Of gods and language.

[Harvey]

I do not do it because I am a "filthy rag"- thanks for the insult Harvey- you are showing your true colours now.

I did not call you a filthy rag, but said that all our righteous works are filthy rags in God's eyes. That is what the Bible says. I am no better than you because we all are sinners in God's eyes. In fact, I very likely have done worse things in life than you have. I was not a Christian for my first 27 years and did some awful things, some that I would not want to tell anyone. The whole thing about Christianity is not that we are better than anyone else, but that we are forgiven, and you are too, but only in Christ Jesus as the one who suffered and died for the sins of all people, yours and mine. Apart from him there is no salvation. Just stating what the Bible says. This is not of my own devising.

I am not a criminal, neither are my atheist friends- they do loads of good for this world and are moral and loving. But I will let them know how filthy they are for being so kind.

The point of what the Bible is saying is that what is judged a good work in the eyes of men is not the same as what is judged a good work in the eyes of God. Only those works that Jesus does through his people count as good works in God's eyes, because on our own we are incapable of pleasing God.

A Christian cannot accept other religions as valid, but only that they exist as ideas, like a make believe story such as Stuart Little (great story by the way).

Also, we would not be having this discussion in the workplace, and are only having it here because presumably everyone participating in this thread is doing so willingly.

[AeolianHarp]

I did not call you a filthy rag, but said that all our righteous works are filthy rags in God's eyes.

That's very kind of god isn't it!

In fact, I very likely have done worse things in life than you have. I was not a Christian for my first 27 years and did some awful things, some that I would not want to tell anyone.

You might well have, but remember that whatever you may have done, there will always be people who have done worse than yourself like those elite despots.

The point of what the Bible is saying is that what is judged a good work in the eyes of men is not the same as what is judged a good work in the eyes of God. Only those works that Jesus does through his people count as good works in God's eyes, because on our own we are incapable of pleasing God.

Good works are good works, and if a kind atheist man helps an old lady in the street who has broken her leg, then that is good. He doesn't need to say to god I do this for you god!

A Christian cannot accept other religions as valid, but only that they exist as ideas, like a make believe story such as Stuart Little (great story by the way).

And other religions may also see other religions as make believe also. Helping someone is not an idea, it is an action.


[QUOTE]Also, we would not be having this discussion in the workplace, and are only having it here because presumably everyone participating in this thread is doing so willingly./QUOTE]

Indeed, I am just pointing out what equal opportunities and acceptance of diversity mean.

[Chris]

Poor AeolianHarp has quite a lot to deal with here, so I'll try to keep it brief again!

In the case of the starving child stealing food we can apply realtive moral principles as in this case the child not having enough is an injustice. Those who steal when they don't need it we can then look at why they have done so- which is why we have law courts.

But you are not applying relative moral principles here. You are just trying to figure out how to apply an absolute moral principle given the circumstances of a specific case. Here you appeal to justice. But still there is the fundamental question of why this starving child had a right to that food he took. Why does his not having enough to eat constitute an injustice? That is the question at hand.

Sure- we all have equal value. I was talking about how each individual will find meaning in life in different ways.

OK, so we all have equal value. Why? If we all have equal value then there must be something about us that is equal. What is it? It is not our emotions, since we do not all have the same emotions. It is not our individual hopes and dreams or anything else that is particular to an individual, because those are obviously not all the same. The only possible answer is that we are all instances of the same type. We are all human beings and all have the same human nature. It is the nature of a thing that determines its ends and thus what is good and bad for it. And so when we make a choice to do something that is either good or bad for a thing, a moral choice, it can only be the natures of the things involved that ground that moral choice.

There have been cases when people have murdered animals for a slight transgression or it is seen as a nusciance.

Yes, but not as punishment for some perceived moral fault of the animal. It would be quite ridiculous for us to put a chimp on trial for killing another chimp and then imprison him for life for the crime, would it not?

It is very hard for deists to grasp the above- and you are asking questions that have no concrete answers at times- life is paradox, there is no absolute. We are just going to go round in circles here- we create our own realities- we are our own creators. What we believe to be true, and what we see are illusions of the mind- scientists are coming to see this now. The double split experiment proves this.

In the experiment, when scientists watch a particle pass through two slits in a barrier, the particle behaves like a bullet and goes through one slit or the other.Yet if a person doesn't watch the particle, it acts like a wave.This means it can go through both slits at the same time.This demonstrates that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles, and that the behaviour of the particle changes based on a person's perception and consciousness.

Ah, we are now on to another of my favorite subjects, physics! Yes, this is a most unexpected result, but there is a common misunderstanding at play here. It is not human consciousness that causes a difference in the behavior, it is whether or not a measurement has taken place. And a measurement, in this context, is anything that conveys information. No human minds need be present. Basically, when something is measured, the only possible results are the eigenstates. But before it is measured, it behaves as if it is in a superposition of these eigenstates. This is how the physical system evolves in time until a measurement takes place. The most information you can have about it at that point are the probabilities that a measurement will give the various eigenstates. But once a measurement takes place, this changes. If you do the same measurement again immediately, you will get the same eigenstates, with probably 100%.

