Religion The God Question - part 2

[Present Not Past]

What do you mean "Yes, but"? A photo is a representation of the physical appearance of the person photographed. The physical appearance of the person as photographed may "indicate" what the person is thinking or feeling. Many photographs of people give very revealing indications of what the person is thinking or feeling.

But that is beside the point. My point is that just as a photo is a representation of the physical appearance of the person photographed (whether or not one has any indication of how the person is feeling), so modern brain scans (so I have been led to believe) can show areas of the brain firing up when certain activities are undertaken or emotions felt. To that extent (it is early days) these scans show something of what a person is thinking or feeling. To that extent the brain scanned person's consciousness is "visible".

We can make assumptions about what they are doing or feeling at the time of the photo - that is all. We certainly cannot tell what they are thinking.

We can take a sample of blood from someone and run tests that will give us a picture about the health of the individual at the time of the blood test.
We certainly cannot determine what they were thinking when the blood sample was taken.

 

[Boston tiger]

The term common sense can be used when the other party has no clue on a pretty simple concept and instead of calling them directly stupid dumb arses you then just point out that it's " common sense"

I know the Navy use it as a point of difference with civil population. It'd called using your CDF (common dog f....k. ) "Civilians don't have any CDF .your in the Navy now ..you do ... so sort it out ".. etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[igon value]

The recently hyped Snowy Hydro 2.0 as presented (it might be a good idea, who knows) was a breach of common sense insofar as it seemed to be being suggested that the energy captured by the water pumped back up could be used both for energy back-up and to pump water back up again in a never ending energy-creating closed system. The sad fact is that there is such a loss of energy in pumping the water back up that SH 2.0 has been looked at for years and considered not feasible every time until now. Just when the cost of battery storage is going through the floor. Common sense doesn't tell me SH 2.0 won't be a useful back-up energy supply, only because I have not seen the evidence to reach that conclusion. But I have my doubts.

I may have missed the discussion that you saw, but my read of it was not that it would become a perpetual energy generator, that it could become an addition to the existing operation of Snowy Hydro, which effectively operates as an energy trading scheme. Stores cheap energy generated at low periods of demand, releasing it at higher periods of demand at a profit.

Battery storage is still heinously expensive as compared to hydro storage, and not without its risks (lithium battery fires). There are no large scale battery storage facilities near the magnitude of what hydro can store.

The idea is from Professor Andrew Blakers at the ANU (one of my old lecturers).

http://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/hydro-storage-can-secure-100-renewable-electricity

 

[Pie eyed]

The term common sense can be used when the other party has no clue on a pretty simple concept and instead of calling them directly stupid dumb arses you then just point out that it's " common sense"

I know the Navy use it as a point of difference with civil population. It'd called using your CDF (common dog f....k. ) "Civilians don't have any CDF .your in the Navy now ..you do ... so sort it out ".. etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The Navy tends to use mis-truths, outright lies and alternate facts to make their members and themselves feel superior, when in fact they, for the most part are average people, with access to bigger ways to totally * s**t up. Most armed forces personnel are trained specifically not to question what they may be told is "CDF" for a specific reason, that reason being that the actions they are often being told to undertake are absolutely outside of the realm of common sense.

I await the tired reply of "you wouldn't understand if you are not in the forces" drivel.

 

[Boston tiger]

The Navy tends to use mis-truths, outright lies and alternate facts to make their members and themselves feel superior, when in fact they, for the most part are average people, with access to bigger ways to totally **** s**t up. Most armed forces personnel are trained specifically not to question what they may be told is "CDF" for a specific reason, that reason being that the actions they are often being told to undertake are absolutely outside of the realm of common sense.

I await the tired reply of "you wouldn't understand if you are not in the forces" drivel.

More to do with life and death situations. If you f...ck up you've f...cked up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Windhover]

I have already adumbrated for you, the philosophical armature & metaphysical underpinnings upon which the scientific method is prefaced....And yet, you were still unable to draw the connection.

Your last 4 posts are all pedantic in nature & expose you as someone thoroughly caught up in semantics alone....A trait common to Skilts posting....I'm too old to suffer fools.

At the risk of being accused (again) of being thoroughly caught up in semantics, do you know the meaning of "adumbrate"? If you think you have "adumbrated" the philosophical armature & metaphysical underpinnings upon which the scientific method is prefaced why would it surprise you to be questioned semantically about the adumbration?

[I will studiously avoid the semantic confusion you raise between "underpinnings" and "prefacing" (or, perhaps, underpinning of prefaces) since we don't even get that far.]

It is true I have questioned your definition of "common sense", a definition I note you hurry from trying to defend and I accept the questioning of a definition is, definitionally, semantic. But is the definition of "common sense", your claim to an alternative to the "scientific method" as a means of understanding the World, so unimportant to our discussion that "whatever you claim it is", however ridiculous, should just be accepted?

