Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Buckeye

I feel better than ever boxcar.

All believers should feel great! There are numerous promises by God on which we can confidently rely.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

You're free to take down Christianity with Nietzsche. I'm just expecting that you'll allow him to take down New Atheist, "Nice nihilism" as well...

http://216.92.33.211/forum/showpost....postcount=2497

https://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/nice-nihilism/

And I suppose that all the great riddles are solved at once and forever by the Tetragrammaton...?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

And I suppose that all the great riddles are solved at once and forever by the Tetragrammaton...?

I didn't ask you to sign up for anything. I merely asked you, in the interest of consistency, to apply Nietzschean philosophy across the board.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I didn't ask you to sign up for anything. I merely asked you, in the interest of consistency, to apply Nietzschean philosophy across the board.

I’m not in bed with Nietzsche totally, I am not a complete nihilist...I just admire his ability to “philosophize with a hammer”...especially his art of dismantling the fiction that is Christianity....I am more of a Stirnerite, and a fan of the Baron D’Holbach and Jean Meslier...how about you?

...”In truth, it seems (I repeat it) that religion has been invented to relieve governments from the care of being just, and reigning by equitable laws. Religion is the art of inspiring mankind with an enthusiasm. which is designed to divert their attention from the evils with which they are overwhelmed by those who govern them. By means of the invisible powers with which they are threatened, they are forced to suffer in silence the miseries with which they are afflicted by visible ones. They are taught to hope that, if they consent to become miserable in this world, they will for that reason be happy in the next.

Thus religion has become the most powerful support of a shameful and iniquitous policy, which holds it necessary to deceive mankind, that they may the more easily be governed. Far from enlightened and virtuous governments be resources so base! Let them learn their true interests, and know that these cannot be separated from that of the people. Let them know that no state can be truly potent, except the citizens who compose it be courageous, active, industrious, virtuous, and attached to their government. Let governments know, that the attachment of their constituents can have no other foundation than the happiness which the former procures the latter. If governments were penetrated with these important truths, they would need the aid of neither religion nor priests. Let them be just and equitable--let them be careful to reward talents and virtue, to discourage inutility and punish vice, and their states will soon he filled with worthy and sensible citizens, who will feel it their own interest to serve and defend their country, and support the government which is the instrument of their felicity. They will do their duties, without the influence of revelation, or mysteries of paradise or hell.” Baron D’Holbach

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

I’m not in bed with Nietzsche totally, I am not a complete nihilist...I just admire his ability to “philosophize with a hammer”...especially his art of dismantling the fiction that is Christianity....I am more of a Stirnerite, and a fan of the Baron D’Holbach and Jean Meslier...how about you?

Nietzsche (no morality) would have criticized Meslier (morality without God).
Determinate materialism (d'Holbach) always prompts me to ask, "How is meaning derived from the arrangement of material symbols (pencil, ink, pixels, etc.) which have no inherent meaning in themselves?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Nietzsche (no morality) would have criticized Meslier (morality without God).
Determinate materialism (d'Holbach) always prompts me to ask, "How is meaning derived from the arrangement of material symbols (pencil, ink, pixels, etc.) which have no inherent meaning in themselves?

Meaning, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder...or some legislature which imposes “a meaning” upon some constellation of objects, values, etc....

I am a deeply “moral” person...so I admit to a few spooks of my own...nevertheless, morality IS spookery at bottom...just agreed upon by so-and-so-during-such-an-such time period...

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Meaning, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder...or some legislature which imposes “a meaning” upon some constellation of objects, values, etc....

I am a deeply “moral” person...so I admit to a few spooks of my own...nevertheless, morality IS spookery at bottom...just agreed upon by so-and-so-during-such-an-such time period...

"Meaning, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder"...
Whatever meaning this or that "beholder" assigns to "beauty", etc., the question is,

"Brain processes, however elaborately described by neuroscience, have no inherent meaning or intentionality in themselves. Neither does any other physical aspect; sound waves, molecular activity, ink marks, graphite marks, pixels, etc. They are nothing but meaningless patterns.

How then do our thoughts do have inherent meaning and intention (e.g., we are responding to each other's successive posts)?

As an aside, your subjective "beauty" is classified as "qualia" in modern philosophy of science, and mostly considered non-existant in the objective, real physical world. This presents more difficulties. If color, smell, and other qualitative phenomena are relocated in the mind, then the mind is immaterial.
Also, under the paragraph "How? Why not?...

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...postcount=6640

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

"Meaning, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder"...
Whatever meaning this or that "beholder" assigns to "beauty", etc., the question is,

"Brain processes, however elaborately described by neuroscience, have no inherent meaning or intentionality in themselves. Neither does any other physical aspect; sound waves, molecular activity, ink marks, graphite marks, pixels, etc. They are nothing but meaningless patterns.

How then do our thoughts do have inherent meaning and intention (e.g., we are responding to each other's successive posts)?

As an aside, your subjective "beauty" is classified as "qualia" in modern philosophy of science, and mostly considered non-existant in the objective, real physical world. This presents more difficulties. If color, smell, and other qualitative phenomena are relocated in the mind, then the mind is immaterial.
Also, under the paragraph "How? Why not?...

