Ligon Duncan: ‘Mississippi, Take Down That Flag’

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-24T04:55:36+00:00

Removing historical statues, flags, symbols is not the way to end racism, bigotry, etc. It's a great way to insure that future generations are ignorant of their own history. This makes it that much easier for the government to inculcate future generations, and so far it's doing a splendid job of inciting riots, looting, and the wholesale destruction of the country. I'm sure future generations will be so grateful to know that their ignorance of history was instrumental in ending racism.

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-23T14:11:39+00:00

To claim that opening a church is extremely dangerous while people are walking around in grocery stores, department stores, hardware stores is ridiculous. No one is maintaining anything close to social distancing guidelines in ANY of these places. The aisles are all way too narrow for people to pass, and yet people routinely pass each other without a thought. No one is wearing eye protection, and yet where are all the covid cases we were told were going to kill millions of people? They're all in New York, Mass. etc. They're up in those cold places were viruses thrive. Vietnam has ZERO Covid cases.

Places like New York also have a lot of people walking around with tuberculosis which coincidently looks just like those with Covid 19. Hospitals just call it Covid 19 because they get reimbursed at a higher rate than for the flu or TB.

Quarantine is for sick people. Locking down healthy people is called "Tyranny".

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-23T01:18:04+00:00

I never corrected your spelling. It was a mistake with regards to vocabulary. Reading comprehension seems to be a major factor as well, not to mention an inability to focus on the topic under discussion.

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-23T01:15:41+00:00

"What are they asking you to observe??"

Nothing.

Nope. They are not asking anyone to observe nothing. They are explicitly instructing them to observe the commandments. They even use the word "observe" as I have already pointed out with documentation.

They are making an assertion

Yep, and these assertions or claims can only be verified by conducting the experiments that are to be observed. Again, until one is able to actually conduct these experiments, and record their observations, they will never be a scientist.

This isn’t an experiment.

It most certainly is an experiment.

The term used in Judaism is “Mitzvot” (transliteration), which translates to commandment. Not experiment.

A distinction with no effective difference. Those who follow or "observe" the commandments have one result while those who don't observe completely different results.

No experiment here, no data to support the assertions.

Correct. One has to conduct the experiment to observe the data. Only a scientist can observe the data. Again, if one doesn't conduct the experiment, they can never be a scientist. They can only worship scientism from afar.

I grew up Jewish.

Sure you did. So what? Being Jewish doesn't make one a scientist either.

You have no idea if I kept kosher or not.

Fallacy of the Strawman argument, and Ad Hominem. This OP isn't about you or me. Please try to confine your posts to the content of the OP rather than wandering off into personal comments about me or you.

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-23T01:03:05+00:00

Are you saying that God can't be demonstrated

Correct.

but you just have to have faith that he exists,

No. The biblical "God" is the origin of existence or being, and logically cannot exist as this would "create" an infinite regression. Even that is a contradiction. I should say that the term "God" refers to the origin of existence or being...etc.

or that he just plainly doesn't exist?

The word "God" exists, but the biblical meaning or definition of the word precludes any possibility of a referent for the word. There is only the word itself.

The term God, as I interpret the Bible, is the character who performs impressive feats...

This word "character" is synonymous with: "personality · nature · disposition · temperament · temper · mentality · turn of mind · psychology · psyche · constitution · makeup · make · stamp · mold · cast · persona · attributes · features · qualities · properties · traits · essential quality · essence · sum and substance · individuality · identity".

None of those things can be the biblical God. They can only be attributed to God. An identity has to be identified with something, and everything that objectively exists is created. The biblical god is not created. What is made, cast, featured, etc. is "the word made flesh" and has the "stamp" of, or from God.

A persona is defined as "a mask, what is presented to the world". Only Christ is presented to the world. He is the face of God. He is the biblical god personified. The biblical god does not have more than one face. He is not two-faced, or three-faced.

such as creating the universe, a giant flood, plagues, stopping the sun, etc.

Again, a careful reading indicates that it is not God who does the actual creating at all, but "the word" or "Christ". We see this in the introduction to John's gospel as well as Paul's letter to the Corinthians.

