Total posts: 906
-->
@Lemming
Belief in divinity is the acceptance, conviction, or faith in the existence of a higher, supernatural power or force that transcends the natural world. It encompasses a profound conviction that this divine entity holds significance, authority, and influence over the universe and may be attributed with qualities such as omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence. This belief often forms the basis for religious and spiritual frameworks, shaping individuals' understanding of existence, morality, and the purpose of life.
I was implying that even if Hitler wasn't religious in the common sense, he probably still believed in something similar to manifest destiny, in that he found great meaning and purpose in the pursuit of his divinity, while if he believed there was no such thing as divinity, such as nothing matters, than he wouldn't have found meaning or the drive needed to fuel his efforts towards overcoming the tramendous obsticales he did.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
When I said a belief in divinity, I meant the belief that certain things have greater inherent significance, of or relating to the divine.
Aka, he wasn't a nihilistic atheist.
Created:
Defender’s Argument (Compatibilism):
- Main Claim: Gender identity is influenced by biological factors, but not determined by them. Biological factors, such as genetics, hormones, and brain structure, play a significant role in predisposing individuals to certain gender expressions, such as clothing, hairstyle, or behavior. However, other factors, such as personal experiences and cultural influences, also contribute to the complexity and diversity of gender identity (Fisher et al., 2018).
- Assumption: Free will is the ability to act in accordance with one’s identity, reasons, and values, while recognizing the influence of biological and social factors. This view is based on the philosophical position that free will and determinism are compatible, and that rational agency is the key criterion for free will (Kane, 2005).
- Supporting Evidence: Scientific studies indicate a complex interplay between biological and environmental factors in gender identity formation (Savic & Arver, 2014). For example, a meta-analysis of 32 studies found that transgender individuals had a higher likelihood of carrying certain gene variants related to sex hormone signaling (Hare et al., 2019). Psychological research underscores the positive impact of aligning actions with gender identity on well-being (Olson et al., 2016). For example, a longitudinal study of 55 transgender youth found that those who received puberty blockers reported lower levels of depression and anxiety than those who did not (de Vries et al., 2014). While these findings support the main claim, they also acknowledge the nuanced nature of the relationship between biology and gender identity, and the possibility of individual variation and change over time (Diamond, 2016).
- Counterarguments and Responses: Some critics may argue that biological factors are the primary or sole determinants of gender identity, and that any deviation from the sex assigned at birth is unnatural or abnormal. This argument may be challenged by pointing out the limitations and biases of biological research, the diversity and fluidity of gender across cultures and history, and the ethical and human rights implications of denying or suppressing one’s gender identity (Heyes, 2018). Other critics may argue that biological factors are irrelevant or negligible in gender identity formation, and that individuals have complete freedom and flexibility to choose and change their gender at will. This argument may be challenged by pointing out the empirical evidence and personal experiences of biological influences on gender identity, the potential consequences and challenges of changing one’s gender, and the importance of authenticity and coherence in one’s sense of self (Westbrook & Schilt, 2014).
- Conclusion: Aligning one’s gender with one’s identity is an expression of free will, navigating the interplay between intrinsic and extrinsic factors. This argument recognizes that biology plays a substantial role, but not a deterministic one, in shaping one’s gender identity. It also acknowledges the role of personal and social factors, and how they interact with biological factors. Limitations may include the complexity and uncertainty of biological influences, and the argument relates to the broader debate by emphasizing a nuanced and balanced view that considers both deterministic and autonomous aspects.
References
de Vries, A. L., McGuire, J. K., Steensma, T. D., Wagenaar, E. C., Doreleijers, T. A., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2014). Young adult psychological outcome after puberty suppression and gender reassignment. Pediatrics, 134(4), 696-704. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2958
Diamond, M. (2016). Biological aspects of gender identity and transgenderism. International Journal of Transgenderism, 17(1), 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2016.1094434
Fisher, A. D., Ristori, J., Fanni, E., Castellini, G., Forti, G., & Maggi, M. (2016). Gender identity, gender assignment and reassignment in individuals with disorders of sex development: a major of dilemma. Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, 39(11), 1207-1224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40618-016-0485-8
Hare, L., Bernard, P., Sánchez, F. J., Baird, P. N., Vilain, E., Kennedy, T., & Harley, V. R. (2019). Androgen receptor repeat length polymorphism associated with male-to-female transsexualism. Biological Psychiatry, 65(1), 93-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.08.033
Heyes, C. J. (2018). Anaesthetics of existence: Essays on experience at the edge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Kane, R. (2005). A contemporary introduction to free will. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Olson, K. R., Durwood, L., DeMeules, M., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2016). Mental health of transgender children who are supported in their identities. Pediatrics, 137(3), e20153223. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-3223
Savic, I., & Arver, S. (2014). Sex dimorphism of the brain in male-to-female transsexuals. Cerebral Cortex, 24(11), 2835-2848. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht183
Westbrook, L., & Schilt, K. (2014). Doing gender, determining gender: Transgender people, gender panics, and the maintenance of the sex/gender/sexuality system. Gender & Society, 28(1), 32-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243213503203
Contender’s Argument (Incompatibilism):
- Main Claim: Individuals have the freedom and flexibility to choose and express their gender independently of biological and social factors. This argument emphasizes the primacy of individual choice and agency in determining and enacting one’s gender identity, regardless of their sex assigned at birth or physical appearance (Westbrook & Schilt, 2014).
- Assumption: Free will is the ability to choose among alternative courses of action, implying the absence of strict external influences or determinants in the decision-making process. This view is based on the philosophical position that free will and determinism are incompatible, and that causal influences negate the possibility of genuine choice (van Inwagen, 1983).
