Author Topic: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?  (Read 31172 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12524
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1131 on: October 25, 2013, 06:25:05 PM »

And the guideline is the Bible, which you've admitted: you largely ignore most of what is in it because what does the Bible have to do with modern society today.

It's ironic you state that since you're not an atheist.

-Nam


can you quote me where I said I largely ignore what is in it?

It's an agglomeration of all your comments that make me, and others here, have this viewpoint of you. The reason you can't see it is because you're close-minded to yourself.

-Nam

So you are saying I didn't say it... that you just concluded that about me from ation of answers.  How about that.... interestingly you are quite incorrect.


Not explicitly, no. Again: it's an agglomeration. No, I am not incorrect.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6705
  • Darwins +893/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1132 on: October 25, 2013, 06:56:19 PM »

C'mon, you know I"m going to say Isaiah 53, Psalms 22.... surely those have been mentioned to you before. Everything God has done is just. If he flooded the planet or made people wander, they deserved it. He is a just God.

Very Islamic of you. God is a dictator.  :P

Every abusive relationship is based on this circular argument....the abuser can never be wrong. If he hurts you, you deserved it. How do I know you deserved it? Well because he hurt you. Therefore there is no abuse, only justly earned punishment.  Can anyone else see the problem with this?

It's so sick. It is sad that people really think like this, but in my years as a social worker I encountered far too many people who thought this made sense. And most of the time--both the abuser and the abused-- were religious. The abuser is like god, because god is an abusive SOB as well.  &)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2650
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1133 on: October 25, 2013, 07:17:22 PM »
I haven't asked you to tell me what definition you accept.

Unless you are trying to convince me that you are literally too stupid to understand a very clear and explicit question, this reply is a dodge.

Answer the question I've been asking you for the last 5 or 6 pages, because the answer you have given so far is not what I have repeatedly asked you to provide.

Define "mind" without using a circular reference - you're using the term all over this thread to support your points - I'm asking you to define  the term.

The mind is the immaterial sentience that separates us from the animals. God and humans have this.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2650
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1134 on: October 25, 2013, 07:29:16 PM »

But should be buy Berkeley's assertion? There is simply no sound reason to accept Berkeley's presupposition, and it is indeed a presupposition, that mind-independent objects cannot be held to exist due to the mitigation by our cognitive faculties. It is merely an arbitrary assertion based upon his presumption of theism (his ultimate motivation for the argument in the first place). Now, even though I really enjoy reading Berkeley (and others of his day) it simply does not follow that just because we cannot "go beyond" our perceptions of the world that our perceptions, themselves (our thoughts), are the only things that exist in a material universe, or that we are not justified in holding that an external world exists beyond our minds. Again, this was merely an arbitrary assertion on Berkeley's part to keep his theism (and both Hume and Kant responded - among many others). Further, Berkeley simply could not answer the problem of dreams or hallucinations. He could not rationally account for how nightmares, realistic dreams, or hallucinations could be distinguished from reality (namely b/c he had already rejected their distinction from an external world). Sure, he could just assume his initial presupposition (that his idea of "God" separates reality from fiction) but that is question begging.

Yes, he could. Hallucinations prove the point that we see things only in minds. Considering other people don't experience the hallucinations of others, that is how you know the hallucination was subjective. Everything else that we see is part of God's mind, that's why everyone else can see the same things.

Hallucinations are a problem for materialism because someone is seeing something and it's very real to them. How can you objectively say their hallucination is wrong? It's all based on their own perception. Your own perception didn't see the same thing they saw, so reality would be subjective.

Our whole understanding of the world is based on minds. So, it certainly is nonsensical to state that things can exist independently of minds. Just how would we be able to empirically prove this?

That's why materialism is nothing more than dogmatic.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2650
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1135 on: October 25, 2013, 07:32:49 PM »
However, by Berkeley's own reasoning, god only exists if we think about him - gods are in our minds only. I think that is what atheists have been saying for some time.

No. God is necessary. God cannot not exist. He is like the number 1. The number 1 is not contingent on anything to exist. Once you get to number 2, that is where contingency starts.

God is the non-contingent being that cannot not exist.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2111
  • Darwins +132/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1136 on: October 25, 2013, 07:49:01 PM »
The mind is the immaterial sentience that separates us from the animals. God and humans have this.