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...postcount=6640

These sounds waves, these marks, these pixels we recognize through memory imprinted from past learning...they have “meaning” FOR US here, now...because we have chosen to develop the skills to interpret these in such a such a fashion....

...now at the same time, these very same patterns are not recognized by others because they don’t know the language, lack the “ears” to hear this or that transmission, etc..., or these same “signs, signals” can be interpreted in other ways, even as “noise”...

All of which, perhaps, could be valid at the same time by different “beholders”....so these scribbles are really quite complex, or quite simple, even unintelligible for some....

WE can have a conversation only because we both have “treaded” some of these similar “paths” before...and know how to navigate the chaos....I have no idea what “God” is...but I think I have some idea of what YOU mean when you use that word...(although in reality, I don’t think that you REALLY know what God is either)....although you say that you somehow believe in such a “non-thing”...

[VigorsTheGrey]

“The ruling classes, through the intermediary of the State, ensure that only their own views on culture, morality and economic conditions, are allowed to penetrate to the masses. They set up their own views in the form of civil dogmas, which no man may violate under pain of punishment, just as in former times, during the reign of the Church, there were severe penalties for daring to challenge religious dogmas.

The State – the laic form of the Church – has replaced the Church which was the religious form of the State – but the aim of both has always been to form, not free beings, but true believers or perfect citizens. In other words slaves to dogma or law.

The anarchist replies that when solidarity is imposed from without it is worthless; that when a contract is enforced there is no longer any question of rights or duties; that coercion releases him from the bonds which attach him to a so-called society whose executives he knows only in the guise of administrators, law-givers, judges and policemen; that he supports only the solidarity of his everyday relationships.

Fictitious and imposed solidarity is worthless solidarity.[10]”

Émile Armand.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

These sounds waves, these marks, these pixels we recognize through memory imprinted from past learning...they have “meaning” FOR US here, now...because we have chosen to develop the skills to interpret these in such a such a fashion....

...now at the same time, these very same patterns are not recognized by others because they don’t know the language, lack the “ears” to hear this or that transmission, etc..., or these same “signs, signals” can be interpreted in other ways, even as “noise”...

All of which, perhaps, could be valid at the same time by different “beholders”....so these scribbles are really quite complex, or quite simple, even unintelligible for some....

WE can have a conversation only because we both have “treaded” some of these similar “paths” before...and know how to navigate the chaos....I have no idea what “God” is...but I think I have some idea of what YOU mean when you use that word...(although in reality, I don’t think that you REALLY know what God is either)....although you say that you somehow believe in such a “non-thing”...

Morning, Vigors.

I'll let eliminative materialist Alex Rosenberg take you to task. Your proposing an explanatory regress. If you would, scroll up to pg. 172 in the link.

https://books.google.com/books?id=sq...eurons&f=false

The neural activity that necessarily conveys meaning to another set of neurons, requires that at some point the first clump of matter without inherent meaning (neuron) somehow acquires it. He rules that out, but being committed to his atheism, goes for eliminative materialism. For numerous reasons, I go for immateriality of the mind, and existence of soul.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I have some questions for boxcar.

1. Do you agree that the virgin birth of Jesus was that Jesus was conceived in the womb of his mother Mary through the Holy Spirit without the agency of a human father and born while Mary was still a virgin?

2. Do you agree that Peter was the only married apostle?

3. Why did Jesus wait until he was 30 years old to start preaching?

4. If the earth has gone through climate change multiple times--that is ice ages and hot periods--how could it be only 6,000 years old?

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

The neural activity that necessarily conveys meaning to another set of neurons, requires that at some point the first clump of matter without inherent meaning (neuron) somehow acquires it. He rules that out, but being committed to his atheism, goes for eliminative materialism. For numerous reasons, I go for immateriality of the mind, and existence of soul.

Once again....Separating the human flesh suit from the spirit/soul is how we overcome the "world".

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I have some questions for boxcar.

Oh my goodness, today must be my lucky day.

1. Do you agree that the virgin birth of Jesus was that Jesus was conceived in the womb of his mother Mary through the Holy Spirit without the agency of a human father and born while Mary was still a virgin?

Yup.

2. Do you agree that Peter was the only married apostle?

Nope. I don't know what the marital status of the other apostles were.

3. Why did Jesus wait until he was 30 years old to start preaching?

Got me.

4. If the earth has gone through climate change multiple times--that is ice ages and hot periods--how could it be only 6,000 years old?

I never said the earth was "only 6,000 years old"; however, I do believe the earth is a lot younger than evolutionists say.

And "if the earth..." is a big IF.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Once again....Separating the human flesh suit from the spirit/soul is how we overcome the "world".

I reject Gnosticism. Grace is communicated to man through matter, par excellence in the Incarnation. God meets man right where he created him. God-as-Sanctifier does not ignore what God-as-Creator has done.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I reject Gnosticism. Grace is communicated to man through matter, par excellence in the Incarnation. God meets man right where he created him. God-as-Sanctifier does not ignore what God-as-Creator has done.

Nope.....Flew right over your head....Nothing new.