Christian Literalism - Page 6

marmalade · 12-30-2007, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by romansh

Hi Marmalade

you seem to be in a feisty mood this evening? ...

I'm at work and its a very slow night. I'm listening to CoasttoCoastAM on the radio and jumping around between about 6 different forums.

Feisty, who me?

I wasn't intending to be feisty, but... oh well. Nothing wrong with feistiness. Maybe I have too much caffeine in my system.

AB517 · 12-30-2007, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

Quote:

Originally Posted by AB517

Ok Og, That idea is totally true.
But then what?

Nothing
Stream of desires
Angles (or what ever)

What do you think happens then? Your belief.
I think for us (me and you), there are possible solutions, so more than one idea is totally acceptable here. Quantized if you will … 

thank you guys again for your insights.

Not quite sure what you mean. "What then?" After you die? There is no longer a you. The neural pattern that represents who and what you are decays. Your sensory organs no longer function.

Before you die, there is a boundary where there is clearly a delineation between inside and outside. Your skin has touch sensors, you have a mouth and an anus. You have smell sensors, taste sensors, sound sensors, temperature sensors, light sensors. All of these sensors feed into your brain and are processed and the brain outputs signals to create behaviors.

When you die, this process stops and the boundary that used to be called you is no longer maintained. But that boundary was one of convention anyway. The signals from outside (in all their complexity) were what drove you into existence.

You are a confluence of events. The physical body that you have (including your memory and behavior) is just one part of that whole process.

What is clear is that you can no longer sense when you die and you can no longer remember or experience anything. These are entirely functions of the physical brain. Sections of the brain can be modified or removed by a doctor to demonstrate exactly this fact.

Thanks, I got ya

I understand you completely actually. I used the same arguments before I became a believer. I still considered them valid now. After that, it becomes a discussion on beliefs. A Soul if you will.

As far as no longer sensing, I assume you are talking about the body. This is also true. What else could you “sense” with? I do not believe that the body we exist in is the only input method possible. Different types of detectors and quantum computers are what I use to look beyond what the body can do.

You speak a bunch about no boundaries. The fabric of the cosmos may be quantized, that in itself speaks of boundaries. Maybe there are boundaries, in our universe, at every level.

Thanks for answering.

Tomasz · 02-27-2008, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

... Evangelicals are easily manipulated and if I ever did talk in front of them, it would be in a prescribed form that would manipulate their psyches in a specific manner that I had devised.

Tools do not scare me. You just need to know how to use them.

You would use manipulation instead of perfectly simple truth. Not a pleasant idea. If they see you through, maybe they would say : "At least Dawkins was sincere"

Og · 02-27-2008, 03:10 PM

The best con man cons himself first

Og · 02-27-2008, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AB517

You speak a bunch about no boundaries. The fabric of the cosmos may be quantized, that in itself speaks of boundaries. Maybe there are boundaries, in our universe, at every level.

Ironically, quantization occurs only when boundaries are applied. A free electron in free space has a continuous wave function with no discrete values.

An electron in an "orbital" is constrained to quantized levels because of the wavelength of the particle needing to be continuous AT THE BOUNDARIES of the atom (i.e. the potential energy well that the forces create). Only fixed frequencies match this value and thus you have quantizations.

There is no necessity for quantizations in all systems. For example, you can have continuous frequencies of photons. The frequency is proportional to the energy of the photon and has no quantization in it at all.

Quantization in spectroscopy comes from photons emitted at fixed energy levels that have to do with electrons in quantized states in individual fixed atoms.

Quantization occurs in bound systems due to the wave nature of matter.

romansh · 02-27-2008, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomasz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

... Evangelicals are easily manipulated and if I ever did talk in front of them, it would be in a prescribed form that would manipulate their psyches in a specific manner that I had devised.

Tools do not scare me. You just need to know how to use them.

You would use manipulation instead of perfectly simple truth. Not a pleasant idea. If they see you through, maybe they would say : "At least Dawkins was sincere"

Who said anything about being insincere?
Is there a difference between teaching the truth and just telling it?

Og · 02-28-2008, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by romansh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomasz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

... Evangelicals are easily manipulated and if I ever did talk in front of them, it would be in a prescribed form that would manipulate their psyches in a specific manner that I had devised.

Tools do not scare me. You just need to know how to use them.

You would use manipulation instead of perfectly simple truth. Not a pleasant idea. If they see you through, maybe they would say : "At least Dawkins was sincere"

Who said anything about being insincere?
Is there a difference between teaching the truth and just telling it?

Amen. Dawkins does nothing to convince the audience he's criticizing (By his own admissions). He's aiming at people who haven't thought about it much either way.

Tomasz · 02-28-2008, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

Dawkins does nothing to convince the audience he's criticizing (By his own admissions). He's aiming at people who haven't thought about it much either way.

He criticizes people's beliefs not religious people themselves . The fact that you don't (want to) see it leaves no doubt you're biased on the man. It's not true that The God delusion is shrill or strident. Dawkins is right to say that many of us are brainwashed into respect for mad beliefs preached by official churches. It's not true that Dawkins is speaking to the choir. The God delusion has sold in over 1 500 000 copies and many religious bought it, sometimes even priests. I don't think many of them really changed their minds about God, but at least they can understand why people don't believe in personal God and no longer treat them as freaks.

What overwhelming majority of Christians believe is not your advanced Christianity, but scary fairy tales poured into heads of children by the means of religious bullying. It's time for resistance.

Yes, Dawkins doesn't say that the scripture can be read in other non-literal way, he addresses those who take the scripture to be literal truth. It's his right to do so, you can't blame him for it.

Og · 02-28-2008, 04:13 PM

Quote:

He criticizes people's beliefs not religious people themselves .

Yeah... Sure. I'm certain he does both. Calling religious people who teach their children religious dogma "child abusers" doesn't seem to me to be sticking to criticizing beliefs only.

Tomasz · 02-29-2008, 03:45 AM

I guess I must withdraw and admit you're right about Dawkins criticizing religious people.
As for the term "child abuse" watch this
http://video.google.pl/videoplay?docid=-3717299081088066717&q=preface+to+the+god+delusion& total=6&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Rewind to 18:49, there's an question concerning the issue and Dawkins' response

You of course don't attack Christians who believe in personal God, by saying that what they believe in is just a product of ignorance. You don't disourage them saying that they completely don't understand the meaning of Christ's death on the cross being victory over dischotomies of life. Surely you don't, you leave it to someone else.