The mind is not immaterial. What you're calling the mind is billions of neurons firing off electrical and chemical signals, each connected to the next through synapses. The mind is very much biological, not some ethereal concept like a soul.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2650
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1137 on: October 25, 2013, 08:01:18 PM »
The mind is the immaterial sentience that separates us from the animals. God and humans have this.

The mind is not immaterial. What you're calling the mind is billions of neurons firing off electrical and chemical signals, each connected to the next through synapses. The mind is very much biological, not some ethereal concept like a soul.

So neurons and chemicals can think?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12524
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1138 on: October 25, 2013, 08:02:56 PM »
The mind is the immaterial sentience that separates us from the animals. God and humans have this.

The mind is not immaterial. What you're calling the mind is billions of neurons firing off electrical and chemical signals, each connected to the next through synapses. The mind is very much biological, not some ethereal concept like a soul.

So neurons and chemicals can think?

I feel bad I have to wait an hour to smite you. You say the most stupid shit I have ever seen someone spew.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4617
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1139 on: October 25, 2013, 08:09:27 PM »

But should be buy Berkeley's assertion? There is simply no sound reason to accept Berkeley's presupposition, and it is indeed a presupposition, that mind-independent objects cannot be held to exist due to the mitigation by our cognitive faculties. It is merely an arbitrary assertion based upon his presumption of theism (his ultimate motivation for the argument in the first place). Now, even though I really enjoy reading Berkeley (and others of his day) it simply does not follow that just because we cannot "go beyond" our perceptions of the world that our perceptions, themselves (our thoughts), are the only things that exist in a material universe, or that we are not justified in holding that an external world exists beyond our minds. Again, this was merely an arbitrary assertion on Berkeley's part to keep his theism (and both Hume and Kant responded - among many others). Further, Berkeley simply could not answer the problem of dreams or hallucinations. He could not rationally account for how nightmares, realistic dreams, or hallucinations could be distinguished from reality (namely b/c he had already rejected their distinction from an external world). Sure, he could just assume his initial presupposition (that his idea of "God" separates reality from fiction) but that is question begging.

Yes, he could. Hallucinations prove the point that we see things only in minds. Considering other people don't experience the hallucinations of others, that is how you know the hallucination was subjective. Everything else that we see is part of God's mind, that's why everyone else can see the same things.

Hallucinations are a problem for materialism because someone is seeing something and it's very real to them. How can you objectively say their hallucination is wrong? It's all based on their own perception. Your own perception didn't see the same thing they saw, so reality would be subjective.

Our whole understanding of the world is based on minds. So, it certainly is nonsensical to state that things can exist independently of minds. Just how would we be able to empirically prove this?

That's why materialism is nothing more than dogmatic.
Speaking of dog-matic,ever watch a dog dream?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1140 on: October 25, 2013, 08:09:33 PM »

The mind is the immaterial sentience that separates us from the animals. God and humans have this.

This is not a definition. All you are telling us is what the mind is not (i.e. - not material) but this doesn't work (just like it doesn't work if you ask for a definition of a chair and I say, "It's a non-table thing"). We are asking for a positive definition. You need to provide a coherent definition of what "mind" is (not what it is not, not what it does, not it's secondary effects, but what it is). Otherwise, you simply have no clue what you're talking about. You're just making things up.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2650
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1141 on: October 25, 2013, 08:13:24 PM »
I feel bad I have to wait an hour to smite you. You say the most stupid shit I have ever seen someone spew.

-Nam

You seem to be an ad-hominem factory.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2650
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1142 on: October 25, 2013, 08:16:40 PM »
This is not a definition. All you are telling us is what the mind is not (i.e. - not material) but this doesn't work (just like it doesn't work if you ask for a definition of a chair and I say, "It's a non-table thing"). We are asking for a positive definition. You need to provide a coherent definition of what "mind" is (not what it is not, not what it does, not it's secondary effects, but what it is). Otherwise, you simply have no clue what you're talking about. You're just making things up.

So you are saying that the mind is nothing but chemicals, so God can't have a mind because God is not made of chemicals?

When you dream, where is the world you are in?
How can you talk and hear in a dream? You're certainly not using your 5 senses in a dream....

