(May 17, 2016 at 10:19 am)Emjay Wrote: I can't quote book, chapter and verse because I don't have the book with me. I moved in with my sister for a while and only took what I really needed so that book is still at home on my bookshelf. Though I guess you'll think that's a lie.

How two dimensional.
We are discussing bias. I am looking for a citation so as to confirm or deny your assessment of bias. your answer is to dig in to your personal interpretation and citing your own potentially bias work. I ask for The name of the book, A chapter and a specific paragraph or verse so I could potentially look it up, and you response is to make me call you a liar or to take you at your word.

You should just drop out of the conversation if you can not provide the citation you are referencing, or at the very least drop the subject.

Quote:The link does work for me, but if you say it doesn't work for you it's under Philosophy>Seeing Red (thread) post #323

Again refercing your past work is still referencing a potentially biased work, Why would you offer your own thoughts as proof if I am calling your take on said thought into question to begin with?

Quote:There's not much I can say because you've taken it out of context from the very start. But that's my fault not yours. I should've learned a long time ago that it's not wise to use a technical understanding of a term when there is a popular and emotive use of the term in play. It just ends in them getting conflated and perhaps also by me.

Indeed the fault is not mine, as I asked you to frame the definition of the subject and when you efforts proved to be inadequate I asked for a citation to frame it for myself. Which you failed to provide.

Quote:I was talking about very dry subject matter in the context of a heated and emotive discussion and that was just stupidity on my part. I was just trying to talk about neural contexts. There's no bias involved in my interpretation... that's exactly how they work - objectively. They involve a dynamic of bias to get the job done. It's explained in my post above. It's just an inherent effect for you, and me, and everyone... whatever you - we - think about influences what we think next by way of priming related things.

That maybe, but your refusal to take my specific into consideration showed that while you may have knowledge of technical bias you are not able to refrain from processing information without subjecting it to your own bias.

Quote:I'm angry now, yes, but calming down. Anger is never worth it in the long run and just brings me down. As much as I can I try to step back from it, it's just harder when someone won't drop it. It's entirely possible, probable in fact, that in that state I have a demonised version of you in my head - a delusion - that is highly affected by confirmation bias... not much different from what can happen in a mafia game. It's what can happen in a situation of low information, such as a mafia game. I don't know you personally and for all I know you could be the kindest and most loving person in real life, but all I've got to work with here is what I see, and in anger that can be affected by paranoia and confirmation bias.

That's not all you fault as I do operate in a detached manner and I do let people's opinions of me go where ever they like unchecked, and as i do not have a popular message I tend to get vilified as it is just easier to hate what you oppose rather than try and reconcile/separate the messenger from the message.

(May 17, 2016 at 11:24 am)pocaracas Wrote: How would that work? I... may be interested in crazy stuff.... and never be interested by the actual real one claim...
What if I make up a few claims by myself? Should I then try to follow through? They would certainly interest me...

if you were not interested in finding out if their is a God we can stop here, as the rest would be pointless.

(May 17, 2016 at 12:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It seems as if the only importance this a/s/k ing business has ever had is as an excuse for you to call people lazy...or whatever else strikes your fancy.  People have a/s/k ed and found nothing..and others have never done so and claim..like you, to have found something.

Why not just call the people lazy?  Whats the point of complicating it or rationalizing your urge to be a dick?

why don't you take the time to answer the post I took time to write you rather than skirt the very issues you are working around here.

You mean...like I did in #377? What issue are we referring to anyway, your inability to reason when the opportunity to be an asshole presents itself?

Simply put, God is not apparent.

Indeed, if such an omni-max being were to exist his existence would be efficiently apparent; the mere question of his existence would remain moot as my ontological acceptance of him would be inherently wrought, the spiritual equivalent to the physical and mental efforts required for my innate capacity to breath or empty my bowels.

As it stands...all personal knowledge of any divine beings have been clearly foisted upon me by my fellow man....suspiciously so.

(May 17, 2016 at 1:27 pm)Drich Wrote:

(May 16, 2016 at 7:15 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: You keep saying such things, but the only thing you have backing them is your own rather fallible interpretation of your life history.  A history, I might add, that you have no compulsion from changing at whim.  I've documented in the past how your stories change with each telling.  You're selling a bill of goods which is half imagination and reinterpreted memory.  So don't play the old 'humble me' card.  That type of dissonance springs from deep desires, and yours have precious little to do with God.

then please.. Share some of these "changes." Or by changes do you mean I go into greater detail where before I might have said something like "I don't want to 'boast' about what he said specifically, but it all came true so far."

Sure, sure, nothing but excuses.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-20378-post-492255.html

(May 17, 2016 at 1:27 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote: You simply chose the one which conformed to your prior belief.  Or would you like to provide chapter and verse to back up your interpretation.

Love to
Mt 25:41 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
2thess 1:9 9 They will suffer the punishment of peternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

That's weak sauce, Drich. Of course hell is going to be away from God, that doesn't in any way support that the suffering consists in the privation, and not the eternal fire which is mentioned in your very quote.

(May 17, 2016 at 1:27 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote:The word Gehenna is that used for hell in the New Testament.  If hell was not meant to be likened to this burning refuse heap, then why is it used as the name of hell?