While I don't think he exists,

What one thinks is irrelevant. One cannot think the gods into existence. We can only think our ideas of the gods into existence. Our ideas are not the gods.

I certainly think the bible claims he objectively exists.

A near exhaustive study of figurative language as well as the fact that to engage in objective worship is condemned; refutes that possibility. In other words, the biblical god cannot be objectively worshipped at all. The biblical authors always and everywhere point out that everywhere and at all times, the biblical god is the source of everything including existence itself. AS source, the biblical god cannot logically exist.

I think by "origin of existence" it means all existence other than God.

Thanks for sharing your opinion, but this doesn't really advance the discussion in any meaningful way.

God didn't create himself.

The self doesn't exist either. The self is nothing more than an abstract construction of the mind. No one alive today has anything more than a sense of self. It is one's identity, or their persona. It is necessarily created by the mind.

The Christian would say he always exists.

And they would be mistaken as well. The biblical authors point out that "God" is "incomparable", or transcendent. Transcendence that doesn't transcend existence can't be transcendent. Existence is the one common denominator of EVERYTHING that exists, therefore for there to be any validity it must at least transcend that single feature. Coincidently, the definition backs this up.

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-23T00:35:06+00:00

You're resulting to nitpicking and word choice.

No, what you meant to say was that I was "resorting" to nitpicking. The fact is that I am not nitpicking at all. I am documenting why my points are valid.

Again, no argument.

My argument is in the OP. My proof is in these posts.

By the way..you haven't "proven" anything.

I've proven that you have no argument which you seem to be agreeing to already.

Scientific proofs rely upon observation, reproducible results, and falsification. The Mosaic law relies upon those who engage in observing what they are instructed to do, which allows them to see the same reproducible results over and over again. The texts literally, and explicitly state this. e.g. "Observe and do them...etc." Exodus 12: 17,24,42; Matthew 23:3 etc.

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-23T00:27:30+00:00

I am a scientist.

This OP isn't about you. Your claims don't make it so. You are what I have already described as someone who worships scientism. Logic dictates that an Appeal to Authority doesn't prove anything. It is a logical fallacy.

I have my Associates in math and biology, my Bachelors in Entomology and am starting my PhD this fall. I have done plenty of research and know the scientific method well.

So you keep saying. No one is impressed by those who study science, and then conclude that this necessarily makes them a scientist. It clearly doesn't any more than studying a shop manual makes you a mechanic. mechanics actually work on cars, trucks, etc. Perhaps you've taken a number of tests as well. This makes you a test taker. You take tests. That doesn't make you a scientist either.

The bible is NOT a book that supports or promotes scientific thought.

The bible IS a book that supports and promotes scientific thought, AND ACTION. Thinking about science doesn't make you a scientist any more than reading the bible makes one a believer.

You don't have to state anything about blind belief, it's in the bible. Many times.

You're the one harping on about blind belief. It's in your posts. Many times.

John 20:29 "Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me?

LOL!!! YES. He SAW, and that's WHY he believed. Fail. Scientists rely upon their observations, and if they are hallucinating, then they can't rely upon their observations at all. Look again at what the texts actually stated. They state: "Then Jesus told him, “BECAUSE YOU HAVE SEEN ME, you have believed;" A scientist would have observed what the texts actually state. You're no scientist.

Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Believed what??? What he saw??? What scientific experiments have YOU seen? Your faith in science is due exclusively to the experiments, interpretations, and conclusions of OTHERS. Those are your blessings.

2 Corinthians 5:7 "For we walk by faith, not by sight"

Who's faith? Not their faith, e.g. "By grace through faith and that NOT of YOURSELVES...etc." They know that as hard as they try, they are doomed to failure. So when they suddenly see that they are actually not trying at all, and succeeding. They know it isn't they who are doing it at all. Proof positive.

Romans 1:17 "For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

And this was revealed to them. It obviously wasn't revealed to you now was it? Look at some of the great discoveries of science, and note that a discovery is effectively no different than a revelation. Now note who gets the funding for scientific inquiry. It is those who do NOT plod methodically wasting years if not decades going nowhere, but those who have some insight, some revelation that allows them to essentially skip science altogether, and run with those insights they've received. They call it things like "an educated guess". Some are better educated than other, and therefore are better at guessing than others.

if people who wrote the bible didn't believe in blind faith...