- Supporting Evidence: Philosophical principles supporting individual rights and self-definition, coupled with sociological insights into the malleability of gender as a social construct, empower individuals to freely choose their gender identities (Heyes, 2018). For example, John Stuart Mill argued that individuals should have the liberty to pursue their own good in their own way, as long as they do not harm others (Mill, 1859). Judith Butler suggested that gender is a performative act, and that individuals can subvert the norms of gender by enacting different styles of gender (Butler, 1990). However, this argument also acknowledges the potential impact of societal norms and discrimination on individual choices, and discusses how individuals can resist or challenge them (Norton & Herek, 2013).
- Counterarguments and Responses: Some critics may argue that individuals do not have the freedom and flexibility to choose their gender, as they are constrained or influenced by biological and social factors. This argument may be challenged by pointing out the limitations and biases of biological and social research, the diversity and fluidity of gender across cultures and history, and the ethical and human rights implications of denying or suppressing one’s gender identity (Heyes, 2018). Other critics may argue that individuals should not have the freedom and flexibility to choose their gender, as they should conform to the norms and expectations of their sex assigned at birth or physical appearance. This argument may be challenged by pointing out the empirical evidence and personal experiences of the benefits of aligning one’s gender with one’s identity, the potential consequences and challenges of conforming to the norms and expectations of others, and the importance of diversity and individuality in one’s sense of self (Westbrook & Schilt, 2014).
- Conclusion: The ability to choose and adapt gender freely is an exercise of true free will, promoting self-expression and autonomy. This argument recognizes that societal constructs play a role, but it underscores the primacy of individual choice and agency. It also acknowledges the potential impact of biological and social factors, and how individuals can cope or overcome them. Limitations may include the potential influence of subtle or unconscious factors, and the argument relates to the broader debate by championing a robust stance on personal agency in gender identity formation.
References
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.
Heyes, C. J. (2018). Anaesthetics of existence: Essays on experience at the edge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty. London, UK: John W. Parker and Son.
Norton, A. T., & Herek, G. M. (2013). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward transgender people: Findings from a national probability sample of US adults. Sex Roles, 68(11-12), 738-753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0110-6
van Inwagen, P. (1983). An essay on free will. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Westbrook, L., & Schilt, K. (2014). Doing gender, determining gender: Transgender people, gender panics, and the maintenance of the sex/gender/sexuality system. Gender & Society, 28(1), 32-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243213503203
Created:
This debate explores the relationship between free will and gender identity, and the implications for individual and social well-being. It presents two opposing arguments: one that views free will and determinism as compatible, and one that views them as incompatible. The debate examines the definitions, assumptions, evidence, and counterarguments of each position, and evaluates their strengths and weaknesses. The debate aims to provide a nuanced and balanced perspective on the complex and controversial issues of free will and gender identity.
I hope this to be entertaining. Feel free to criticize either position for a more elaborate response.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
If he wasn't religious in the common sense, I think it's reasonable to believe that he at least believed in divinity since I cannot imagine a person putting as much effort into his pursuit without a belief in divine fulfillment.
Created:
I know the history, but I want perspectives.
Created:
Posted in:
Formulating a Theory of Everything is not challenging; it can be grasped through comprehensive abstraction. The true difficulty lies in crafting a theory that is also precise, testable, and adept at explaining the complexities of the natural world across all scales.
Created:
Posted in:
The Bootstrap Paradox is a concept that arises in the realm of theoretical physics and time travel within the framework of certain theories, including aspects of general relativity and quantum mechanics. It is often discussed in the context of time loops and the potential consequences of time travel.
**Description:**
The Bootstrap Paradox, also known as a causal loop or ontological paradox, refers to a situation where an object or piece of information is sent back in time and becomes the cause of its own existence. In simpler terms, it's a scenario in which the origin of a particular event or object cannot be determined because it exists within a closed causal loop with no clear point of initiation.
**Example:**
Consider a scenario where a person travels back in time and hands Shakespeare a copy of his own works. Shakespeare then publishes these works under his own name, and the time traveler later retrieves the book from Shakespeare's time, creating a loop where the works have no clear origin but are instead perpetually circulating in time.
**Key Elements:**
1. **No Clear Origin:** The paradox involves an object or information that lacks a definitive origin because it appears to be self-created within the loop.
2. **Closed Causal Loop:** The events form a closed loop where the future influences the past, and the past influences the future, with no external cause.
3. **Challenges Traditional Causality:** The Bootstrap Paradox challenges the traditional understanding of cause and effect, as the cause and effect are entangled in a loop without a clear starting point.
**Theoretical Implications:**
The Bootstrap Paradox is more of a thought experiment than a proven phenomenon. It arises in discussions about time travel theories, such as closed timelike curves, where time loops are permitted. The paradox raises questions about the nature of causality, free will, and the potential consequences of violating the conventional flow of time.
It's worth noting that the Bootstrap Paradox is a concept explored in science fiction literature and popularized by shows like "Doctor Who." While it has theoretical underpinnings in physics, the actual feasibility of time travel and the existence of such paradoxes remain speculative and largely theoretical.
I hope this helps.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I believe morality is the best option for oneself as a member of society while considering both the present and future.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
After attempting for thousands of years, how do you explain our failure to find "a mutually agreed concept".Consciousness is not empirical, yet many people try to describe and measure it.The very process by which science translates qualitative experiences into measurable quantities that do not themselves exhibit the qualitative constituents of experience, fundamentally changes the subject matter of the investigation such that the resultant account of consciousness is a contradiction in terms.