More importantly, you mischaracterise my posts grievously by claiming they are only semantic. I give a single quote from a post, both to prove my point but also to get you to direct that old mind of yours to a question that you have NOT ANSWERED TWICE.

[You threw poor old Ari and his Categories and s**t into the debate. I responded as quoted:

[If you think (as apparently you do) that something you have interpreted from a reading of Aristotle's Categories & Metaphysics might usefully add to your argument it really is incumbent upon you to (a) state what your interpretation is and (b) how it might inform my opinion as you seem to think it would.]

What you have given me is a bit of gumph that shows you know how to cut and paste on the internet. Good for you.

What you have not done is explain what you get out of Aristotle relevant to our discussion and how it might inform my opinion in respect of those matters. Then, maybe, I could "try and read up" in a focused way and respond. Dig it?]

It seems you think merely by raising Aristotle and his Categories etc no further explanation of your position is necessary. (Indeed, insofar as you have "adumbrated" anything, this is about as much as can be guessed fits that description). Even you must see how jejune such an appeal to (a claimed) authority is.

It is impossible for me to argue with "shadows" (or even "overshadows"). Unless and until you explain what you get out of Ari AND how it might persuade me that "the philosophical armature and underpinnings upon which the scientific method is prefaced" reveals a deficiency that must, or perhaps might, be augmented by belief in God, or whatever.

Thanks in advance Pro, no more lame "its all semantic" excuses. Pull your finger out and answer the entirely non-semantic question.

 

[Windhover]

We can make assumptions about what they are doing or feeling at the time of the photo - that is all. We certainly cannot tell what they are thinking.

I do not understand the distinction you seek to draw between being able to "make assumptions about what they are feeling at the time of the photo" and being able to "tell what they are thinking". Can you help me?

[PS You are still missing my point about the photo.]

We can take a sample of blood from someone and run tests that will give us a picture about the health of the individual at the time of the blood test.We certainly cannot determine what they were thinking when the blood sample was taken.

Again, I dislike your absolutism but I have not, previously, suggested that we could determine what someone was thinking when the blood sample was taken so do not really see the relevance.

As it happens IMO, depending on what the blood sample showed, I suspect we might have a very good idea about what the person was thinking.

For example, suppose a blood sample revealed that someone had what is known to be an extremely painful disease of the kidneys. I am not a doctor (unlike perhaps the Procrastinator) but I imagine it is possible now (or at least theoretically possible in the future) to tell from a blood sample whether a person is conscious or unconscious, awake or asleep or in a trance-like state.

If our blood sample demonstrates the patient is conscious and not in a trance-like state, sure we wouldn't know everything that the patient was thinking. But we would know for sure the main thing the person was thinking, namely F%%% my kidneys hurt. But maybe a brain scan taken at the same time could reveal from the areas of the brain animated by the scan the person was also thinking "the umpire's holding the ball decision against a player of the patient's supported to team was a tad unfair, inconsistent with the spirit of the game and inconsistent with previous non-decisions in relation to far worse infractions perpetrated by opposition players."

 

[Present Not Past]

If our blood sample demonstrates the patient is conscious and not in a trance-like state, sure we wouldn't know everything that the patient was thinking. But we would know for sure the main thing the person was thinking, namely F%%% my kidneys hurt. But maybe a brain scan taken at the same time could reveal from the areas of the brain animated by the scan the person was also thinking "the umpire's holding the ball decision against a player of the patient's supported to team was a tad unfair, inconsistent with the spirit of the game and inconsistent with previous non-decisions in relation to far worse infractions perpetrated by opposition players."

And if the blood test showed that they were perfectly normal and healthy, you would know nothing about what they were thinking.

 

[Windhover]

And if the blood test showed that they were perfectly normal and healthy, you would know nothing about what they were thinking.

Yes. And what is your point?

 

[Present Not Past]

Yes. And what is your point?

Well, obviously my point is a rebuttal of your assertion.

 

[Windhover]

Well, obviously my point is a rebuttal of your assertion.

What assertion of mine do you think you are rebutting?

 

[Present Not Past]

What assertion of mine do you think you are rebutting?

The assertion that you bolded.

 

[Windhover]

The assertion that you bolded.

The assertion I bolded was based on a hypothesis, signified by the use of the word "if".

Obviously, when you change the hypothesis you may change the outcome. You did change the hypothesis. It did change the outcome. No rebuttal.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Brilliant.
Totally readworthy!

 

[skilts]

I
If our blood sample demonstrates the patient is conscious and not in a trance-like state, sure we wouldn't know everything that the patient was thinking. But we would know for sure the main thing the person was thinking, namely F%%% my kidneys hurt. But maybe a brain scan taken at the same time could reveal from the areas of the brain animated by the scan the person was also thinking "the umpire's holding the ball decision against a player of the patient's supported to team was a tad unfair, inconsistent with the spirit of the game and inconsistent with previous non-decisions in relation to far worse infractions perpetrated by opposition players."