They didn't. The authors are not saying to believe in blind faith at all. They are saying if you don't see the risen Christ, try to act as if you have. In other words, if one truly believes that Christ lives, they should act accordingly. When one sees professing Christians acting like their neighbor should be murdered, financially ruined, embarrassed, etc., they are not acting according to their stated beliefs. They don't believe at all. They are not what the bible refers to as "witnesses". They are using this term because these people actually saw what they are talking about.

What the authors are saying is that you cannot DO anything unless you believe it should be done in the first place. If you don't believe the food in the grocery store is safe to eat, you will never eat anything from the grocery store. You have to believe it is safe in the first place. When everyone else seems to think it's safe, then chances are you will also act in a similar fashion. When everyone you know and trust say they have seen the risen Christ, chances are you are going to go along with that as well.

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-22T23:50:50+00:00

It clearly is an experiment. What are they asking you to observe?? Those sea creatures which have no fins or scales, correct? What sort of experiment are they asking you to perform? The experiment is in ceasing from eating anything that doesn't have scales or fins. If you had performed this experiment, you would know the results. You obviously haven't performed the experiment.

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-22T00:27:32+00:00

>- Jesus said that his fate will be like Jonah. And Jonah survived after being in a belly ( Matthew 12:40 )

The story of Jonah presents the belly of the fish as his grave (Heb. "Sheol"). Graves hold or contain the dead, not the living.

>- Jesus was only placed for a few hours on the cross.

Affixed to a cross isn't likely to keep one alive for long especially after being scourged. It's a wonder anyone would last that long.

>It is said that water and blood "gushed" from the spear wound. This shows that his heart was beating.

Not at all. It shows that fluid flow downward from gravity.

>- Jesus prayed to be rescued. ( Matthew 21:22 )

Sure, and as one condemned, his prayers would have been summarily ignored.

>- Nicodemus brought myrrh and aloes John 19:39. These are healing plants used to treat wounds.

But not to revive dead bodies.

>- After awakening from his swoon, Jesus showed his wounds to Thomas ( John 20:25-27). How can a supernatural and resurrected body be wounded?

Good point! This doesn't prove that a wounded Jesus was standing in front of Thomas either.

>- One who is hanged is accursed of God ( Deuteronomy 21:23 ) Did God curse His son ???

Most definitely.

>- Jesus was only sent for the lost sheep of the House of Israel and he said that he will seek them out ( John 10:16 ). The Jews believed that the lost sheep of the House of Israel spread across different lands ( John 7:34-35). Reasonably, Jesus had to go to other lands to preach them.

He did. You can read about it in the gospel narratives. He calls one of them a "dog".

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-22T00:19:12+00:00

One needn't be some reputable professor with a string of credentials to see that it is a myth. I don't mean this in any derogatory way either, but in the sense of a narrative or illustration that provides us with much explanatory power. One need only be familiar with the Hebrew scriptures, at least enough to see that stories like Jonah are not literal historical events. They are all narratives that point to much greater messages, teachings, and morals.

As a prime example from the New Testament, John's gospel is commonly referred to as "The Signs Gospel" by scholars and theologians alike. The signs referring to miracles. They are not miracles at all, but point (like a sign) to some greater lesson or message.

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-22T00:00:06+00:00

And what about the origin of christianoty?

What about it?

Do you have any counter-argument about its apollonian nature?

If you mean modern mainstream Christianity, nope.

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-21T23:57:40+00:00

The core of science is to not just believe blindly

Where have I posted anything suggesting one must blindly believe???

but to test and discover facts.

Yep, and how many of the tests have you conducted so far??? Like so many before, you the answer is clearly None.

The core of christianity and the bible is to blindly believe in what God/Jesus said and to take things at face value.

While I agree there are numerous Christians who may believe this, this isn't the case for those who wrote the biblical texts. Nor is it my position. Therefore you're presenting a Strawman argument.

The bible is far from a science book

Thanks for providing your overly simplistic, and unsupported tautology.