I'm skeptical to agree that science translates qualitative experiences into measurable quantities that do not themselves exhibit the qualitative constituents of experience.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
After attempting for thousands of years, how do you explain our failure to find "a mutually agreed concept".
Consciousness is not empirical, yet many people try to describe and measure it. Not all people agree about what it should be called because it is closely tied with religion and fate, making it often an emotionally driven topic. It would make sense to me that people won't reach an agreement until they agree on a single religion and philosophy, which will probably never happen.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
So, it seems this theory of self-coercion additionally aligns with computer science.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
@Sidewalker
I don't see the definition as a self-referential paradox, but an attempt for a mutually agreed concept, which if done well could be conclusive.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't quite understand what you are trying to say, but I define self-coercion as the following.
Self-Coercion: Self-coercion occurs when we internalize beliefs or desires that were imposed upon us, often during our formative years when we were more impressionable or naive. As we grow, we convince ourselves that we genuinely want or believe in these things, even if they don't align with our true values or desires. It's like telling ourselves a convincing story that we come to accept, even though it may not reflect our authentic selves. Recognizing and addressing this type of self-coercion is a crucial step in our journey toward self-discovery and living in alignment with our genuine beliefs and values.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Self-coercion may encompass more than just conforming to societal expectations. It could involve the act of persuading ourselves that our knowledge is entirely certain and comprehensive, leading us to believe there's no need for further learning. This reluctance to acknowledge our limitations can be seen as self-coercion assuming our deepest desire is to have an overall positive life, as it sacrifices future growth for immediate comfort by avoiding the emotional pain of fully realizing our flaws to correct them.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Basically, just learn about lots of different cultures and different views, and then you are free.Until then, there is no comparison possible, nor informed choice.
That is the precise path to discerning reality from the cultural lens.
We can't discern what is the lens of culture until we can identify what culture is, so, we must learn many cultures to find what transcends culture, and that is what reality is detached from social and cultural agendas.
Created:
Let's break it down: "A consciously astute intellectual can discern intersubjective phenomena from self-coercion, especially derived from social agendas."
Consciously astute intellectual: A consciously astute intellectual is someone who combines self-awareness with a keen intellect. This individual is not only knowledgeable but is also acutely aware of their own thoughts, emotions, and the impact of external influences on their beliefs and actions. They possess the ability to critically examine and question their own perspectives and biases. Such an intellectual strives for a deep understanding of both themselves and the world around them. This level of self-awareness and intellectual capacity allows them to navigate complex ideas, engage in meaningful discourse, and contribute to a deeper understanding of the human experience.
Intersubjective Phenomena: Intersubjective phenomena are experiences, concepts, or aspects of reality that exist within the realm of shared understanding among individuals. These are elements of the human experience that can be collectively recognized and agreed upon, bridging the subjective experiences of different people. Intersubjective phenomena often pertain to ideas, values, or concepts that have meaning and significance in a social or cultural context. They highlight the common ground where individuals can relate and communicate effectively, even if their personal experiences and perspectives vary. Understanding intersubjective phenomena is essential for fostering mutual understanding and effective communication within a community or society.
Self-Coercion: Self-coercion occurs when we internalize beliefs or desires that were imposed upon us, often during our formative years when we were more impressionable or naive. As we grow, we convince ourselves that we genuinely want or believe in these things, even if they don't align with our true values or desires. It's like telling ourselves a convincing story that we come to accept, even though it may not reflect our authentic selves. Recognizing and addressing this type of self-coercion is a crucial step in our journey toward self-discovery and living in alignment with our genuine beliefs and values.
Social Agendas: Social agendas refer to the prevailing beliefs, values, and expectations within a society or culture. These are often shaped by collective norms and can influence how individuals perceive and interact with the world. It's important to avoid becoming indoctrinated by these agendas, as they may limit our capacity for independent thought and self-expression.
Created:
Description:
How can we avoid becoming indoctrinated by social agendas and seeing the world through a cultural lens so we can understand reality in its essence? How can a child ignorant and defenseless of social agendas become a culturally transcendent philosopher? Do we coerce ourselves, are there consequences, and how can we avoid this? These are some questions that we will address in order to develop a full procedure to becoming a culturally transcendent philosopher from an indoctrinated naive child in order to reach the highest level of clarity in which we see reality.
Concise Point: "A consciously astute intellectual can discern intersubjective phenomena from self-coercion, especially derived from social agendas."
This marks the beginning of the utmost fundamental and essential concepts to grasp about the world, paving the way to empower your ability to tackle any question with confidence. If you believe a similar topic should be a part of this series, please feel free to address it and If I believe it truly is then I will consider it in as great a depth as I can for another forum of the series. This is meant to be an interactive educational forum to express what I believe to be one of the most necessary keys to understanding.
Coming soon on "Essential Foundations to Comprehensive Understanding - The Blueprint of Reality":
Brief Description: Meant to lay out the foundation concepts necessary to understand complex questions.
What is Morality?
What is Truth?
What is Understanding?
What is Reality?
What is God?
Final and unending series "Demystifying Philosophical Controversies - The Structure of Reality":
Brief Description: Meant to make sense of all commonly decided questions such as the morality of abortion and many others.
Is abortion ethical?
What is the ideal political structure?
How does religious text articulate reality?
What is the best way to live life?
Are morals worth maintaining?
Please help productively refine my understanding and others by using the following guidelines:
- NUMBER 1: Please ask questions and only state a dispute with an example to improve my understanding, this forum is intended to educate with an interactive environment.
- Be open-minded and curious. Do not dismiss or ignore answers that challenge your reality or beliefs. Try to embrace them as opportunities to learn and grow. Try to approach them with logical, critical, and professional minds, and seek to understand the evidence and reasoning behind them.