It may be equally likely the person would be thinking, "Not more ****ing tests."

 

[cannot]

This is a religious practice that is infecting young Jewish boys without reason,if you don't suck a boys circumcised penis he won't get infected.
Simples.

pretty fair point

 

[Pie eyed]

No one did science though . It was the church who first organised people to just go and do science etc.. universities etc. We will feed and clothe you etc just go and do your thing.
I think it was only in the 1800 that German companies first started paying scientists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

To claim the Church was first to organise people to "do science" is absolute and total bullshit.
The Church took a huge interest in science when it felt threatened by it, yes, but only in an effort to control the outcomes and what the faithfully got to know.
Science existed long before Christianity or any of the existing established religions. In fact all Religion is nothing more than primitive, myth based attempt to explain the universe, an "alternate" science devoid of evidence, fact or peer review. These days it is called Dogma.
The Chinese, Greeks and Romans all well established scientific fields of study well before Christians ever plied their trade.

In reality it was the invention of Christianity in Christianity was the beginning of a scientific dark age.

Claims Christianity had anything but a political interest in Science is a blatant fallacy oft propagated by the Christian cults.

Please understand that this kind of Christian apologetic argument fails for several reasons which fall into the trap of several fallacies including: appeal to ignorance (failing to understand the history of Christianity in how it did little to inspire science during the Dark Ages); confusing correlation with causation (just because a scientist accepts religion doesn't mean his science derived from religion); and non sequiturs (it doesn't follow that just because a few scientists believed in God that science resulted from it). The myth also spreads through the bandwagon fallacy (appealing to the popular notion that Christianity began modern science), and confirmation bias (list all the Christian scientists, but exclude their rejection of dogmas that conflicted with their science).

Just because Christians did scientific work has nothing to do with the founding of science. Not only does it not follow, but science existed long before Christianity, practiced by the Ancient Greeks and Romans. Nor did science derive from the pagan religions as even then, scientists sometimes held views contrary to the prevailing religions. The ancient theological opponents did not have the encompassing institutional power as did Christianity during the Dark Ages. The historian Richard Carrier observes, "In contrast, the groups that opposed science in classical antiquity were small, few, rare, and ultimately powerless. That is exactly the opposite of what happened under Christianity." During the medieval period the little science that did occur progressed with little religious influence or, in most cases, in spite of Christianity, but not because of it.

From its very beginning, the Church has served as a stumbling block against scientific progress. By the time Theodosius proclaimed Nicene Christianity a state religion in 380 CE, progressive science had already stopped. Richard Carrier (through personal correspondence) puts it this way: "Even pagans, though cherishing their scientific heritage (unlike Christians who generally did not), and applying that heritage more avidly than their Christian peers, appear to have given up on advancing science. And then pagans slowly died out, leaving only Christians who were even less interested in such advancement or how to achieve it." Up until this time, Greek and Roman science and medicine stood at the pinnacle of reasoned thought. Although the Christians conserved their own biblical and religious exegesis, they did little to conserve pagan scientific writings to the same degree. The little that the Christians did save just barely survived. As Kenneth Clark wrote, "What with prejudice and destruction, it's surprising that the literature of pre-Christian antiquity was preserved at all. And in fact it only just squeaked through. In so far as we are the heirs of Greece and Rome, we got through by the skin of our teeth." We owe the real foundations of science to the ancient Greeks and Romans, not to the Christians.

A Christian mob murdered the mathematician and philosophy teacher, Hypatia, in 415 CE. I use this date to mark the beginning of the scientific Dark Ages, and its end at the beginning of the Renaissance in the 14th century because of the almost total lack of progressive science done during this period (most scholars today refer to the Dark Ages as the Early Middle Ages. See notes below). Hypatia's death serves as a convenient marking point, not because she died as the last pagan (pagan persecution lasted for centuries after) but because she lived as the last non-Christian of any merit that would teach science in the Western Christian world. Moreover, around this time, the Western Empire had begun to die. The Renaissance marks the approximate time when science began its catch-up with the ancient pagans.

As John Romer wrote in Testament, "As the Western Empire died, it left behind it empty cities with marble ruins lying like great skeletons, at their centres. Slowly the population was transformed into separate and modest nations of small farms and savage armies. There was little international trade and almost total illiteracy." Although Christianity did not cause the fall of the Roman Empire, its reliance on religion did little to improve conditions necessary for free scientific inquiry.