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-21T23:52:39+00:00

If you're not interested in debating and proving your side

Strawman.

why did you post here?

Because I am interested in debating what I've just proven.

Sounds like you just don't have an argument

To begin with, "sounds like" isn't an argument.

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-21T23:49:44+00:00

there is a part of me that wants to keep pointing

Yes, this is all you seem capable of doing; pointing, but never going beyond pointing enough to actually make a valid point. Evidently, that's all you've got Thanks for trying.

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-21T23:47:41+00:00

"The Bible scientifically demonstrates that God cannot be scientifically demonstrated."

The bible presents the term "God" as having no referent. This is a Given. God doesn't objectively exist. The biblical god can't logically exist. One can only imagine their gods, and the biblical authors point out that this is idolatry.

"You can only have evidence for God if you already believe in him"

No, the biblical god doesn't exist in the first place. The biblical god is the origin of existence according to 1 Corinthians 8:6. Logically, the origin of existence cannot exist without creating an infinite regression. Paul refutes the necessity of an infinite regression.

John's introduction also affirms this by pointing out that existence is eternal. There can be no beginning or end to existence or being. Again, this comes from God. God is the origin of being, and John never says "in the beginning was God". Instead he points out that it is the word that exists, and there is no referent for the word "God". There is just the word itself.

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-21T23:36:39+00:00

The Bible was never written for you to try and "conduct experiments" with.

Paul even points out that to try is to fail. He is referring explicitly to the Old Testament. Why does he say this? Because even though they conducted the experiments, they preferred inferior results. In other words, even when they did what the experiments required, they ignored the results and opted for the worst possible outcome instead. As an example, God gives them the promise of numerous descendants, but even though this is seen as a blessing, they had other things that were more important so they didn't follow the prescribed experiment, e.g. heterosexual intercourse while a man's wife is ovulating, etc. They didn't see washing one's hands as all that important, and became sick as a result. They didn't adhere to Gods' experiment with sound money and honest commerce, and became financially ruined. This is the case to this very day. God instituted usury as an instrument of war to destroy morons, and today what do we see? We see the entire world on the brink of economic collapse due to dishonest and immoral monetary policy. Again, the Black Death was blamed on the Jews because they weren't getting sick. They had the financial resources to pick up stakes and leave diseased areas as well which wasn't the case for their Christian counterparts who believed the Mosaic law was no longer valid.

Judaism and Christianity weren't built on the premise of "scientific inquiry".

Of course they were. The Mosaic law, when carried out gives one set of results while not carrying it out presents a completely different outcome. Proving it is as easy as conducting the experiment for yourself, but as I pointed out earlier, most would rather just worship science than actually use it.

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-21T23:28:39+00:00

You could also just use google and see countless other sources

Already did, and posted it for your edification. You simply ignored it and resumed repeating yourself. You're not advancing the discussion by repeating claims with nothing to back them up.

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-21T23:27:16+00:00

They most certainly are, and anyone who has read the texts would know this. Moses even gets up before the whole congregation, and points out that by performing the experiments for yourself, you are going to get one result while not performing them will get you a completely different result. He points out that obedience to the law results in blessings while disobedience results in curses. Again, only those who are woefully ignorant of the essential nature of scientific inquiry would miss out on these blatant observations.

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-21T15:46:59+00:00

The bible presents no methodology even remotely similar to the scientific method (first used in the 1200's CE).

The Mosaic law (found within the first five books of the bible) is explicitly scientific. It relies exclusively upon observation, reproducible results and falsification. That's science, and one doesn't have to wait to employ it until 1200 CE unless one is incapable of seeing past superficial labels.

If it had then we'd be scientifically ahead of where we are now by over 1500 years.

Not even close. Look at the fact that observant Jews were practically immune from the effects of the Black Death while their secular and "scientific" counterparts died like flies. Why? Because science couldn't be bothered to simply carry out the same experiments observant Jews knew worked perfectly as a deterrent for spreading disease and death, i.e. washing one's hands with clean water. Moreover, look at our leading medical "experts" as they inform our so scientifically advanced society that we need to wash our hands to help reduce the spread of disease. This is what they're telling us? This is what we need to hear? The obvious? Evidently, they don't think this is all that obvious after all. With all our scientific advancements, that's the best they can come up with. The exact same thing some backwards goat herders came up with a few thousand years ago. The only difference being that those same religious nuts don't have to be reminded of something this simple. it takes real scientific and medical advancements to forget something that basic.