- Be empathetic and respectful. Do not judge or ridicule other people’s perspectives or experiences. Try to comprehend their viewpoints and appreciate their contributions to the larger and more intricate reality. Try to see how different perspectives can form a more complex and complete picture of the world.
- Be honest and responsible. Always prioritize speaking the truth and avoid making definitive claims when uncertain. Use qualifiers like "about," "I saw," "I think," or "I believe" to convey information accurately.
- Be clear about the source of your knowledge when sharing with others. This fosters a truthful and respectful environment for discussions.
- Be relevant and on-topic. Do not deviate from the main topic of the forum. Do not post irrelevant or off-topic comments and links that aren't productive to the questions being discussed.
- Be constructive and creative. Do not simply criticize or reject other people’s ideas. Try to offer positive feedback, suggestions, or alternatives.
- Be clear and concise. Try to use clear and accurate language as much as possible. To have effective communication it is necessary to speak understandably.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Absolutely, intersubjective knowledge is valuable because it bridges the gap between individual subjective experiences, creating a shared understanding or consensus among people. It allows for effective communication, collaboration, and the development of common ground, making it a more reliable basis for discussions, decision-making, and cooperative efforts compared to purely subjective knowledge.
I think of each person as having a domain of knowledge about the world. We can think of intersubjective knowledge as the agreed perception and understanding.
Each circle is our subjective experience, while intersubjective experience is where they overlap.
Venn Diagram: https://d2slcw3kip6qmk.cloudfront.net/marketing/blog/2017Q3/Venn-diagram-symbols-and-notation/VDAIntersectsB.png
The utility is shown when you may ask me about my non-intersubjective knowledge. You would not better understand the world by me sharing my favorite color or movie, since they are purely subjective. Whereas you would find intersubjective knowledge useful, since we could logically agree, such as the existence of water.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I'm glad you're going to research, and not strictly rely on the credibility of anonymous users. Nonetheless, you may find this useful.
Intersubjectivity:
Intersubjectivity is a concept used in philosophy, sociology, and psychology to describe the ways in which individuals share and collectively construct meaning and understanding of the world. It highlights the social and communal nature of knowledge and experience. Intersubjectivity recognizes that while human experiences are inherently subjective, they are often shaped and influenced by shared interpretations, cultural norms, and the interactions between individuals.
In essence, intersubjectivity refers to the common understandings and meanings that develop when individuals engage in social and communicative interactions. It involves the process by which people come to agree on shared meanings, interpretations, and values. Intersubjective knowledge emerges from the shared experiences, language, and cultural context that individuals have in common.
In everyday life, intersubjectivity is evident when people communicate and engage in dialogue, often using language and shared symbols to convey their thoughts and emotions. This shared communication and understanding play a crucial role in shaping social norms, cultural practices, and the collective construction of knowledge.
Concise Explanation:
Intersubjectivity refers to experiences or understandings that appear consistent or shared among different individuals. It highlights the commonality and agreement in how people perceive and interpret certain aspects of their experiences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I did some research since you brought an interesting perspective.
Postmodernism is a philosophical and cultural movement that emerged in the mid-20th century. It challenges traditional beliefs in objective truth, universal values, and grand narratives. Postmodernism emphasizes the relativity of knowledge, the complexity of language, and the diversity of human experiences. It often critiques established power structures and questions the stability of meaning and reality.
Core Beliefs:
- Subjectivity: Postmodernism challenges the idea of objective truth and universal values, emphasizing the subjectivity of knowledge and the complexity of language.
- Skepticism of Grand Narratives: Postmodernism questions the reliability of grand narratives (totalizing theories or stories) and highlights the diversity of human experiences and perspectives.
- Pluralism: Postmodern thought often celebrates diversity, pluralism, and the blending or hybridization of different styles and cultural influences.
Modernism is a cultural, artistic, and intellectual movement that arose in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It's characterized by a focus on individualism, innovation, and a break from traditional values and artistic forms. Modernism often seeks to reflect the rapidly changing world and emphasizes originality, experimentation, and a belief in progress. It encompasses a wide range of fields, including art, literature, architecture, and philosophy.
Core Beliefs:
- Objective Truth: Modernism often emphasizes the pursuit of objective truth and rationality. It has confidence in science, reason, and technology to improve society.
- Progress: Modernist thinkers believe in human progress and the ability to better society through knowledge and innovation.
- Clarity and Originality: Modernism seeks clarity in communication and originality in art, literature, and design. It values innovation and often breaks from traditional forms.
As I understand it, modernism is the belief in the objective, while postmodernism is the belief in the subjective. It seems that postmodernism tries to devalue any sort of standard for objective knowledge because it lacks rationality, since we can never experience what is imperceptible, but I believe this to be a mistake. I understand that objectivity is irrational, and I understand that subjectivity proves any objective to be false but also the inconsistency of what knowledge means.
We must contemplate the true nature of knowledge and its purpose. Knowledge, as I perceive it, is meant to serve as a foundational framework upon which others can build and advance, driving progress in fields like technology and medicine. Both the strictly objective and entirely subjective approaches fall short in fulfilling this purpose. Perhaps it is intersubjective knowledge that truly aligns with this objective, as it facilitates effective communication and mutual understanding among individuals.