Another blow to materialism.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4617
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1143 on: October 25, 2013, 08:20:52 PM »
Prehaj

 As you stated you don't follow the rules,a choice you have made. Then you stated God is ok with your CHOICE,because he understands you can't be perfect.

 How do your choices against god make you more worthy than the gay or fat man and the choices they make, knowing God knows they can't be perfect?

In this scenario you all love and accept Jesus  as your savior

Where did I state I don't follow God's laws? God is not OK with a choice to not follow a law that he has made. You can't just say "oh I don't feel like following that law and He is fine with it. You have to ask forgiveness for not following that law. He forgives us because He knows we are not perfect. He does not expect perfection from our acts, but He does expect obedience in our best effort.

I"m sorry you seem to think I said others were less worthy. I can't think of where I could have inferred that-I probably didn't but liberties are being taken.  I am not more worthy and the gay man and the fat man have just a good a chance as being in the Kingdom as me...as long as they accept Christ as their savior.

It is really an interesting topic inside particular churches. Some will not let divorced people, or homos gain membership in the church (though fat people often get a pass) They can attend, but not be formal members, meaning they can't make decisions regarding the church. I happen to think this is very dangerous. It's not up to us to decide who meets God's standards, but some seem to take it upon themselves.
Again I ask why can this law be broken?,,,if it is a law and there is no punishment ,why have the law?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4617
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1144 on: October 25, 2013, 08:21:52 PM »
This is not a definition. All you are telling us is what the mind is not (i.e. - not material) but this doesn't work (just like it doesn't work if you ask for a definition of a chair and I say, "It's a non-table thing"). We are asking for a positive definition. You need to provide a coherent definition of what "mind" is (not what it is not, not what it does, not it's secondary effects, but what it is). Otherwise, you simply have no clue what you're talking about. You're just making things up.

So you are saying that the mind is nothing but chemicals, so God can't have a mind because God is not made of chemicals?

When you dream, where is the world you are in?
How can you talk and hear in a dream? You're certainly not using your 5 senses in a dream....

Another blow to materialism.
ever watch a dog dream?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2650
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1145 on: October 25, 2013, 08:24:10 PM »
ever watch a dog dream?

No.

Why, friend?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12340
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1146 on: October 25, 2013, 08:25:22 PM »
So neurons and chemicals can think?

Really?  That is your answer? 

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6705
  • Darwins +893/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1147 on: October 25, 2013, 08:27:23 PM »

The mind is the immaterial sentience that separates us from the animals. God and humans have this.

Okay. Now we are getting somewhere.  Some concrete statements.

As a science nerd, some testable ideas occur to me:
1) You say the mind is immaterial. Maybe material things cannot affect the mind, then. If material things can be found to affect the mind, the mind may not be immaterial. People take drugs or get brain injuries; their personality and behavior changes.....

2) You say that humans have minds, but animals do not have minds. If animals are found to have characteristics that seem to come from having minds, maybe humans and animals both have minds. Happiness, sadness, grief, fairness, altruism, memory, learning, creativity and self-awareness have all been documented in animals.....

3) You say the mind is immaterial. Maybe immaterial things cannot affect material things. If immaterial things can be found to affect the material things, the mind may not be immaterial. When people fall in love, get traumatized,  or become depressed, their emotions can actually change the brain structure.....

You say that gods and humans share the characteristic of having immaterial minds. How would you or I test the validity of this proposition? How do we come up with a testable idea for this? I am at a loss on this one. Or do we just have to assume it is true, somehow?  :? That ain't science.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6705
  • Darwins +893/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1148 on: October 25, 2013, 08:28:27 PM »
ever watch a dog dream?

No.

Why, friend?

Well, if a dream is a product of the immaterial mind, and dogs can dream, it implies that dogs have immaterial minds. Right?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6705
  • Darwins +893/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1149 on: October 25, 2013, 08:30:53 PM »
I feel bad I have to wait an hour to smite you. You say the most stupid shit I have ever seen someone spew.

-Nam

You seem to be an ad-hominem factory.

Nam did not call you a stupid person. He said that you said stupid sh!t. That is not a nice thing to say, but isn't ad hominem. Give Nam credit. When he decides to attack you for who you are, you will know it.  :angel:
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1150 on: October 25, 2013, 08:31:04 PM »

Yes, he could. Hallucinations prove the point that we see things only in minds. Considering other people don't experience the hallucinations of others, that is how you know the hallucination was subjective. Everything else that we see is part of God's mind, that's why everyone else can see the same things.