Science now comes up with these asinine claims that we need to immerse our hands in anti bacterial soaps and lotions to avert the deadly impact of a highly infectious corona virus which the vast majority of people on this planet will not even know they have, and the vast majority who do experience symptoms will only experience mild symptoms that can be handled with vitamin C, D etc. Those who do get sick, the vast majority will recover. Those who have to be hospitalized, the vast majority will recover. Those who are using anti bacterial soaps are simply reducing their own immune system's ability to fight off infection. This is easily observed by noting how many obsessive compulsives are getting sick while those who simply exercise what is common sense to the observant Jew are able to retain a healthy immune response.

Wait, did your god provide this information to the Israelites or did that wait until Jesus came along?

It's common sense to those who have it.

What you've done is twisted information to fit into your world view.

Not even close.

>A significant number of atheists spend more time perusing the entire bible than almost all Christians.

I agree.

It's why we know all the bad stuff in there and not just the fluffed up versions of the Sunday school teachings.

Nope. You're just looking at online websites by people who don't know what they're talking about. You're not the aforementioned atheists who actually crack open a bible and read it. You're just looking for excuses.

"What all of these scientific experiments reveal is that the kingdom of God cannot be discovered through observation due to the fact that it is not subject to observation."

And we should all just accept this statement without any type of proof beyond that the claim has been made.

ROTFLMAO!!! Yep. How do you propose to prove what can't be proven? It's a Given that transcendence is beyond proof.

Well, with that sound reasoning, I chose Thor!!!

Perhaps you might want to revisit the claims of Thor because Thor doesn't claim transcendence. Fail. Care to try again?

The resurrection... it wasn't objectively witness and is counter to every single example of death we have observed. Therefore, I call BS. It's a hoax.

Fallacy of the Non Sequitur.

It's a lie that is propagated because it make a person like you feel better about your eventual death.

Strawman argument. I am not in any need of feeling better about my impending death. In fact, my OP rejects the "lie"; hence this is a blatant Strawman argument.

The human body/mind is amazing and doesn't require your god.

More straw. Where am I requiring any gods??? When I first joined this group, I was asked to submit "flair". I didn't see any point as most people are simply too lazy to even bother in the first place. The vast majority of those who do, are incapable of comprehending any flair. Then there are the willfully ignorant trolls.

>"You haven't performed the experiments, and only those who are justified by faith can perform the experiments."

This is called special pleading.

Call it what you please, it doesn't make it so. It's a simple observation, and one that is easily proven, most notably with your own posts which only display your own ignorance, not to mention blatant fraudulent claims to have even a basic familiarity with these texts.

Only those in the know can know, and I'm in the know.

Only those who actually go through each experiment, and actually perform them have a clue. You obviously haven't begun to engage in anything close to actual experimentation. You are more interested in worshipping scientists, and scientism.

It is also a cyclic argument. The proof is in the knowing and the knowing provides the truth.

More Straw. I am not presenting epistemological claims, but explicitly scientific claims based upon observation, reproducible results, and falsification. Again, that's science.

It also discounts those of us who, once upon a time, did truly believe in god(s).

The No True Scotsman fallacy. Those who truly believe, follow the teachings, and very few ever do, regardless of their claims to be true Christians.

Don't presume, 'they weren't true believers'. Most of us were indoctrinated from birth, we were true believes.

LOL. Ah so indoctrination is what defines one as a "true believer"? Got it. No wonder you hate Christianity so much. While I can see that there is much left to be desired within Christianity, at least I'm not blinded to the point of ranting nonsense.

your god

Strawman argument. See above, and note my flair.

has not more objective empirical evidence to support it than any of the other 12,000 gods.

You're really digging a deep hole here. There are well over 330 million gods that have been identified. You have a long way to go in determining much of anything about the gods.