It seems as though those who claim to advocate for objective knowledge might have miscommunicated their stance, as intersubjective knowledge is likely what they intended to emphasize. Denying the existence of any knowledge standard appears to be an inaccurate viewpoint, considering the significant advancements we've achieved in technology and other domains. Similarly, endorsing knowledge that is entirely independent of perception appears irrational, lacking a scientific method to validate its rationality. If we shift our perspective on modernism from its inherent irrationality to its possible original intention, we can recognize that postmodernism falls short of achieving the intended goal. Modernism, too, failed in accurately describing itself. Hence, we might benefit from focusing on the true essence of knowledge and acknowledge that intersubjective knowledge aligns most effectively with our purpose for having knowledge to begin with.
Would you agree that objective knowledge is irrational, subjective knowledge is useless, but intersubjective knowledge is useful?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Can you explain what you mean by "in our post-modern world?"
It was my impression that "modern" means in the current, while "post-" means after.
Created:
Additional Thoughts:
Often, there is more than one valid theory. In this case, it is important to rely on the most probable, while recognizing one of less probability could be true.
Someone asked me, what is the ideal number of participants for a debate.
Imagine an individual with 100% average concentration and focus. With two others in the debate, this would mean a 50% connection with each. However, when there are four participants, it drops to 25% for each, and maintaining these four connections requires additional effort. At 100% focus, no efficiency is lost, but at 50% focus, errors can occur while balancing two, and even more so with four participants. In practice, a 50% connection for two is closer to 45% each, totaling 90% efficiency, while 25% for four is more like 15% each, totaling 60% efficiency.
If each task were completed independently, it would likely be faster than balancing all four simultaneously. However, there's the issue of missing perspectives from future participants that past participants may not consider. This necessitates a conversation between the original participants and those joining later. This undermines the efficiency of consecutive tasks.
To address these concerns while maintaining direct connections for maximum efficiency, a larger party could advocate for two of the most rational individuals to support multiple perspectives. For instance, if there are three main perspectives, three primary advocates would suffice. Instead of involving a large group of approximately 20 debate members, these advocates would represent a perspective, while the rest remain the debate audience. This approach would enable a select few to engage in a highly efficient debate. Audience members could ask questions or highlight problems for the advocates to rationally address. The duty of the audience would be to present perspectives or issues for the selected advocates to solve and discuss. This approach aims to be efficient, comprehensive, and inclusive of various viewpoints while effectively addressing a higher number of problems.
I believe this would enable all perspectives to be addressed within a single debate, and all people to reach the solution simultaneously, all while maintaining as much as 100% efficiency of focus and concentration during the discussion.
Using this technique, I believe you could have as many as 100 members of the debate audience with ideally 2, but as many as 4, representatives with an effective discussion that doesn't dissolve into chaos.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Have you listened to Alan Watts discuss this topic? I have enjoyed his podcasts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
I have run away; I am seeking sanity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I agree, and I have reported them, but I stopped after a while. Let's continue coherent discussions elsewhere, while the mods find themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Perhaps the irrationality and futility of materialism? It would somewhat mirror our previous discussion on objectivity and subjectivity.
I'm not certain of my stance on that topic, but I'd love to explore it if you create the forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Are you not a member of the cult?Not unless you are suggesting atheism is now a cult. I would have thought that in my case I would be deemed a heretic, considering that I believe much of the bible and that all of it's characters there- in existed. I simply do not believe the bible in the state it has come down and preached to us over the millennia. I believe that there is another story below the surface.; which is simply my own opinion. Are you denying me an opinion, Critical -Tim?
Only if it's an illogical paradox that is made to stir up chaos so I cannot have productive conversations with other members, such as BrotherD.CultLeader, who has made not one appropriate comment and remained of topic: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9913-everything-about-buddhism
My citation not only concisely proves that not only are all Bibles interpretations of God's words without a God given dictionary, but also that believing in the interpreted Bible as evidence that all interpretations are invalid is paradoxical. We cannot continue without this fact acknowledged.interpretations are valid, or the Bible isn't:Well that is your opinion and may be worth exploring. It would be better than simply calling me "pathetic" for simply posing question that have arisen from your own comments and accusations directed at me personally, don't you think?
It is not my opinion that I'm correct in pointing out the paradox, it simply is. Pathetic was not because you believe in the paradox, but because you ignored acknowledging it and went on the offensive. I acknowledge you claim your comment was justified as pointing the flaw in another, but I say one who's stance has been discredited hasn't the right to do so. I used the word accurate to the definition: arousing pity, especially through vulnerability or sadness.
In regard to your comment that my remark of you being pathetic is inappropriate.Indeed it was. You had no grounds for that insult whatsoever. What was pathetic about asking you what language you believe god spoke in considering that it was you that claimed god didn't speak English? It was you that introduced language - "god's language" - into this thread - your own thread. It wasn't me, was it?
It doesn't matter what language he speaks only that it is not the one written in the Bible believed to be the only valid interpretation. Though, since you insist for reasons that escape me, the main three languages are Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek.
My impression was that, following my presentation of a definitive proof concerning the logical paradox, your subsequent comment seemed more like an extended inquiry from an uninvolved party member.I am going to assume that by stating "an uninvolved party member" you are referring to the Reverend Tradsecret- please correct me if I am wrong.If this is the case then you would be wrong to say he is "uninvolved" in this thread. In fact he was the second person to respond to you at post #4 and at some length too, in which he clearly states to you directly that - "I am not a fan of the KJV". Of course I had shown that his comment not to be truthful and I did so here at post #27.It's all very well you getting annoyed with me and insulting me on behalf of others, but I presented evidence that shows the Reverend Tradesecret to be a contradictory lying clown at the best of times -if not all the time. Are you telling me that I shouldn't call out lies and contradictions when they arise?
Everyone has their due time in the spotlight, it was your turn.
