Gordon White, Pieces of Eight: Part 1, Christianity’s Shadow |332|

#81
People holding differnt emotional views about the same thing also demonstrates this phenomenon, which disproves objective morality.
Not quite. The term objective applies when there is some independent object from which various subject can derive knowledge. Various knowing subjects may have different perceptions but that does not negate the presence of actual knowable facts about an object.
 
#83
This forum is a place where people who are interested in or convinced by the role of mind, can discuss that role in a mature way.
He says, right after asserting:

If you can't see how absurd that position is, no argument from me can show you.
So, apparently me discussing the points of your argument is me acting like an adolescent whereas you dodging pointed questions to your first argument and then stating that if I don't believe what you say then I'm just wrong as your second argument is mature? I wonder which of us is really the one who will have to look in that mirror one day?
 
#85
Not quite. The term objective applies when there is some independent object from which various subject can derive knowledge. Various knowing subjects may have different perceptions but that does not negate the presence of actual knowable facts about an object.
You are correct. The distinction I'm making is that I can say that I like vanilla icecream better than chocolate but I can't prove that it is in fact better than chocolate universally across all possible parameters and that therefore everyone must like vanilla instead of chocolate or that if they do like chocolate they're somehow incorrect.

I think we have been around this horn before. There is no way to prove an objective morality other than "I feel it is so."
Which is why it's not objective. I actually found out through a lot of logical problems that objectivity can only exist within a subjective framework. Thus making everything, including the laws of physics, subjective in some sense. Not in the "gravity only affects me if I believe in it" sort of way but more in the "the laws of physics of this universe may not be the same as the laws of physics in another universe" way. I doubt it's a groundbreaking revelation but it was interesting in how it worked its way into my training in such a way that suggests it might actually be possible to make physics stop affecting you just by not beleiving in it. Leading to my compiler analogy for magic. You must follow the syntax of the compiler for your program to work. But learn the syntax well enough and you could write your own compiler however you want.

I don't know if it's true or not but maybe one day I'll get to find out.
 
#86
I mean, as far as historical figures go, Jesus is better than many, like Alexander the great, as far as validation.
this just one of those things that Christians hear and repeat... but it's not real in any real sense.

[re:Bible facts/history important]Well, for many yes, but far from all. I identify myself as Christian, but, well, you know my views ;-)
right... and I obviously agree, but when we switch from the personal to the cultural it's a very different scene. Most Christians are not ready to go where you've gone... would be nice if they would... but 80-90% are not ready/interested.
 
#87
this just one of those things that Christians hear and repeat... but it's not real in any real sense.
I disagree. Two of the guys I originally learned this from were Joseph Campbell and Alan Watts - two guys that are decidedly not Christian (as you're using the term) and obviously have no stake in that game. Bottom line, there are figures in history that are sold as fact in basic history lessons, which don't have very strong evidence for their actual existence. I'm not claiming the evidence for Jesus is strong by any means. I'm just saying it's not especially weak, either, when taken in context. I'd even argue that most 2000+ old figures have weak evidence for their actual evidence, especially when compared to evidence in other fields of science like chemistry, physics, etc. It gets even thornier when you realize accurate book keeping of historical facts wasn't always exactly a priority way back in the day. Myth was commonly interjected. Take the Illiad, for example. We now know Troy really existed, but do any of us believe there was a guy named Achilles running around, born of a god/human mix, immortal except for his heel? Do we even believe there was a guy named Achilles at all? We have no idea. Syncretistic tendencies was also common , as well as distortion by the victors, etc.
 
#88
There are numerous surviving ancient Greek and Latin sources on Alexander the Great, as well as some oriental texts. The five main surviving accounts are by Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus, Curtius and Justin.[1] In addition to these five main sources, there is the Metz Epitome, an anonymous late Latin work that narrates Alexander's campaigns from Hyrcania to India. Much is also recounted incidentally by other authors, including Strabo, Athenaeus, Polyaenus, Aelian, and others. Strabo, who gives a summary of Callisthenes, is an important source for Alexander's journey to Siwah.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_Alexander_the_Great
 
