Is This World Just A Big Game Of Pretend?

[bdp]

somewhat outraged at the continued denial.

 

what 'denial'? It works for you, not for us - why can't the fact that it works for you be enough for you?

[bdp]

And suppose I come from a family of good stimuli and then I go decide to kill the neighbors dog. Does this not speak to free will to choose, to human nature?

 

It speaks to mental illness.

 

in the year 2000? How about 1500, or year 1000, or year 500.

 

Yes - go back as far as you like, back when epilepsy was thought to be demon possession.

 

By mental illness I also mean chemical imbalances in the brain.

 

It can also speak to bad parenting - some people aren't taught to properly value all life.

[mymistake]

MM what is it you would like me to say.

 

I'm not responsible for what you write. That is your call, not mine.

 

You would like me to confess that when you say things like modern science can observe love between organisms that sacrifice for each other, that this is potentially quantification of love, that I should throw away the 2000 year old Bible whose theme is love through sacrifice?

 

The Bible's theme isn't love through sacrifice. This is very basic stuff. It leaves me wondering just what Christianity has done to you.

 

You would like me to say that the patterns I see are totally invalid because very few peopl see make them?

 

An idea's validity doesn't depend on it's popularity but rather on it's merit. What makes nonsense of the ideas you have championed lately isn't that they are unpopular but that you can make no case for their merit and you cannot address criticisms.

 

Lignification and Christianity have been mixed before, before I thought of it.

 

But not by Bible authors/editors.

 

I am unsure about the internal and external standard pattern, but since you have little training in these methods, you would want me to disregard my thoughts as fantasy?

 

What are you assuming? When your thoughts sound like a wild fantasy shouldn't you consider the idea that maybe they are exactly that? You are always welcome to build a case for their merits. If that isn't possible maybe you should ask yourself why.

 

I'm not deranged, more aghast at you logic.....to the point of being deranged....somewhat outraged at the continued denial.

 

If my logic is bad then identify my error(s). The fact that you won't implies that you can't. Demonstrate the error(s). Until you do there is nothing for me to deny. You brought up nothing. You demonstrated nothing. Nothing is what you have.

 

Again this is very basic stuff.

[Guest end3]

somewhat outraged at the continued denial.

 

what 'denial'? It works for you, not for us - why can't the fact that it works for you be enough for you?

 

Mostly that the condesending and arrogant nature of the belief is hard to overlook.....for me anyway. I'm sure my attitude K is compounded by my upbringing.

[Guest Valk0010]

End??? Im waiting? Or am I just too below you.

 

I haven't forgotten Valk, please give me a little time. Thanks.

Fair enough

[florduh]

What's wrong with me? I actually like end3. I guess somebody will have to shoot me, because I must be broken.

 

Carry on.

[Guest end3]

The Bible's theme isn't love through sacrifice. This is very basic stuff. It leaves me wondering just what Christianity has done to you.

So you don't even subscribe to the fundamental view. I.e. Jesus dying(sacrificial death) on the cross?

 

 

 

An idea's validity doesn't depend on it's popularity but rather on it's merit. What makes nonsense of the ideas you have championed lately isn't that they are unpopular but that you can make no case for their merit and you cannot address criticisms.

 

I'm willing to hear decent criticism of the internal vs. external standard thoughts. Your first criticism was , if I am remembering, was that I had NO idea what a standard was. And this is compounded by today's thought of that I should rely on a trained MD to validate subjectivity? Please by all means, give it another attempt. Would you like me to cut and paste wiki stadard method and internal standard method for you? I will be more than happy. Valk and I were going to go over it anyway.

 

 

But not by Bible authors/editors.

Lol, yes, but modern science, i.e., what we have discovered, that you adamantly dismiss as fantasy, is that the discovered mechanism/process reinforces what is being described

 

 

What are you assuming? When your thoughts sound like a wild fantasy shouldn't you consider the idea that maybe they are exactly that? You are always welcome to build a case for their merits. If that isn't possible maybe you should ask yourself why.