It appeared as though you were attempting to divert the conversation, potentially with the intention of causing harm to others' reputations,[.......]lashing out [.....] wanted to unproductively criticize a disengaged member.Well you were totally wrong. I knew perfectly well that you had been lied to and sought to correct it. If any good came from it, it is that you know what you are up against when engaging a compulsive liar and contradictory clown such as the Reverend Tradesecret. #52
I have had almost no discussions with Tradesecret due to the interjections by BrotherD.CultLeader.
I don't like having negative conversations with anyone and try to never offend anyone.Can you give me an example where it is that I have engaged YOU negatively?
It was the moment you chose to ignore sound reasoning: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9913/posts/411304
I believe that every perspective adds light to help in gaining comprehension.I agree. But you are the one that has weighed into me with nothing but "negativity" simply for posing questions to you that have arisen from your own statements and comment. And lets not forget it is you that has claimed "all my beliefs have been debunked" . without even reading what it is I have had to say in the past with over some 200 threads in the religion forum alone. This doesn't appear to be you wanting to "gain comprehension", or "perspective" or adding any of "the light" that you seem to be seeking, does it, Critical- Tim? No, in my case you have simply dismissed out of hand without even reading what my own "perspective is or has been.
I you agree with BrotherD.CultLeader, as in the above link, then the foundation of only literal interpretations has been debunked.
I cannot tolerate chaos like that of BrotherD.CultLeader who speaks logical paradoxes and disrespects my productive fellow members.This chaos creates a disharmony that I and others cannot ignore.So you are now discussing the Brother, Why?The Brother is what he is. I am not his keeper nor am I his "acolyte". And he can handle his own corner from a biblical perspective and does it with excellence in my opinion. And speaking from my perspective I have found him to truthful and honest from my own experience and he will admit when he is wrong and is not embarrassed to admit that he cannot answer a question when he can't. Ans what is more impotent to me, he perfectly understand that the bible does hold mind-numbing " axioms".
This is where our discussion ends because even now you cannot see his claims are a logical paradox: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9932/posts/411441
I would take more time to explain, but I know with everyone else agreeing with the post that I have made my point clear.
If we can agree on common logic and mutual respect, I will answer any questions. ....logical paradox.I have no problems with that. But lets not forget, I haven't disrespected you at all in the first place.So. To me and from my own studies there are clearly parts of the bible to be taken literally and others that clearly not, in my own opinion, Do you agree?OK , before we go back to my earlier questions, could you give me your definition "common logic" please?And what is your "other" religion as per your profile?
You disrespected me when you associated yourself with BrotherD.CultLeader and claimed there was no logical paradox. Debate members are to treat each other as rational and logical members, you have acted as if I have no brain by claiming there is no logical paradox. It's you and BrotherD.CultLeader against the world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I will be straightforward with you.
I don't like having negative conversations with anyone and try to never offend anyone.
I believe that every perspective adds light to help in gaining comprehension.
I cannot tolerate chaos like that of BrotherD.CultLeader who speaks logical paradoxes and disrespects my productive fellow members.
This chaos creates a disharmony that I and others cannot ignore.
If we can agree on common logic and mutual respect, I will answer any questions; but if we cannot agree that it has been proven that an only literal interpretation of the Bible is a logical paradox, then we have nothing more to discuss.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
In regard to your comment that my remark of you being pathetic is inappropriate. My impression was that, following my presentation of a definitive proof concerning the logical paradox, your subsequent comment seemed more like an extended inquiry from an uninvolved party member. It appeared as though you were attempting to divert the conversation, potentially with the intention of causing harm to others' reputations, before eventually acknowledging the dismantling of the cult's logic. Instead of addressing my logical points or concluding the discussion, it seemed like you were letting go of your defense and resorting to a kind of lashing out, which I saw as appropriately labeled as a pathetic action, assuming you read the comment, disagree, and wanted to unproductively criticize a disengaged member.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Are you not a member of the cult? https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9913/posts/411304
My citation not only concisely proves that not only are all Bibles interpretations of God's words without a God given dictionary, but also that believing in the interpreted Bible as evidence that all interpretations are invalid is paradoxical. We cannot continue without this fact acknowledged.
Interpretations are valid, or the Bible isn't: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9932/posts/411441
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I don't plan on this going on until they agree, after all, they will never admit to logic. I just wanted to make a fully comprehensive post that I can provide a link to in the future when he tries to disrupt my discussions. He will never accept rationality, but the people I converse with will find his case laughable and disregard his words, continuing our conversation, and that is all that matters. Therefore, I no longer need to discuss with him.
I'd like to start another topic now that this one has finished. Perhaps you have some interesting philosophy suggestions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.CultLeader, it is as I said: Don't try to escape this claim and muddle up the water by simply quoting many scriptures without context or a point to make, as you have done till now. You are out of rope, as it all comes down to this simple point: you contradict yourself.
Simply put, you cannot claim all interpretations are invalid and base the source of your claim on that very interpretation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
BrotherS.Acolyte, have nothing left to follow but your paradox.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
While if it were simply BrotherD.CultLeader and myself, I would ignore him, but he has been deterring others from my productive conversations on DebateArt. For this reason, by announcing a clear and irrefutable post of his core beliefs in the light of logic, others will find his words worthless and no longer be repelled by his repugnant indoctrinated cult atmosphere of paradoxical self-refutation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
BrotherS.Acolyte, you are a glutton for humiliation. As I thought, you have nothing left to defend, and therefore you attack others; how pathetic can you get.
Just take a moment to realize you are done, your beliefs have been debunked. You have no more left to quote, and nothing left to claim.
You, BrotherS.Acolyte, have nothing left to follow, but your paradox.