Hallucinations are a problem for materialism because someone is seeing something and it's very real to them. How can you objectively say their hallucination is wrong? It's all based on their own perception. Your own perception didn't see the same thing they saw, so reality would be subjective.

Our whole understanding of the world is based on minds. So, it certainly is nonsensical to state that things can exist independently of minds. Just how would we be able to empirically prove this?

That's why materialism is nothing more than dogmatic.

You cannot escape the subjectivity of human perception and consciousness by merely claiming (by arbitrary assertion) some "God" thing. Your logic fails on many accounts, but for one b/c the term "God" can be switched out for just about anything we don't understand ("Magic unicorns account for the external world!"). You seem to be in the habit of just making things up (and only reading/believing your own biases - Berekley ahum!). Read your own statement above again. You just refuted yourself and don't even realize it. If hallucinations prove that things only exist in minds (i.e. - external reality isn't real)  then you can't posit that there is a God outside of your mind! Either way, you lose this battle. If everything is 'idea' then we are all in the same boat (and it doesn't matter, we still continue on). If everything is not idea (and there is an external world) then we are all STILL in the same boat. You haven't demonstrated (and neither did Berkeley) what you're intending to.

Secondly, you have continually attempted to use the word "prove" as if we all agree with you on your definition of that term and what it means (i.e. - that we all agree with your Epistemology) but we don't. It is not "nonsensical" to hold the position that there is an external reality outside of our minds (had you read Kant you might know that). From reading your responses it seems to me that you have only read just barely enough to try to be dangerous (i.e. - you have not educated yourself on the history of philosophy and you haven't bothered to research the responses to idealism since Berkeley). But catering only to your own bible/Christianity biases in this way doesn't show that you actually care about what's true. It just shows that you are willing to practice confirmation bias to suit your own ends. The pursuit of truth doesn't even enter into it for you, does it? You're just thinking, "I must rebut their answers. There has to be an answer to them. They can't be right. 1 Peter 3:15" (or something like this).

Last, this whole thing about "see the same things" is completely nonsensical and doesn't help your argument at all. Are you just shootin' from the hip?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2650
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1151 on: October 25, 2013, 08:35:05 PM »
ever watch a dog dream?

No.

Why, friend?

Well, if a dream is a product of the immaterial mind, and dogs can dream, it implies that dogs have immaterial minds. Right?

You can empirically prove that dogs dream?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4617
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1152 on: October 25, 2013, 08:35:09 PM »
ever watch a dog dream?

No.

Why, friend?
Dogs dream I asked if you ever witnessed it,what you think of a dog dreaming? Dreams are not strictly the realm of humans
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2650
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1153 on: October 25, 2013, 08:38:02 PM »

Yes, he could. Hallucinations prove the point that we see things only in minds. Considering other people don't experience the hallucinations of others, that is how you know the hallucination was subjective. Everything else that we see is part of God's mind, that's why everyone else can see the same things.

Hallucinations are a problem for materialism because someone is seeing something and it's very real to them. How can you objectively say their hallucination is wrong? It's all based on their own perception. Your own perception didn't see the same thing they saw, so reality would be subjective.

Our whole understanding of the world is based on minds. So, it certainly is nonsensical to state that things can exist independently of minds. Just how would we be able to empirically prove this?

That's why materialism is nothing more than dogmatic.

You cannot escape the subjectivity of human perception and consciousness by merely claiming (by arbitrary assertion) some "God" thing. Your logic fails on many accounts, but for one b/c the term "God" can be switched out for just about anything we don't understand ("Magic unicorns account for the external world!"). You seem to be in the habit of just making things up (and only reading/believing your own biases - Berekley ahum!). Read your own statement above again. You just refuted yourself and don't even realize it. If hallucinations prove that things only exist in minds (i.e. - external reality isn't real)  then you can't posit that there is a God outside of your mind! Either way, you lose this battle. If everything is 'idea' then we are all in the same boat (and it doesn't matter, we still continue on). If everything is not idea (and there is an external world) then we are all STILL in the same boat. You haven't demonstrated (and neither did Berkeley) what you're intending to.