 

How is you not understanding the merits from which they were derived means to automatically calling them a wild fantasy???? Really? They were derived from analytical chemistry, yet you auto-declare them wacko?

 

 

If my logic is bad then identify my error(s). The fact that you won't implies that you can't. Demonstrate the error(s). Until you do there is nothing for me to deny. You brought up nothing. You demonstrated nothing. Nothing is what you have.

I just did, umpteen times, and you can't see it. Again sir, how can you declare anything if you haven't a clue what you are discussing.....analyitcal chemistry in this case. How can you produce irrefutable logic from that position? Again, I am aghast.

[Guest end3]

I think one of the breakdowns is the word fantasy. When you say thoughts are fantasies, I am understanding you to say the chemical reaction didn't take place to produce these thoughts. This is likely one error.

[Guest end3]

What's wrong with me? I actually like end3. I guess somebody will have to shoot me, because I must be broken.

 

Carry on.

 

He probably thinks your are deranged from you visualizing Thumb in the mud pit......

 

Edit: I don't even touch the hem of wacko....although I did remind myself this morning of Alan Alda in one of his rants on *MASH*. I think that I made the association might be a little scary. I'll drink a beer tonight to clense the thoughts from my noggin.

[mymistake]

I think one of the breakdowns is the word fantasy. When you say thoughts are fantasies, I am understanding you to say the chemical reaction didn't take place to produce these thoughts. This is likely one error.

 

Oh my fucking god. End how can you be so messed up? Do we have to go back and explain concepts that are learned in first grade?

[mymistake]

Due to software limits I'm going to condense your comments and number them.

 

1)

So you don't even subscribe to the fundamental view. I.e. Jesus dying(sacrificial death) on the cross?

 

2)

I'm willing to hear decent criticism of the internal vs. external standard thoughts. Your first criticism was , if I am remembering, was that I had NO idea what a standard was. And this is compounded by today's thought of that I should rely on a trained MD to validate subjectivity? Please by all means, give it another attempt. Would you like me to cut and paste wiki stadard method and internal standard method for you? I will be more than happy. Valk and I were going to go over it anyway.

 

3)

Lol, yes, but modern science, i.e., what we have discovered, that you adamantly dismiss as fantasy, is that the discovered mechanism/process reinforces what is being described

 

 

4)

How is you not understanding the merits from which they were derived means to automatically calling them a wild fantasy???? Really? They were derived from analytical chemistry, yet you auto-declare them wacko?

 

5)

I just did, umpteen times, and you can't see it. Again sir, how can you declare anything if you haven't a clue what you are discussing.....analyitcal chemistry in this case. How can you produce irrefutable logic from that position? Again, I am aghast.

 

My answers:

1 I have no reason to believe there ever was a Jesus. Maybe there was. But if there was such a Jewish rabbi he would have been only a shadow of the epic legend we find in the Bible. Could the Romans have killed a rabbi named Yesuah? I suppose so but that doesn't make him a sacrifice. They would have done it for their own reasons. Most of what Christianity teaches was made up after the fact and evolved over the centuries.

 

2 Your internal/external comments were destroyed by that fact that the Bible is not a standard and there is no standard concept of God, even among Christians. It's dead. If you want to keep playing with dead ideas that is your business. If you don't want to hear why your ideas can't be true that is your business too. But don't get mad at others for not believing your false ideas. The reason I asked if you understood what standard means is because of all these bizarre posts where you assert things that can't be true.

 

3 I do not dismiss science.

 

4 You made no case for their merits. Show me how analytical chemistry turns the thousands of flavors of the Christian God into a standard and the thousands of versions of the Bible into a standard. Your argument is dead. That you refused to accept that reflects on you.

 

5 Your inability to articulate what you mean or understand simple concepts does not reflect upon me in any way. What do you know of logic? Your so called identification of my errors must be sitting right next to all the times you handed me my ass - they exist only in your fantasy. Now again show how analytical chemistry turns the thousands of Bible versions and thousands of God versions into a standard.