Because it was the closest thing 'we' could identify with. If you go beyond a google check Hell is also described
"the pit, The Second Death, The Void, it is also described as a prison containing 'Caves of Darkness'/Where the fallen angels are kept until the final judgement. The Idea of Gehenna was a place where things/unwanted things or even bodies were burned/destroyed. This is the physical picture of the Spiritual destruction of Soul, mind and body is what the physical place was meant for us to process or understand what happened on a spiritual level.

You're reading between the lines, dearie. Nowhere is this said in the bible. That's your invention.

(May 17, 2016 at 1:27 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote: Your Genesis day 3 being a prime example.  You are so blinded by your own confidence in your version that you completely ignored what was plainly written in the text.  It's like you're in a frenzy in which the only words you hear are your own.  Don't bother protesting if you're incapable of actually examining the evidence.  

Please this is what I am looking for. What of genesis day 3 did i say that is wrong?

https://atheistforums.org/thread-41813-p...pid1221460

(May 17, 2016 at 1:27 pm)Drich Wrote: You want to address me topically I will go as long as your willing to respond.

Fine, then let's address your interpretation of A/S/K. You claim that this is a guaranteed method of finding the holy spirit. Yet when people tell you that they have indeed sought God for a long time and found nothing, you discount this as them not having had a correct, biblical vision of God. In the first place, it says "seek and you shall find" -- no qualifications. These people did seek and did not find. Your rationalization as to why they didn't find is supposedly based on the parable of the wise and foolish builders, that those who have an incorrect vision of God are like the foolish builders. Well let's look and see what the parable says.

Quote:The Wise and Foolish Builders

24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

Matthew 5:24-27

It specifically states that the foolish builders are those who hear his words at the sermon on the mount and fail to put them into practice. Nothing about a 'correct' vision of the biblical God. And I would think that the people who were serious Christians for a long time are a better judge of their adherence to the sermon on the mount than you are. In fact, in the sermon Jesus instructs people how to 'seek' God, in the form of the Lord's prayer. It would be audacious of you to claim that these previously serious Christians were unacquainted with the Lord's prayer. Regardless, the parable of the wise and foolish builder does not offer you support for claiming that God is looking for any 'correct' vision of God. What is your scriptural basis for this claim?

(May 17, 2016 at 2:27 pm)Drich Wrote:

(May 17, 2016 at 10:19 am)Emjay Wrote: I can't quote book, chapter and verse because I don't have the book with me. I moved in with my sister for a while and only took what I really needed so that book is still at home on my bookshelf. Though I guess you'll think that's a lie.

How two dimensional.
We are discussing bias. I am looking for a citation so as to confirm or deny your assessment of bias. your answer is to dig in to your personal interpretation and citing your own potentially bias work. I ask for The name of the book, A chapter and a specific paragraph or verse so I could potentially look it up, and you response is to make me call you a liar or to take you at your word.

You should just drop out of the conversation if you can not provide the citation you are referencing, or at the very least drop the subject.

What you call two dimensional was just me pre-empting what I was expecting to come next given my current paranoid state. Ultimately you don't need a specific citation, you just need to understand how neural networks work, particularly bidirectional neural networks. Not just how they are structured but how they work in practice and the dynamics that emerge... and that takes more than just a cursory glance at the material. That book is all about simulating biological neural networks in software which lets you see these dynamics in action and understand them at a deeper level.

So I don't know what else I can say and given that, yes I would like to drop out of the conversation or the subject, whichever you prefer.

Quote:

Quote:The link does work for me, but if you say it doesn't work for you it's under Philosophy>Seeing Red (thread) post #323

Again refercing your past work is still referencing a potentially biased work, Why would you offer your own thoughts as proof if I am calling your take on said thought into question to begin with?

You said the link didn't work, which implied that you would have read it if it had. So I just gave you a second opportunity to read it.

The things I read, and continue to read, in the bible have been the deciding factor for me. In the last few years of my delusion, I thought I could hold on to my “personal relationship with Jesus.” And just ignore the things I was reading. Nut it became clear that without the bible, I had no foundation on which to base such belief.

The Church's convoluted and disingenuous explanations for why things didn't happen in real life the way they did in the bible only served to strengthen my resolve.

(May 17, 2016 at 2:44 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You mean...like I did in #377?  What issue are we referring to anyway, your inability to reason when the opportunity to be an asshole presents itself?

post 377 was a joke. you 'snipped' what you did not want to address and ignored everything else infavor of one liners skirting the issues I brought up. So no, Not like post 377. Post 377 allows you to keep your head burried in the sand concerning critical flaws in your thinking and logic. which allows you to make the same blindly ignorant statements that you have made from the beginning. Post 377 is an homage to your unwillingness and or inability to adapt to new information that critically undermines your thought or thinking process.

So again, No not like post 377. Maybe try to speak on point and leave the one liners to someone who does not know you are trying to deflect.

(May 17, 2016 at 2:51 pm)quip Wrote: Simply put, God is not apparent.

Indeed, if such an omni-max being were to exist his existence would be efficiently apparent; the mere question of his existence would remain moot as my ontological acceptance of him would be inherently wrought, the spiritual equivalent to the physical and mental efforts required for my innate capacity to breath or empty my bowels.

As it stands...all personal knowledge of any divine beings have been clearly foisted upon me by my fellow man....suspiciously so.

...And if God were not an Omni Max being?

No where in the bible does God that term to describe Himself. He has omni attributes but not all the ones most people ascribe to Him.