible says God created everything in 6 days --- including man. No mention of dinosaurs. But archeologists keep finding dinosaur bones. No, the Bible is a collection of parables losely based on human history around the Mediterranean Sea. No mention of India, China, Japan or the Western Hemisphere. It wasn't written by God. It wasn't even written by humanity. It was written by men who lived around the Mediterranean with little to no knowledge of the rest of the world, solar system, galaxy or cosmos. Whoah, you've jumped from talking about The Gospels to the entire Bible. Genesis, if taken fictionally, would be an allegory or creation myth, not a parable. Genesis is far more complex than any parable, which is why it's been read in a variety of ways, with different aspects symbolizing different things to whomever was doing the interpreting. It's far more "open" than an actual parable like The Prodigal Son or The Ten Virgins. I think you need to read up a bit more on what a parable is. I wish I could find the post way back where I explained the difference between different modes of symbolic storytelling. Frequently, parables are little more than extended similes or metaphors, while in allegories the simile/metaphor aspect is not directly stated but is merely implied. That's also probably why many people DO take Genesis (or even Revelation) literally, because they don't explicitly state their symbolic nature. However, it's a trivial point that, even if you take all of The Bible as being symbolic storytelling (it's not; much of it also functioned as Jewish law) it wouldn't all be parables. No. The Bible is a collection of parables losely based on history. That's all anybody needs to know. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 17, 2020 3:53:53 GMT
How in the world am I supposed to know what your "that" is referring to given that you quoted my entire lengthy post? No. I tried believing, Atheism and being agnostic. Believing works best for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 17, 2020 3:59:32 GMT
Whoah, you've jumped from talking about The Gospels to the entire Bible. Genesis, if taken fictionally, would be an allegory or creation myth, not a parable. Genesis is far more complex than any parable, which is why it's been read in a variety of ways, with different aspects symbolizing different things to whomever was doing the interpreting. It's far more "open" than an actual parable like The Prodigal Son or The Ten Virgins. I think you need to read up a bit more on what a parable is. I wish I could find the post way back where I explained the difference between different modes of symbolic storytelling. Frequently, parables are little more than extended similes or metaphors, while in allegories the simile/metaphor aspect is not directly stated but is merely implied. That's also probably why many people DO take Genesis (or even Revelation) literally, because they don't explicitly state their symbolic nature. However, it's a trivial point that, even if you take all of The Bible as being symbolic storytelling (it's not; much of it also functioned as Jewish law) it wouldn't all be parables. No. The Bible us a collection of parables losely based on history. That's all anybody needs to know. You stating "no" and then repeating what you said is not a counter to anything I said. I've actually studied literature. You clearly have not.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 17, 2020 4:00:48 GMT
How in the world am I supposed to know what your "that" is referring to given that you quoted my entire lengthy post? No. I tried believing, Atheism and being agnostic. Believing works best for me. I will alert the press. Shame I am too stupid and busy making an arse of myself to bother!  Seriously, take a break. You have been demolished, cornered, outsmarted now you only have left a faint bleat of 'I can believe what I like so neah, 
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 17, 2020 4:02:10 GMT
How in the world am I supposed to know what your "that" is referring to given that you quoted my entire lengthy post? No. I tried believing, Atheism and being agnostic. Believing works best for me. Oh, dear, I believe the movieliker vinyl LP is looping.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 17, 2020 4:05:01 GMT
No. I tried believing, Atheism and being agnostic. Believing works best for me. I will alert the press. Shame I am too stupid and busy making an arse of myself to bother! Seriously, take a break. You have been demolished, cornered, outsmarted now you only have left a faint bleat of 'I can believe what I like so neah, Not sure if there's anything more frustrating than to type out a lengthy, thoughtful post, only to have someone completely ignore it and just repeat what they've already said a dozen times before. I'm beginning to think that movieliker says "believing works best for me" so much he should invest in some t-shirts with the slogan. At this point, it's basically just his mantra-like propaganda defense against reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 17, 2020 4:16:07 GMT
I will alert the press. Shame I am too stupid and busy making an arse of myself to bother! Seriously, take a break. You have been demolished, cornered, outsmarted now you only have left a faint bleat of 'I can believe what I like so neah, Not sure if there's anything more frustrating than to type out a lengthy, thoughtful post, only to have someone completely ignore it and just repeat what they've already said a dozen times before. I'm beginning to think that movieliker says "believing works best for me" so much he should invest in some t-shirts with the slogan. At this point, it's basically just his mantra-like propaganda defense against reality. To me, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, ( like believing) as long as you don't prosthelytise others and/or call them stupid, being an arse or ignorant etc for not seeing things your way. Too many pages have probably been wasted.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 17, 2020 4:20:03 GMT
No. The Bible us a collection of parables losely based on history. That's all anybody needs to know. You stating "no" and then repeating what you said is not a counter to anything I said. I've actually studied literature. You clearly have not. Believe what you want. I like science. Science cannot prove Jesus even existed. Much less He was the Son of God. Same for Noah's Ark, and Moses parting the Red Sea, and Jesus rising from the dead, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 17, 2020 4:21:35 GMT
No. I tried believing, Atheism and being agnostic. Believing works best for me. I will alert the press. Shame I am too stupid and busy making an arse of myself to bother! Seriously, take a break. You have been demolished, cornered, outsmarted now you only have left a faint bleat of 'I can believe what I like so neah, Delusion . . . The last bastion of the defeated. I admire your refusing to give up goz. |
|