 

Of course you won't because you can't.

[Deva]

With all due respect, mymistake, I have been here since End arrived and I can say that there is not a question in my mind that you are wasting your time.

[Guest end3]

OK, MM,

 

Yes or no will work here. Within Christianity, does it not hold that God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit are the Standard for morality, DESPITE the interpretation? Please just yes or no.

 

Two, and again, yes or no will work. Did I make the claim that I was comparing those analytical methods to ANY other religion than Christianity? If you decide the answer to be yes, then please pull the documentation.

[mymistake]

With all due respect, mymistake, I have been here since End arrived and I can say that there is not a question in my mind that you are wasting your time.

 

Really anybody who thinks that the phrase "Harry Potter is a fantasy" means that ideas about Harry Potter are produced by magic rather than by brain waves must be a Hopeless Useless F'ing Waste Of Time.

[mymistake]

OK, MM,

 

Yes or no will work here. Within Christianity, does it not hold that God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit are the Standard for morality, DESPITE the interpretation? Please just yes or no.

 

No

 

Two, and again, yes or no will work. Did I make the claim that I was comparing those analytical methods to ANY other religion than Christianity? If you decide the answer to be yes, then please pull the documentation.

 

No

[Guest end3]

• Posted Today, 10:28 AM
  

 

 

end3, on 16 April 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

 

So if the electrical connections in my brain correspond to observed/rational reality, then they are not fantasy thoughts? But if they don't correspond, they are fantasy thoughts? So I can only count on the thoughts that I can correlate to some objective measurement?

 

 

Yes. Why are we exploring such a basic concept?

 

So here we are talking about electrical connections. And then moved this to love/emotions right? And you said we could observe love via sacrifice right? But then you hold the Bible doesn't teach sacrifice.

 

So what is your take on life....it's all false?

[Guest end3]

OK, MM,

 

Yes or no will work here. Within Christianity, does it not hold that God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit are the Standard for morality, DESPITE the interpretation? Please just yes or no.

 

No

 

Two, and again, yes or no will work. Did I make the claim that I was comparing those analytical methods to ANY other religion than Christianity? If you decide the answer to be yes, then please pull the documentation.

 

No

 

Well see, we differ there, because I subscribe to the words holy, just, righteous, perfect, pure, when it comes to Jesus being the standard. And we/everyone should be made "finished" of the interpretation of this at the start or middle or end of their Christian walk? Is this what it teaches?

 

Oh dud, I mean dude, this is tiring.

[mymistake]

So here we are talking about electrical connections. And then moved this to love/emotions right? And you said we could observe love via sacrifice right? But then you hold the Bible doesn't teach sacrifice.

 

If you had any skill at reading comprehension you would realize I hold no such thing. Do you honestly have this much trouble? Really what is going on?

 

So what is your take on life..

 

I don't know.

 

..it's all false?

 

No, not that.

[mymistake]

Oh dud, I mean dude, this is tiring.

 

If you didn't delude yourself so much you might not have as much cognitive dissonance. Try it.

[Guest end3]

Oh dud, I mean dude, this is tiring.

 

If you didn't delude yourself so much you might not have as much cognitive dissonance. Try it.

 

I don't know where we can go with this if you don't consider God aka Jesus to be the standard for moral perfection. And I don't believe we hold more of fundamental Christianity in common either. so I don't know I have the energy to debate things like this......I had taken it most that most all Christians held these concepts central to the belief.

 

Ok, at least we made some progress.

[Guest end3]

Posted Today, 10:57 AM

 

end3, on 16 April 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

 

 

mymistake, on 16 April 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

 

 

end3, on 16 April 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

 

So if the electrical connections in my brain correspond to observed/rational reality, then they are not fantasy thoughts? But if they don't correspond, they are fantasy thoughts? So I can only count on the thoughts that I can correlate to some objective measurement?