Respond if you need me to repeat myself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ponikshiy
I apologize for the delay; I was finishing the reputation of the CultBrothers: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9932/posts/411441
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ponikshiy
First, you're wrestling with Micah 6:4, trying to get your opponent to see things your way. But hey, isn't interpretation part of the fun of religion? It's like trying to decipher Bale's mumbling in "The Dark Knight Rises." Can we really be sure what's being said?
We can never be sure, but a Christian may choose to believe anyway.
And then there's 2 Peter 1:1, the ultimate theological puzzle. One God, two beings, or maybe a divine game of charades? It's like trying to figure out if Bale's Batman voice was a brilliant choice or just plain comical.
We cannot know since the Bible doesn't explicitly state one way or another.
2 Peter 1:20, where "interpretation" might mean "origin" or "reading." It's like trying to interpret Christian Bale's eclectic filmography. Is he a method actor or just making it up as he goes along?
We cannot know whether Peter meant the origin or the reading, but we can know every scripture without a dictionary is merely an interpretation to read. Assuming that Christians believe the Bible doesn't contradict itself, the only explanation was the origin of prophecies cannot be interpreted.
And don't get me started on the 1611 KJV Bible. God didn't speak English, so it's all interpretation, right? Kind of like Bale's British accent in "American Psycho." Is it authentic or just a fancy act?
If a Christain chooses to believe in the Bible, they are choosing to believe that interpretations are valid, since yes, all Bibles without are God given dictionary are interpreted.
Lastly, the absence of a God-given dictionary, leaving you to rely on human interpretations, is like Bale taking on a role with no script. How do you even begin to understand the character? Just like Bale's unpredictable career choices.
Without a God given dictionary, the Bible has no meaning. Words are inherently devoid of meaning and must have it assigned to them. Therefore, without a God given dictionary, Christians can choose that the Bible is invalid because it is an interpretation, or that interpretations are valid and choose to believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Just as Bro D can be ignored, so can your guidelines.But the fact that Bro D can stimulate a response is of some significance.The forum is an open discussion platform and therefore in the interests of freedom of speech and expression we must tolerate unwanted intrusions into our minds.Like I said, if you think Bro D's comments are absolutely unworthy, then ignore.Ignorance is Bliss Tim.
I acknowledge my guidelines are not rules, but it helps me to identify who truly is worth conversing with.
While if it were simply BrotherD.CultLeader and myself, I would ignore him, but he has been deterring others from my productive conversations on DebateArt. For this reason, by announcing a clear and irrefutable post of his core beliefs in the light of logic, others will find his words worthless and no longer be repelled by his repugnant indoctrinated cult atmosphere of paradoxical self-refutation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
God didn't speak in English, so it's an interpretation, which you quote from to paradoxically prove interpretation invalid.I see. So all the Bibles ever written in English are invalid, pointless , redundant and have no value whatsoever?
BrotherS.Acolyte, if you had ever listened you would have heard it was my argument that interpretations are valid.
It is BrotherD.CultLeader and yourself who claim not, the very reason your scriptures and interpretations are of no value.
You disprove yourselves CultBrothers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
That is why they are the CultBrothers; they don't actually think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
@Athias
@Intelligence_06
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
While you were on your religious retreat beating children with sticks, subjugating women, and selling your daughters into slavery in the name of Jesus, all with your nudist companions, I had a revelation: you are a cult leader. Cited: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9913/posts/411421
BrotherD., you may tell yourself that you are not a cult leader, so take a moment to look in the mirror and tell yourself, "If it walks like duck and talks like duck, it is a cult leader."
BrotherS., you may tell yourself that you are not an acolyte, so take a moment to look in the mirror and tell yourself, "If it walks like duck and talks like duck, it is an acolyte."
BrotherD., I'm glad you found me a comedian, otherwise I may not have had an opportunity to share my comedy script with you.
"You know, in some cults, they've got these wild beliefs. It's like they're playing a game of 'let's one-up the Bible.' They'll stand there with a straight face and declare, 'I hereby say in the name of God that the new Webster's dictionary is the true word, for it has all the meaning to fill in the emptiness of the words in the Bible.' So, our salvation now depends on Merriam Webster? Is that what we're saying?
And they're dead serious about it! They'll gather 'round and chant, 'Let us praise our lord Merriam Webster for giving our empty script meaning that can guide us to salvation.' I don't know about you, but I think even Webster would find this concerning.'
But hey, to each their own, right? If you find meaning in the dictionary, more power to you. Just remember, when you're a cult leader, 'Webster' might be your savior, but 'Spellcheck' is your best friend."
I think it's only fair that the one who is always dubbing others must be dubbed, otherwise he lacks the credentials to do so. Therefore, I hereby dub you BrotherD.CultLeader, and BrotherS.Acolyte, the CultBrothers.
BrotherD.CultLeader, if you think this is a joke, I'm sorry to tell you it is not. It is as literal as your literal translation. You are, in your own words, literally... a cult.
In regard to all BrotherD.CultLeader's comments, both in the Buddhist forum and this one, you have two foundational axioms within your arguments:
- There is no valid interpretation of God's direct words, they are exactly as God intended, literal.
- The English 1611 KJV Bible is the only true word of God, no other scripture before or after is relevant.
The 'Table Alphabeticall' by Robert Cawdrey, published in 1604, served as the standard dictionary used to interpret the 1611 King James Version (KJV) Bible. This dictionary contained around 2,500 words, providing concise definitions for commonly used English words, including those borrowed from various languages.