Secondly, you have continually attempted to use the word "prove" as if we all agree with you on your definition of that term and what it means (i.e. - that we all agree with your Epistemology) but we don't. It is not "nonsensical" to hold the position that there is an external reality outside of our minds (had you read Kant you might know that). From reading your responses it seems to me that you have only read just barely enough to try to be dangerous (i.e. - you have not educated yourself on the history of philosophy and you haven't bothered to research the responses to idealism since Berkeley). But catering only to your own bible/Christianity biases in this way doesn't show that you actually care about what's true. It just shows that you are willing to practice confirmation bias to suit your own ends. The pursuit of truth doesn't even enter into it for you, does it? You're just thinking, "I must rebut their answers. There has to be an answer to them. They can't be right. 1 Peter 3:15" (or something like this).

Last, this whole thing about "see the same things" is completely nonsensical and doesn't help your argument at all. Are you just shootin' from the hip?

No, I said that the position of dogmatic materialistic atheism can not account for hallucinations. To the hallucinator, their experience was just as real as you seeing a tree.

Somebody takes LSD and says that "the walls are melting" is seeing that in his own personal reality. Thus, solipsism is the only logical position for an atheist.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4617
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1154 on: October 25, 2013, 08:39:02 PM »
ever watch a dog dream?

No.

Why, friend?

Well, if a dream is a product of the immaterial mind, and dogs can dream, it implies that dogs have immaterial minds. Right?

You can empirically prove that dogs dream?
Why must you be such a prick
http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/mammals/dogs-dream.htm
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2650
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1155 on: October 25, 2013, 08:41:31 PM »
ever watch a dog dream?

No.

Why, friend?

Well, if a dream is a product of the immaterial mind, and dogs can dream, it implies that dogs have immaterial minds. Right?

You can empirically prove that dogs dream?
Why must you be such a prick
http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/mammals/dogs-dream.htm

The 2nd paragraph starts out by saying that "we will never know for certain if dogs dream."

So, it's just a belief that dogs dream, not empirically proven.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6705
  • Darwins +893/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1156 on: October 25, 2013, 08:43:02 PM »
ever watch a dog dream?

No.

Why, friend?

Well, if a dream is a product of the immaterial mind, and dogs can dream, it implies that dogs have immaterial minds. Right?

You can empirically prove that dogs dream?

Yes, inasmuch as we can prove that humans dream-- by recording the electrical impulses coming from their brains while they sleep. How would you know a human had a dream?  If you ask a person if they had been dreaming, they might say no, because they did not remember it. (My MIL never dreamed, or so she said.) But the recording of their brain patterns would show whether a dream happened. So we can do the same with a dog.

Sheesh. Some people act like the computer is just a glorified typewriter instead of a repository of the accumulated recorded information of all humankind......Why don't these people do their own research? Is it laziness or fear of finding out what they don't want to know?  :?
« Last Edit: October 25, 2013, 08:49:02 PM by nogodsforme »
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4617
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1157 on: October 25, 2013, 08:43:33 PM »
You can't ask a dog what he dreams about,you have never seen a dog dream,I have.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4617
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1158 on: October 25, 2013, 08:45:09 PM »
ever watch a dog dream?

No.

Why, friend?

Well, if a dream is a product of the immaterial mind, and dogs can dream, it implies that dogs have immaterial minds. Right?

You can empirically prove that dogs dream?
Why must you be such a prick
http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/mammals/dogs-dream.htm

The 2nd paragraph starts out by saying that "we will never know for certain if dogs dream."

So, it's just a belief that dogs dream, not empirically proven.
God is just a belief not empirically proven
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2650
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #1159 on: October 25, 2013, 08:47:08 PM »
ever watch a dog dream?

No.

Why, friend?

Well, if a dream is a product of the immaterial mind, and dogs can dream, it implies that dogs have immaterial minds. Right?

You can empirically prove that dogs dream?
Why must you be such a prick
http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/mammals/dogs-dream.htm

The 2nd paragraph starts out by saying that "we will never know for certain if dogs dream."

So, it's just a belief that dogs dream, not empirically proven.
God is just a belief not empirically proven

That's what I've been saying all along!

Now if we can just figure out why atheists hold beliefs about many things that can't be empirically proven, yet demand God be empirically proven, we will be in business!
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)