 

Yes. Why are we exploring such a basic concept?

 

Because it's new to me. So I think we are getting somewhere.

 

So what about emotions. I really think love is a rational real thing, but it can't be measured to my knowledge.

 

It can be observed under the right circumstances; when one organism sacrifices for another.

 

 

 

Quote

 

It's kinda like typing my thoughts on the keyboard or doing a service work because it's a demostration of this. Or buying my wife things, or doing stuff for her. It's a transfer of fantasy thoughts to actions, but by default, they are fantasy because we can't measure them. So I am to grasp that subjective = fantasy = love = emotions?

 

If that's your opinion, then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

If she is actually your wife then it probably isn't a fantasy. Fantasy thoughts would be like shooting Ronald Reagan in order to win the heart of Jodi Foster.

 

 

 

To the bolded.....how was I to interpret that other than you saying love could be observed through sacrifice.

 

Edit: And the last sentence....turns out his fantasy turned to reality by his actions, no?

[Guest end3]

Anyone care to weigh in on fundamental Christian beliefs regarding Christ's sacrifice being the central theme? Have I missed the take home message all these years?

[mymistake]

I don't know where we can go with this if you don't consider God aka Jesus to be the standard for moral perfection. And I don't believe we hold more of fundamental Christianity in common either. so I don't know I have the energy to debate things like this......I had taken it most that most all Christians held these concepts central to the belief.

 

Ok, at least we made some progress.

 

Are you telling me that you don't realize that I am an ex Christian?

 

 

In order for something to be a standard there has to only be one.

 

Let say you ask a guy how far a mile is and he shows you with his thumb and index finger on one hand. Then you ask another guy and his answer is "One mile is the distance from the sun to the Andromeda galaxy. Then you ask someone else and he tells you a mile isn't a measure of distance but rather a measure of mass. Then you ask somebody else and he tells you that you get a mile by mixing yellow and red. Clearly among these people a mile is not a standard.

 

In reality a mile is a standard because everyone agrees just how far a statute mile is.

 

Now what is a Jesus Christ? Some people think it's a normal human who lived long ago. Some people think it's a part of the Trinity that created our universe. Some people think it a form of God the Father. Some people think they are Jesus Christ. Some people think Jesus was a prophet. Some people thing Jesus was a metaphor. Some people think Jesus was a king. And so on and so forth.

[Guest end3]

If I don't come back, it's because my internet antenna is blocked by new leaves on a tree. So I shall return, if not this evening.

[Guest end3]

I don't know where we can go with this if you don't consider God aka Jesus to be the standard for moral perfection. And I don't believe we hold more of fundamental Christianity in common either. so I don't know I have the energy to debate things like this......I had taken it most that most all Christians held these concepts central to the belief.

 

Ok, at least we made some progress.

 

Are you telling me that you don't realize that I am an ex Christian?

 

 

In order for something to be a standard there has to only be one.

 

Let say you ask a guy how far a mile is and he shows you with his thumb and index finger on one hand. Then you ask another guy and his answer is "One mile is the distance from the sun to the Andromeda galaxy. Then you ask someone else and he tells you a mile isn't a measure of distance but rather a measure of mass. Then you ask somebody else and he tells you that you get a mile by mixing yellow and red. Clearly among these people a mile is not a standard.

 

In reality a mile is a standard because everyone agrees just how far a statute mile is.

 

Now what is a Jesus Christ? Some people think it's a normal human who lived long ago. Some people think it's a part of the Trinity that created our universe. Some people think it a form of God the Father. Some people think they are Jesus Christ. Some people think Jesus was a prophet. Some people thing Jesus was a metaphor. Some people think Jesus was a king. And so on and so forth.

 

I asked about moral standard. Not that he was a any of the things you mentioned.

 

And yes, when you tell me sacrifice is not central to Christianity, it sure makes me wonder what you were subscribing to.