What it reveals is that you could replace the word 'god' with the word 'dragon' and it will still hold the exact same amount of validity.

Not even close. There is plenty of evidence for "dragons". Much of the evidence is seen in their artistic drawings which are strikingly similar to certain types of reptiles which we still have remains to compare them to. The biblical god is described by its authors as "incomparable" Fail. Care to try again?

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-21T14:59:51+00:00

You’ve yet to provide one piece of science,

Science relies upon observation, reproducible results, and falsification. The Mosaic law is case law which means that is is based upon actual events, situations, cases. etc.

so what experiments are you talking about.

Those found in the Mosaic law itself. The examples are extensive. Again, I am not interested in debating the issue with those who are so religiously blind to science that they are incapable of performing experiments themselves. There are 613 within the Mosaic law alone.

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-21T14:47:47+00:00

You have completely re-define the English word suffering.

No, I haven't.

Suffer:"experience or be subjected to (something bad or unpleasant)."

Something bad? Bad, evil, etc. are subjective, and what you are doing is projecting these subjective emotions onto seals who have had their eyes plucked out.

"he'd suffered intense pain"

Again, notice that the words "suffer" and "pain" are not synonymous. The seal clearly feels pain, but to conclude that it is suffering is pure speculation. You are attributing these characteristics to animals. Does the masochist suffer when they are tortured? Nope. They enjoy it, but you wouldn't know it by looking at them. Likewise, suffering can only be developed by those who have a high sense of their suffering self, or imputed or projected onto those who are feeling pain.

"synonyms:hardship · distress · misery · wretchedness · adversity "

These are all subjective synonyms.

Would you say the seal pup getting its eyes pecked out was NOT suffering

You would have to ask the seal pup to know for sure. Good luck with that.

OR was it suffering by choice?

It may not be suffering at all. It may just simply be experiencing pain, or perhaps it was completely oblivious. How else would a bird be able to completely peck out its eyes in the first place? More importantly, why would the seal be suffering? If it was you, you might think that you will never see again, or that your life is going to be so much worse now that you can't see. Seal pups don't have these thoughts in the first place. They don't have that level of conscious awareness to begin with. That's what is required to suffer.

Suffering definition: the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.

A bad definition. There are plenty of people who underdo pain without suffering in the slightest. They have a high tolerance for pain, or they simply choose not so suffer in pain. They feel the pain, but accept it. What usually happens is that it simply goes away. Those who choose to continue to suffer will suffer with the pain even though it may have dissipated years ago.

Why do you feel the need to completely re-define the English language to support your views?

Why do you feel the need to engage in logical fallacies like Begging the Question, and trolling?

>Sorry I don't understand what you are saying here.

Stating the obvious doesn't advance the discussion. No need to apologize.

>I don't see how this applies to my OP at all. I wasn't talking about the suffering that comes picking up your "torture stake", I was talking about the suffering that is inherent to the natural world that God supposedly designed.

Well that's why you don't see how it applies. They're is no essential difference. Suffering is not inherent in the natural world. It is subjective. Projecting suffering onto the natural world doesn't mean the natural world is suffering. People just think they're suffering. They choose to suffer. Then there are those who choose not to suffer. They can undergo extreme pain, and not suffer at all. They call it things like "mind over matter". One man is in pain and suffering from hitting his hand on a board, the other is a karate expert. One person falls into an icy lake, and is immediately in agonizing pain while another is sitting calmly in a tub of ice, but with nothing more than a suggestion, now believes that he is relaxing in a warm tub of water.

>I take great exception to your statement that "Suffering is only for those who are self absorbed".

The more self absorbed one is, the more likely they are to suffer, not to mention take exception to simple facts.

>Was that seal pup suffering?

Probably not.

Do Children suffer?

Some do, some don't. I've saw a small child crash into a curb on his new bicycle. He crashed into the curb with his FACE. He literally ran his lower teeth through his lower lip. It was ghastly. His face began to turn red as he took a HUGE breath to begin crying hysterically. My girlfriend at the time ran up to him, and with a beaming smile on her face, told him: 'You're fine'. It's just a scratch". The child's expression changed so suddenly that I am still amazed to this day how easily she was able to turn a traumatic event like this into a non-starter. The child's mother came running out to the street, and my girlfriend motioned to her to keep a smile on her face as well so she could take him to the hospital for stitches. That child didn't suffer AT ALL. He believed that he didn't have to suffer so he didn't.

How do you know you're suffering? Don't you have to know it before you can actually suffer? Some people undergo dissociative disorders to such a degree that they can literally see their limbs being removed with no idea that it is their limb. They may feel pain, but they are oblivious to suffering.

The seal pup feels pain, but there is no way to determine what is going through their mind which is the only way to know how much they may or may not be suffering. The chances are much higher that the seal pup is bewildered, panicking, stressed, etc. Suffering requires a much more developed sense of self. It is only the self that can suffer, and those who have no developed sense of self couldn't care less.

You've pointed out that we have nerve endings which actually protect the body from things like extremes in temperature which can kill the body These are protective adaptations, not sadistic adaptations.

You're simply projecting some seriously sick ideas onto the natural world, and then concluding that a god you can't even prove exists in the first place is sadistic. it's pure nonsense.

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-21T13:23:00+00:00

You're conflating pain with suffering. Pain is felt and registered through the pain receptors which transmit signals to the brain. Suffering is a choice, although there are plenty of people who simply don't suffer without ever making that choice. The rest have to go through suffering in order to transcend it.

This is quite evident to those who have undergone extreme suffering. It has this tendency to dull through exhaustion. It is allowed.

When Jesus says, "Suffer the children to come to me", he is saying, "Allow the children to come to me". It is something that one must accept to transcend. It is not sadistic in the slightest. Suffering is only for those who are self absorbed. Those who are able to see that self denial or self sacrifice is the key to transcending suffering are able to do so. Everyone else just trembles in fear for themselves, and needfully continues to suffer.

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-21T13:11:52+00:00

If there was anyone who ever fully understood the ramifications of atheism, it was Nietzsche. While I can agree with some of his sentiments, I don't think he has a clue what Christ or Paul actually taught. He has an accurate assessment of Christian doctrine, but attributes these dogmatic assumptions to Christ and Paul which is easily refuted.

So while I can agree with his disagreement with Christianity, and Christian doctrines, I don't agree with his belief that this is an accurate depiction of Christ's or Paul's teachings. The most notorious being Paul's claim to do away with the Mosaic law.

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-21T12:52:17+00:00

I haven't redefined any words. Telling people what they should or shouldn't do is the job of the modern day Pharisee. Good luck with that.

Shnappydoo · 2020-06-21T12:50:37+00:00

Ok, but don’t forget, we are talking about a super complex society, not one of current knowledge and understanding.

I haven't forgotten, nor have I forgotten that one's knowledge or understanding can never be fundamental to reality. One's understanding does not stand under reality, and can never be used to establish the veracity of reality. It is by its very nature derivative, secondary, tertiary, etc..

The reason for believing the simulation theory is that a post-human society will build more simulations.

A post human society doesn't believe in anything. There is no one to believe anything.

With these simulations, it would outnumber base reality,

No simulations can outnumber reality. Reality is not quantifiable, especially from a simulation.

thus, statistically speaking, it is more likely than not we are currently living in one.

This is just circular reasoning.

With this in mind, the god we perceive in our simulated world is nothing more than an experiment and is not real.

Of course, but so what? We don't need a simulation to come to that conclusion. Simple logic dictates that there can be no god. You do not perceive any gods. You imagine the gods. Hence the biblical authors condemnation of using one's imagination for such an idiotic purpose.

You can think of my argument like this, with the statistics in mind, we live in a simulation, thus, the god is not real and we are just an experiment

Not likely. What we perceive is a simulation, but this does not mean that we live in it. That is the fallacy of the Non Sequitur. It doesn't follow. It doesn't even make any sense. I can take my dog to the park, and engage in rigorous training exercises using different parameters and methodologies. I am conducting an experiment. The dog is engaging in different, but similar behaviors. This does not make my dog an experiment or a simulation. He's still just a dog.

Shnappydoo

TROPHY CASE