speedz99 145 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Or genders. Or homelands. Or differing social statuses.Fine, as long as we're being jerks to people begging us for help, it really doesn't matter if it's due to racism, sexism, nationalism, or hell, just because of the fact that they're poor. Let's just be jerks to them, because we're a bible-based society. And yes, after they beg enough we should help them. It's a better lesson that way. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Is it sacreligious to say that jesus was being kind of an ******* to that woman? Wasn't part of the point of jesus that, as a man, he was a sinner like the rest of us, and died for all of everyone's sins, including his own? Or do you have to consider him to have been perfect at all times? Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Is it sacreligious to say that jesus was being kind of an ******* to that woman? Wasn't part of the point of jesus that, as a man, he was a sinner like the rest of us, and died for all of everyone's sins, including his own? Or do you have to consider him to have been perfect at all times?Perfect all the time. Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Wasn't part of the point of jesus that, as a man, he was a sinner like the rest of us, and died for all of everyone's sins, including his own?Pretty sure the story is that he was completely free of sin and therefore able to die for everyone's sins. If he was also a sinner, then he would just be paying the price for his sins, not our sins.Also, he had to willingly die for those sins, you can't just sacrifice an innocent baby. I know that's what you were thinking. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Is it sacreligious to say that jesus was being kind of an ******* to that woman? Wasn't part of the point of jesus that, as a man, he was a sinner like the rest of us, and died for all of everyone's sins, including his own? Or do you have to consider him to have been perfect at all times?Sarcasm isn't a sin and Jesus used it a lot. At the time women were not equals with men, and for this woman to even approach and have a conversation with a celebrity male probably meant that you're reading the situation incorrectly. Jesus was probably very approachable and not a jerk, even though, accordingly to you living in a different culture 2000 years later, thinks that using an analogy which mentioned a dog was mean. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Perfect all the time.Ah.Sarcasm isn't a sin and Jesus used it a lot. At the time women were not equals with men, and for this woman to even approach and have a conversation with a celebrity male probably meant that you're reading the situation incorrectly. Jesus was probably very approachable and not a jerk, even though, accordingly to you living in a different culture 2000 years later, thinks that using an analogy which mentioned a dog was mean.So now you're arguing that when Jesus called her a dog and said he wouldn't help her, he was just being sarcastic? I guess it's true, it's hard to properly convey sarcasm via text messages, facebook, and biblical dialogue. I didn't realize jesus was well known for his biting wit. Although I'm glad you used the word "probably". Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I'm fine with being done with this one if you are, brv. Last word is all yours. Link to post Share on other sites
bat 0 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 So as far as I can tell there isn't a single actual argument for either a deity or the benefit of libertarianism. The closest we have are:1. Something can't come from nothing. Fails for multiple reasons. First, the closest to "nothing" we are aware of is constantly producing particles and anti particles that head straight back to "nothing". Second, even if it were true that "something can't come from nothing", and if it is true that there was ever such thing as "nothing", it does not follow: therefore Yahweh. It does not follow: therefore someconciousthing.There are other reasons but these are sufficient.2. LOL The bible. (could substitute the LOL The koran or LOL Harry Potter book one.) Learn to evidence. Learn to circular reasoning. Learn to learn. 3. I just believe it because I believe it. Faith in faith. Belief in belief.Great. Good for you. I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky. I think about it every night and day. Spread my wings and just fly away.Or: Believing something because you believe it is stupid. It is a stupid way to hold views concerning reality. There is no method whatsoever to differentiate such a belief from delusion without empiricism. Without data or evidence. If there is evidence for it, it would not be a matter of believing it because you believe it, it would not be a matter of faith. Anyone at all able to make a cogent argument relating to the original post - or want attempt to defend one of these three positions?I just want to know where the the constantly producing particles and anti particles came from to begin with and how they head straight back into 'nothing'? Dammit this is confusing. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I just want to know where the the constantly producing particles and anti particles came from to begin with and how they head straight back into 'nothing'? Dammit this is confusing.We all want to know that. It's weird as heck. But it definitely happens. Link to post Share on other sites
BaseJester 1 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 If you read the New Testament you will see that Jesus often speaks in parables and often "seems" to be actively hostile to his listeners knowing what he is talking about. There are big portions of the gospels where the disciples and just sitting around going, "what the hell was he talking about?"The gospels are not transcriptions of everything that happened around Jesus in his life. We don't see him go poop by the river just because "the cameras are rolling".When the author of the gospel tells us that the woman is Greek, but doesn't tell us her hair color, it means that it is important to his point that the woman is Greek. It's absurd to suggest an author who wants to obscure his meaning by leaving out the facts you need to understand the story. It's the informational equivalent of God putting fake dinosaur bones in the earth to test your faith. Link to post Share on other sites
Spademan 94 Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 Parsimony is just a preference. It doesn't really decide substantive arguments. The only case where it should really be the deciding point is when you have two theories that make exactly the same predictions. So I don't think it applies at all when you have "polar contradicting theories".I forgot I was going to add a simple and clear edification concerning this and it got lost in my rush to ad absurdum. "Occam's razor, also known as Ockham's razor, and sometimes expressed in Latin as lex parsimoniae (the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness)".I don't know where you were going with the "parsimony is a just a preference" thing - it is the very foundation of Occam's razor. I pointed this out with a diatribe, but should have prefaced with basic semantical clarification. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Does that poster say "LOL?" I also don't understand the significance of him carrying a soda bottle in each pocket, but I guess they're probably filled with gasoline because radical Muslims love explosions and detest safety. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I don't know where you were going with the "parsimony is a just a preference" thing - it is the very foundation of Occam's razor.Occam's razor just expresses a preference for parsimony. It's just a heuristic, a "best practice" kind of thing. People often misuse Occam's Razor as if it can settle an argument of substance, as if it tells you which explanation is more accurate. But in many cases, a simpler explanation is a less accurate one. In other words, an explanation is not better merely by virtue of being simpler. It must perform as well or better than a more complex explanation in order to actually be a better explanation. Link to post Share on other sites
Spademan 94 Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 Occam's razor just expresses a preference for parsimony. It's just a heuristic, a "best practice" kind of thing. People often misuse Occam's Razor as if it can settle an argument of substance, as if it tells you which explanation is more accurate. But in many cases, a simpler explanation is a less accurate one. In other words, an explanation is not better merely by virtue of being simpler. It must perform as well or better than a more complex explanation in order to actually be a better explanation.Ah. I misunderstood you. I'm with you. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now