Rocco, Harvey, I think you are on the wrong track here. Your passion is admirable, but you are starting from the conclusions and not the premises. Before what you are saying will mean anything, you have to establish the philosophical background. It was easy for the early Christians to convert Jews, because they all had the same conception the world. Even when Christianity started to spread throughout the Mediterranean, there was significant philosophical common ground with the pagans there.

Even in the far East there was much the missionaries found familiar in those philosophies. For example, they were able to use the rich Hindu philosophy to convince educated Hindus of the truth of the natural philosophy they were espousing. It is not really that surprising. Hinduism purports one self-existent, immutable divine reality. It has the notion of the soul. It affirms an objective morality that exists for reasons other than arbitrary divine commands.

Of course there are significant differences. But the philosophy of the new atheists is actually much further removed from what you are talking about than any of these things.

[AeolianHarp]

But still there is the fundamental question of why this starving child had a right to that food he took. Why does his not having enough to eat constitute an injustice? That is the question at hand.

Your'e kidding me right? Didn't Jesus say to feed the hungry? It is not ok for an innocent child to be starving- this is a basic human need. Sometimes it is due to environmental issues a child might be starving such as in countries were the crops ahve failed and everyne is starving, but mostly it is due to greed of the elites/rich who take more than their share. Look at how many children were starving in Victorian London and Britain had a rich empire- disgusting.

OK, so we all have equal value. Why? If we all have equal value then there must be something about us that is equal. What is it? It is not our emotions, since we do not all have the same emotions. It is not our individual hopes and dreams or anything else that is particular to an individual, because those are obviously not all the same.

All sentient beings need physical needs met such as food, shelter, warmth and then emotional needs such as companionship and kindness. Physical life requires such things.

The only possible answer is that we are all instances of the same type. We are all human beings and all have the same human nature. It is the nature of a thing that determines its ends and thus what is good and bad for it. And so when we make a choice to do something that is either good or bad for a thing, a moral choice, it can only be the natures of the things involved that ground that moral choice.

We are all human, of the same species and require the same basic needs.

Yes, but not as punishment for some perceived moral fault of the animal. It would be quite ridiculous for us to put a chimp on trial for killing another chimp and then imprison him for life for the crime, would it not?

Yes, and we imprison these poor beings in laboratories and torture them to make cosmetics for vain humans.

Ah, we are now on to another of my favorite subjects, physics! Yes, this is a most unexpected result, but there is a common misunderstanding at play here. It is not human consciousness that causes a difference in the behavior, it is whether or not a measurement has taken place. And a measurement, in this context, is anything that conveys information. No human minds need be present. Basically, when something is measured, the only possible results are the eigenstates. But before it is measured, it behaves as if it is in a superposition of these eigenstates. This is how the physical system evolves in time until a measurement takes place. The most information you can have about it at that point are the probabilities that a measurement will give the various eigenstates. But once a measurement takes place, this changes. If you do the same measurement again immediately, you will get the same eigenstates, with probably 100%.

I don't know what eigenstates are, but that experiement has been done many times and it is true that when electrons are being observed they act as they act as particles. However, they are not being observed act as waves and particles simultaneously.

Here’s the kicker: The insertion of the interferometer took only 40 nanoseconds (ns) while it would take 160 ns for the information about the configuration to travel from the interferometer to reach the photon before it entered the slits. This means in order for the photon to “know” if it was being watched, that information would have to travel at 4 times the speed of light, which is impossible (the speed of light is the universal speed limit).

The Results: The photons acted like particles 93% of the time that they were observed. Even if the photon “guessed” the configuration each time, statistically speaking it would never have more than 52% accuracy. In scientific experiments, a 93% success rate is as conclusive as they come.

http://www.highexistence.com/this-wi...it-experiment/

(Sorry about the rude word in article, not of my doing!)

Quantum physics is fascinating!


Holographic Universe (Part 1 of 5 ) its all illusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnvM_YAwX4I

[Chris]

Your'e kidding me right? Didn't Jesus say to feed the hungry? It is not ok for an innocent child to be starving- this is a basic human need. Sometimes it is due to environmental issues a child might be starving such as in countries were the crops ahve failed and everyne is starving, but mostly it is due to greed of the elites/rich who take more than their share. Look at how many children were starving in Victorian London and Britain had a rich empire- disgusting.

I am not arguing that the child did not have the right to take the food in our hypothetical example. On the contrary, I would say that he did. What I am trying to examine is why he had that right. It would seem that you would not tolerate an opinion that said he did not have the right to take the food, in which case you are arguing that there is an absolute moral principle in play. And as we have explored, this cannot originate from feelings or whims or because someone said so, particularly if we are going to claim that this moral principle has obligatory force. It can only come from the natural ends of the things involved.

I don't know what eigenstates are, but that experiement has been done many times and it is true that when electrons are being observed they act as they act as particles. However, they are not being observed act as waves and particles simultaneously.

The effect is unquestionably real. Our modern electronics would not operate without it, nor would the sun shine without it. I was merely pointing out that the particle-like and wave-like behaviors of the electrons are not dependent on human observation (or that of any kind of mind). This will occur during any interaction that conveys information. In other words, if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, the ground and the tree still observe one another!

[AeolianHarp]

In other words, if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, the ground and the tree still observe one another!

iwasn'tthere.com