(March 16, 2017 at 9:37 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(March 15, 2017 at 6:15 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: When I was a theist, the most compelling argument I ever heard for atheism was, "Read the bible fully."

Personally, people who read the canon in order from start to finish are ill-advised. That may leave you with a basic biblical timeline, which is a good thing, but also leads to much confusion. The texts have to be read both forwards and backwards to draw out all the foreshadowing and typology. My favorite technique is finding a common phrase, consulting a concordance, and then comparing how it is used in each instance. The texts open up in unexpected ways to reveal hidden themes and allusions threading their way through the narrative. These threads tie the stories together just as Jesus said, "If you believed Moses then you would believe me..." (John 5:46) I find that approach more helpful than the typical topical approaches most bible study groups use. Those seem more like proof-texting clubs. I'd be happy to share videos of some study groups that take that approach, albeit from a Swedenborgian perspective, for anyone who is interested.

The bible is a "choose your own adventure" book.
You can justify/condemn anything using it by skipping to the parts you want.

---

(March 16, 2017 at 1:50 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(March 16, 2017 at 9:37 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Personally, people who read the canon in order from start to finish are ill-advised. That may leave you with a basic biblical timeline, which is a good thing, but also leads to much confusion. The texts have to be read both forwards and backwards to draw out all the foreshadowing and typology. My favorite technique is finding a common phrase, consulting a concordance, and then comparing how it is used in each instance. The texts open up in unexpected ways to reveal hidden themes and allusions threading their way through the narrative. These threads tie the stories together just as Jesus said, "If you believed Moses then you would believe me..." (John 5:46) I find that approach more helpful than the typical topical approaches most bible study groups use. Those seem more like proof-texting clubs. I'd be happy to share videos of some study groups that take that approach, albeit from a Swedenborgian perspective, for anyone who is interested.

Oh yeah so what did you figure out about the story when Abraham is supposed to kill his son? What special meaning and hidden messages did you find in that? Because from the viewpoint of modern morality, this disgraceful story, is an example of child abuse, something that Isaac could never recover from such psychological trauma.
Or what about when Jephthah actually killed his daughter to please JHVH? I mean how do you have to read the Bible to make sense of that story? Maybe hanging upside down so that blood fills your brain?

(March 16, 2017 at 2:15 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(March 16, 2017 at 1:09 pm)Brian37 Wrote: The Dennett quote you skip the "not in the systematically mysterious way that supports such doctrines". I'd say " not the bullshit superstitions and horror movies". By "zombies" he is talking about how down to the single atom which by itself acts a certain way.

You better stop now before you beclown yourself even more than you already have. Anyone can see that I did NOT skip the part about about epiphenomenalism in my quote.  Please go on though...display your complete ignorance for all the world to see. The zombies in question have nothing to do with atoms behaving a certain way.  He is talking about P-zombies, people that behave in every way like everyone else but do not experience qualia. It is a very very famous thought problem by David Chalmers and the fact that you don't know about it just shows that you haven't a clue.

I'm not the one who buys into a book that doesn't get the sun and moon scientifically correct. I am not the one who buys into a book that has a story about mass genocide which ends up with a limited gene pool, do tell, who did Noah's family have sex with according to you without incest?

Ok fine, then I will look that up, but still. Dennett isn't basing anything he says on old book of myth. 

According to this article Dennett REJECTS epiphenomenalism and qualia based on the antiquated idea I do too. If you buy into it then you are fooling yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers

There, so now everyone can read it. Now again, explain to me where you think Dennett is justifying zombies like in a horror movie?

Evidence for a lack of god is the complete absence of any evidence for one.

All the qualities attributed to god when they have become testable by science have proved to be "not god", that is the creation of the earth and planets, biology the age of the earth morality etc etc etc. So now the idea of god has been relegated to all the gaps in knowledge or abstract concepts.

(March 16, 2017 at 2:44 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(March 16, 2017 at 2:15 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: The zombies in question have nothing to do with atoms behaving a certain way.  He is talking about P-zombies, people that behave in every way like everyone else but do not experience qualia. It is a very very famous thought problem by David Chalmers and the fact that you don't know about it just shows that you haven't a clue.

Now again, explain to me where you think Dennett is justifying zombies like in a horror movie?

Maybe you should take a look at the parts I put in bold. Now, hop along to go play with your dollies like a good little girl.

(March 16, 2017 at 3:17 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(March 16, 2017 at 2:44 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Now again, explain to me where you think Dennett is justifying zombies like in a horror movie?

Maybe you should take a look at the parts I put in bold. Now, hop along to go play with your dollies like a good little girl.

So is there something wrong with being female now? So being female is less than being male is that it? 

Look dude, I could give one crap less what word salad you want to make of this but Dennett does not believe in any type of zombies moron. It is still metaphor.

(March 16, 2017 at 5:28 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(March 16, 2017 at 3:17 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Maybe you should take a look at the parts I put in bold. Now, hop along to go play with your dollies like a good little girl.

So is there something wrong with being female now? So being female is less than being male is that it? 

Look dude, I could give one crap less what word salad you want to make of this but Dennett does not believe in any type of zombies moron. It is still metaphor.

epiphenomenalism is vitalism for minds

(March 16, 2017 at 2:27 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: The bible is a "choose your own adventure" book.
You can justify/condemn anything using it by skipping to the parts you want.

When you think about it N-S might be up to something: like he says the linear reading of Bible is wrong, because when you read it from beginning to the end you get a lot of people butchering people to please god and you think only a retarded maniac could think this book actually speaks something moral and good. But when you read it backward you get a lot of people bringing dead people back to life and suddenly it is a very moral book.

There is no case for atheism, except the lack of a case for theism.
Atheism isn't something you actively make an argument for. Wht can theists not grasp this? Im not an atheist because it is some sensible worldview, anymore than im not a stamp collector because its a great hobby to not collect stamps.
Im an atheist because i reject the arguments in favor of theism. That's it.

Stop trying to equate them. They are not the same. Always trying to make atheism a dogmatic set of ideas, or science a religion, just so you can reverse the argumemts used against you, but it will fail, because you fundamentally misunderstand that lacking belief in some unproven concept is just that, lacking belief. The arguments are against theism, not for atheism.

---

(March 16, 2017 at 3:17 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(March 16, 2017 at 2:44 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Now again, explain to me where you think Dennett is justifying zombies like in a horror movie?

Maybe you should take a look at the parts I put in bold. Now, hop along to go play with your dollies like a good little girl.

Wow, sexist much?
So being a girl is an insult. Lovely.

And don't try and spin it thats it's about being a child, or you would have said boy, since Brian is male. Girl was an additional to the child, and playing with dolls.

I know, you wont see it. Bigots rarely can see their own bigotry, particularly the subtler kind, which is no less insidious.

(March 16, 2017 at 3:17 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(March 16, 2017 at 2:44 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Now again, explain to me where you think Dennett is justifying zombies like in a horror movie?

Maybe you should take a look at the parts I put in bold. Now, hop along to go play with your dollies like a good little girl.

I understood what you meant.... mostly because I understand what those you where quoting meant; and I saw no reason to infer you where using it a different way. And while P-zombies might not be immediately apparent by itself, I think that it is clear you where clarifying your position against what was claimed for you. I wonder how long this will keep going?

(March 16, 2017 at 6:50 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(March 16, 2017 at 2:27 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: The bible is a "choose your own adventure" book.
You can justify/condemn anything using it by skipping to the parts you want.

When you think about it N-S might be up to something: like he says the linear reading of Bible is wrong, because when you read it from beginning to the end you get a lot of people butchering people to please god and you think only a retarded maniac could think this book actually speaks something moral and good. But when you read it backward you get a lot of people bringing dead people back to life and suddenly it is a very moral book.

Already addressed on my blog: https://keplersdream.wordpress.com/2013/...-its-epic/