When Christians took over Europe, they abandoned many of the accomplishments of their predecessors. The great Roman aqueducts represented one of the greatest engineering feats of the ancient world that provided clean water to cities and industrial sites for centuries. The wonderful Roman roads once provided a way for transport throughout the Roman Empire. When the Christians took over they no longer supported these great public services and the aqueducts, sewers, and roads became ruins -- monuments to the past glory of Rome.

https://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm

 

[paul180]

Well lets be grown ups for a few seconds.
We are walking with a group. You turn and a person is pointing a gun at you and the others. What do you do, what do the others do?

You are walking with a group, you turn and a person is pointing their finger at you. What do you do, what do the others do?

You are walking with a group, you turn and a person is pointing at you but with a paper bag over their hand.
Some say he has a gun and other don't believe that.

How can you tell what is most likely true?
Look at what people do, not what they say.

Because almost everyone is acting like there is no gun, no mater what they say.

What do we know about the people posting here.
They have a computer etc, they have power to run the computer, they have internet connections.
And most importantly they have the time (some way too much time) to post here.

Lets rank or grade us with the rest of the world, the Billions of people.

Guess what, we are the rich. Jesus tells us that the rich do not get into heaven.

You don't believe this stuff. You say you do but look at your actions.
You should be able to id believers as you walk down the street by how different they act compared to non believers.

But you can't. So believers and non believer act the same, tells you when it comes down to it they don't believe.

You are saying you love your mother but you don't visit, call or write. So you say something but your actions demonstrate the reality of your claims.

 

[Jackaaa]

To claim the Church was first to organise people to "do science" is absolute and total bullshit.
The Church took a huge interest in science when it felt threatened by it, yes, but only in an effort to control the outcomes and what the faithfully got to know.
Science existed long before Christianity or any of the existing established religions. In fact all Religion is nothing more than primitive, myth based attempt to explain the universe, an "alternate" science devoid of evidence, fact or peer review. These days it is called Dogma.
The Chinese, Greeks and Romans all well established scientific fields of study well before Christians ever plied their trade.

In reality it was the invention of Christianity in Christianity was the beginning of a scientific dark age.

Claims Christianity had anything but a political interest in Science is a blatant fallacy oft propagated by the Christian cults.





https://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm

I wish you had added the graph.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Jackaaa]

Well lets be grown ups for a few seconds.
We are walking with a group. You turn and a person is pointing a gun at you and the others. What do you do, what do the others do?

You are walking with a group, you turn and a person is pointing their finger at you. What do you do, what do the others do?

You are walking with a group, you turn and a person is pointing at you but with a paper bag over their hand.
Some say he has a gun and other don't believe that.

How can you tell what is most likely true?
Look at what people do, not what they say.

Because almost everyone is acting like there is no gun, no mater what they say.

What do we know about the people posting here.
They have a computer etc, they have power to run the computer, they have internet connections.
And most importantly they have the time (some way too much time) to post here.

Lets rank or grade us with the rest of the world, the Billions of people.

Guess what, we are the rich. Jesus tells us that the rich do not get into heaven.

You don't believe this stuff. You say you do but look at your actions.
You should be able to id believers as you walk down the street by how different they act compared to non believers.

But you can't. So believers and non believer act the same, tells you when it comes down to it they don't believe.

You are saying you love your mother but you don't visit, call or write. So you say something but your actions demonstrate the reality of your claims.

You can tell by the way I use my walk,
I'm a woman's man: no time to talk




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Ok Boomer]

Religion separates and distinguishes smart, logical people, from the people who aren't. That is probably its only useful purpose.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Religion separates and distinguishes smart, logical people, from the people who aren't. That is probably its only useful purpose.

Odd....Most of the idiots I know are atheists.

 

[HARKER]

Odd....Most of the idiots I know are atheists.

That's odd, because the two have no reason to be bound, but I guess that may depend on ones notion of what 'idiot' means.
I think you're lying there anyway.

By far and large fools are those that simply accept others' versions of events without question.......and that goes beyond religion.
They're fools because they don't care to question, for questioning is time consuming and you know.....we haven't got time for that.

 

[The Unforgiven]

Religion separates and distinguishes smart, logical people, from the people who aren't. That is probably its only useful purpose.

As much as I'd like to agree with you, the facts allow me to do anything but.

I've done a lot of (internet) research into this very topic, only to uncover nothing.

Most people are religious because their parents were religious. That's a fact.

There's been no correlation found between stupid people and religious beliefs.

Some of the smartest people in the world are religious. Some of the dumbest are atheists.

I'd love to see some more conclusive evidence before we can gleefully make such claims.

Don't get me wrong; I think belief in an almighty being, i.e. the Abrahamic god is dumb.

I just don't subscribe to everyone else who believes in the Abrahamic god, or any god for that matter, are indeed dumb.

 

[HARKER]

Some of the smartest people in the world are religious. Some of the dumbest are atheists.

Don't want to get into this argument, but there is simply no foundation to that statement.

Even on face value, it makes no sense at all........i.e. Prove it.