#89
There are numerous surviving ancient Greek and Latin sources on Alexander the Great, as well as some oriental texts. The five main surviving accounts are by Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus, Curtius and Justin.[1] In addition to these five main sources, there is the Metz Epitome, an anonymous late Latin work that narrates Alexander's campaigns from Hyrcania to India. Much is also recounted incidentally by other authors, including Strabo, Athenaeus, Polyaenus, Aelian, and others. Strabo, who gives a summary of Callisthenes, is an important source for Alexander's journey to Siwah.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_Alexander_the_Great
Alex, may I ask you why it is important to you that Jesus as recounted in Mark's gospel (for instance) isn't historically real ? I'm not looking for an argument, it's just that I don't think many scholars over here at least would agree. But am I barking up the wrong tree ?
 
#92
There are numerous surviving ancient Greek and Latin sources on Alexander the Great, as well as some oriental texts. The five main surviving accounts are by Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus, Curtius and Justin.[1] In addition to these five main sources, there is the Metz Epitome, an anonymous late Latin work that narrates Alexander's campaigns from Hyrcania to India. Much is also recounted incidentally by other authors, including Strabo, Athenaeus, Polyaenus, Aelian, and others. Strabo, who gives a summary of Callisthenes, is an important source for Alexander's journey to Siwah.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_Alexander_the_Great
Okay, I can list as many accounts and more for Jesus. So what? Since you didn't quote the rest of my post, which had my main point, I am assuming you missed it?
 
#93
It's just that personally, if you prefer to think of Jesus as some kind mythical invention (apologies if I have that wrong) , I can't see how you get there. Wouldn't you have to disregard the majority of serious scholars ?
I didn't mention this yet, either. But, if we're going to take psi seriously, then we have to at least consider what psychics have had to say, especially one's with decent track records. Two that jump to mind are: edgar cayce and rudolph steiner. Both claim to "know" via psi that Jesus did have a historical incarnation. Of course, there are others that have said this too

I'm not saying this is solid evidence, and it's probably not even weak evidence. But, what should we do with it? certainly not throw it out, I would think.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#94
Perhaps those who take the bible literally are idolaters.

Outside of fundamentalists are there others who would take the story of Noah and the ark as an "accurate history". If it is not a literal history, might it be otherwise valuable?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." this is a kind of history that is meaningful for me. But conversely it will have no utility for scientists or historians.
I'll have to find the quote but Origen, one of the Church Fathers, did note that people shouldn't take the Bible literally.
 
#96
It's just that personally, if you prefer to think of Jesus as some kind mythical invention (apologies if I have that wrong) , I can't see how you get there. Wouldn't you have to disregard the majority of serious scholars ?
I think most serious scholars hold some kind of middle ground position. i.e. the Jesus of the Bible is not historical, but not a total myth either. but the mythicists have some strong points... and even psydo-mythicists like Bart Ehrman are pretty widely accepted.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#97
I think we have been around this horn before. There is no way to prove an objective morality other than "I feel it is so."
But this, simultaneously, isn't a proof that objective morality is nonexistent.

I'd also contend the quales of moral feeling are different than the quales or mere desires/preferences....though there is overlap & confusion...
 
#99
I didn't mention this yet, either. But, if we're going to take psi seriously, then we have to at least consider what psychics have had to say, especially one's with decent track records. Two that jump to mind are: edgar cayce and rudolph steiner. Both claim to "know" via psi that Jesus did have a historical incarnation. Of course, there are others that have said this too

I'm not saying this is solid evidence, and it's probably not even weak evidence. But, what should we do with it? certainly not throw it out, I would think.
agreed. I'll add Neem Karoli Baba as another great mystic that talks about a physical Jesus.

I'm open to the mystery here, but that has to include all the craziness that is Christianity... it's messy :)
 
I didn't mention this yet, either. But, if we're going to take psi seriously, then we have to at least consider what psychics have had to say, especially one's with decent track records.
I agree, Ethan. But for me there's just far too much evidence for the historical Jesus from earthly sources. Am I being naïve in citing Tacitus, St Paul, Pontius Pilate ..the list is quite long. I mean we have some heavy duty "mouths" in Britain who hate religion/ Christianity but I can't think of anyone off the top of my head who thinks "Jesus" was a sort of amalgam of historical traditions etc.
 
Top