Therefore, not only is the 1611 KJV an interpretation of God's original words based on the dictionary standard, but not even the direct source of his words, as the KJV was a translation (interpretation) from words that were not English. Your foundation is quicksand at best BrotherD.CultLeader. Next time you choose a cult, choose one that is set upon a hill, like "The Church of SubGenius."
You claim the interpretation is valid over his original words, then you claim no interpretation is valid. Your claim is paradoxical, self-contradictory, and illogical. Don't try to escape this claim and muddle up the water by simply quoting many scriptures without context or a point to make, as you have done till now. You are out of rope, as it all comes down to this simple point: you contradict yourself.
Simply put, you cannot claim all interpretations are invalid and base the source of your claim on that very interpretation.
Don't try to weasel your way out of this fact by asking me to address your other scriptures also derived from the very interpretation you renounced until you acknowledge your whole foundation is ripped from beneath you by your own words. You must interpret the Bible, for all that we have is interpretations without a God given dictionary.
I must now proclaim that my statement in comment #17 has been fulfilled. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9932/posts/411414
Your comments are hereby to be known as self-contradictory and paradoxically invalid. They hold no value and are therefore worthless, since they are blatantly irrational.
CultBrothers, with this, I bid your paradox farewell...
Woooooow, I feel so uncomfortable for you, literally. I couldn't even imagine how embarrassed I'd feel being in your shoes when you read this. I almost feel bad for you, if you hadn't treated everyone the way you did every step of the way, but all bully cult leaders meet the same fate, humiliation.
If only there was a scripture that could have warned this would happen, perhaps even a proverb that would literally apply to this situation as clearly as day, like a huge neon sign flashing in the dark of night. Oh wait! Proverbs 16:18, says: "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."
This comment will forever be a monument of why one should not forcibly proclaim their cult doctrine to a community of people that actually think.
Good luck CultBrothers, literally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
One hypothesis is that quantum entanglement may enable the consciousness of a dying person to transcend the physical body and access a higher dimension of reality, where they can perceive the interconnectedness of all things and encounter other forms of intelligence. Another hypothesis is that quantum entanglement may allow the information stored in the brain to be preserved and transferred to another medium, such as the quantum vacuum or the cosmic microwave background, where it can be retrieved by other observers. A third hypothesis is that quantum entanglement may create a bridge between the physical and the spiritual realms, where the soul of a dying person can communicate with other souls or divine entities.
However, these hypotheses are still speculative and face many challenges and criticisms. For one thing, it is not clear how quantum processes can survive in the warm and noisy environment of the brain, which is usually considered hostile to quantum coherence. For another thing, it is not clear how quantum processes can account for the subjective and qualitative aspects of consciousness, such as feelings, emotions, and self-awareness. Moreover, there is no conclusive experimental evidence that supports the existence of quantum entanglement in the brain or its role in NDEs, although some recent studies have suggested some possible indications.
Do you agree with any of the three perspectives?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Perhaps portions of their beliefs are impossible to disprove, but from our last discussion I am ready to conclude his accusation are false, the reason for this very forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I noticed that Mr.BrotherD.Thomas has been banned before and simply creates a new account. This is because he has never been confronted and thus will remain in dominancy. Banning him is simply a band-aid, I wish to directly confront his preposterous theories for all to see as they are clearly and concisely dismantled. It is then that no number of new accounts will ever have ground to stand on. His propositions will be nothing to anyone, since all can simply refer back to the conclusion of this forum. Finally, with no one left to so called "preach," his reputation gone, and lacking all respect, if he has any sense, he will leave, or forever be humbled by his humiliation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
I agree, but it is Mr.BrotherD.Thomas and Stephen that insist otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I think that how we define Free Will is important. Many people claim to have Free Will, but they have no control over what they like, aka their Will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Get back soon, the audience is growing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Intelligence_06
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
No shit, sherlock.
Quite the contrary for Mr.BrotherD.Thomas and Stephen.
Check out our previous discussions here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9913/posts/410902
He claims the Bible must only be understood literally, and the only true Bible is the 1611 KJV with many other absurd claims.
I'm still waiting for him to fulfill his comment: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9913/posts/411248
Jesus and I have such great plans for poor Critical-Tim, where he said that he will not run away from me, like the Bible inept Miss Tradesecret had to do to try and save face in front of the membership!
This was for my skepticism to the above claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
That's why there are a lot of sects in Christianity, because they can't agree with the interpretation of the bible. Lol.
The existence of numerous different versions and denominations within Christianity can indeed be attributed to differences in interpretation of the Bible.
Historically, the Catholic Church played a significant role in the interpretation and teaching of the Bible. During the medieval period, it was often only priests and clergy who had access to the Bible and were trained in its interpretation. The idea behind this restriction was to ensure uniformity in religious doctrine and practice, as authorities believed that allowing unrestricted access to the Bible could lead to differing interpretations and theological divisions.
The Protestant Reformation in the 16th century challenged the Catholic Church's monopoly on biblical interpretation. Reformers like Martin Luther argued for the priesthood of all believers, emphasizing the idea that individuals should have direct access to the Bible and be able to interpret it for themselves. This led to the translation of the Bible into vernacular languages and a proliferation of interpretations.
As a result, various Protestant denominations emerged, each with its own interpretation of Christian doctrine. Over time, differences in theological emphasis, rituals, and practices gave rise to diverse Christian traditions, such as Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, and many others.
The priests' insistence on maintaining their interpretations was partly aimed at preserving national unity. It was foreseeable that if all peasants gained access to religious literature and began forming their own interpretations, it could lead to the emergence of various denominations and potentially divide the nation. This historical dynamic is exemplified by the original thirteen colonies in America.
Created: