# "Is there a hierarchy of values that we can rationally derive?"



## ambush80 (Jan 4, 2023)

Pretty interesting discussion. "Pre-rational intuition".  Fascinating.....


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jan 5, 2023)

ambush80 said:


> Pretty interesting discussion. "Pre-rational intuition".  Fascinating.....


Good so far! I'm about 2/3 finished and I'll watch the rest after lunch.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jan 5, 2023)

Finished the video - some very interesting points from both guys!


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2023)

oldfella1962 said:


> Finished the video - some very interesting points from both guys!



Good Ol' Hummerpoo would have loved this. 

Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) seems like he's been getting into the Jordan B. Peterson juice a bit, that being that an A priori source is the origin of our moral intuitions.  I find myself leaning more towards that position myself, but I have a sense that it has more to do with being "made of meat" than something metaphysical.  Watchu think?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jan 5, 2023)

ambush80 said:


> Good Ol' Hummerpoo would have loved this.
> 
> Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) seems like he's been getting into the Jordan B. Peterson juice a bit, that being that an A priori source is the origin of our moral intuitions.  I find myself leaning more towards that position myself, but I have a sense that it has more to do with being "made of meat" than something metaphysical.  Watchu think?


Made of meat no doubt. Not a fan of the metaphysical - that's a slippery slope IMHO.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2023)

oldfella1962 said:


> Made of meat no doubt. Not a fan of the metaphysical - that's a slippery slope IMHO.



That's what I didn't like about Baghossian's thought experiment with the AI.  An AI will never understand what it's like to be made of meat, and being made of meat, it seems like there can be no pure rationality, or it's not holistically utilitarian.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2023)

Benjamin's argument seems to be similar to Peterson's or Bret Weinstein's, a meat being flourishes under a system which is irrational.  I might get on board with that but I think trying to minimize that perspective might better  optimize well being.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 5, 2023)

@ambush80 I‘m uncertain what you were looking for. My opinions will come under attack immediately by one or more of the regulars here. The outcome of the conversation is highly predictable.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jan 6, 2023)

This is simplistic (hey I'm simple!) but IMHO if every single human from every society decided to throw their full focus into making every decision and performing every action in the most rational way possible, their morals and values would, over time, end up being very similar. As for universal values I wouldn't bet on any uniformity of values. This is because most likely other beings would very likely have evolved under different circumstances and their brains might have completely different capabilities, motivations, and requirements based on the particular adaptations needed to cope with their environmental changes.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 6, 2023)

Man like all living creatures has a tendency towards that which perpetuates the species and creates a safe, comfortable environment. These could be viewed as universal values. If the environment changes then there is adaptation.

Those of Christian faith don’t have to spend hours pondering the why. In fact we are warned against those who sound schooled but would lead you down a path to ruin.

”Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.”

Mans search for understanding has him seeking to live a life based on certain moral principles regardless of the structure of the religion. There is something beyond the physical driving this universal movement.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 6, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> Man like all living creatures has a tendency towards that which perpetuates the species and creates a safe, comfortable environment. These could be viewed as universal values. If the environment changes then there is adaptation.
> 
> Those of Christian faith don’t have to spend hours pondering the why. In fact we are warned against those who sound schooled but would lead you down a path to ruin.
> 
> ...





> This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.”





> 1. :* one who denies or opposes Christ.* specifically : a great antagonist expected to fill the world with wickedness but to be conquered forever by Christ at his second coming.


My opinion - what a load of crap.
We already know there are nonbelievers and believers of other gods who have done the exact opposite of purpoting "wickedness" in the world.
Only man can come up with this nonsense which is in complete opposition to observable reality.
As a believer I never had a problem believing there was a God but I just couldnt swallow that type of nonsense.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 6, 2023)

WaltL1 said:


> My opinion - what a load of crap.
> We already know there are nonbelievers and believers of other gods who have done the exact opposite of purpoting "wickedness" in the world.
> Only man can come up with this nonsense which is in complete opposition to observable reality.
> As a believer I never had a problem believing there was a God but I just couldnt swallow that type of nonsense.


Told you, y'all have fun.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 6, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> Told you, y'all have fun.


Why is this a thorn in your paw?
"They" wrote it and I gave my opinion on it. Doesnt discount your opinion or prove theirs to be false.
Its kind of what happens on a forum?


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 6, 2023)

WaltL1 said:


> Why is this a thorn in your paw?
> "They" wrote it and I gave my opinion on it. Doesnt discount your opinion or prove theirs to be false.
> Its kind of what happens on a forum?


It’s not I actually enjoy a different perspective. To discuss one’s philosophy takes mutual respect for the others opinion.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 6, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> Man like all living creatures has a tendency towards that which perpetuates the species and creates a safe, comfortable environment. These could be viewed as universal values. If the environment changes then there is adaptation.
> 
> Those of Christian faith don’t have to spend hours pondering the why. In fact we are warned against those who sound schooled but would lead you down a path to ruin.
> 
> ...



Do you think that The Word can change and adapt to a different environment?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 6, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> @ambush80 I‘m uncertain what you were looking for. My opinions will come under attack immediately by one or more of the regulars here. The outcome of the conversation is highly predictable.



Maybe don't interpret disagreement as attack.  Try to read someone's responses to you in the best possible light.  Assume the best of their intentions.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 6, 2023)

ambush80 said:


> Maybe don't interpret disagreement as attack.  Try to read someone's responses to you in the best possible light.  *Assume the best of their intentions.*


"what a load of crap"


----------



## bullethead (Jan 6, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> "what a load of crap"


In all fairness you, through scripture, asserted that everyone who is non Christian is "filled with the Spirit of the anti-christ."

Walt gave a response that IMO was put the nicest way possible VS the accusation.

You initially stating that your replies would be challenged is no different than the blatantly obvious attempts in scripture to point out that it will also be challenged and when so it can be pointed out how accurate scripture is.
The tactic of expecting the opposition to say nothing to make you/scripture correct or saying something makes you/scripture correct doesn't reaffirm anything other than being unprepared to handle any logical challenges made against either.

*anyone who challenges this post along with those who do not will show that I am correct.
See how that works?


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 6, 2023)

bullethead said:


> In all fairness you, through scripture, asserted that everyone who is non Christian is "filled with the Spirit of the anti-christ."
> 
> Walt gave a response that IMO was put the nicest way possible VS the accusation.
> 
> ...


No offense taken, when I got invited to comment I knew the outcome before I spoke, its consistent here. Don't ask my opinion then critique its presentation. You need not agree, I would defend your right not to agree.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 6, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> No offense taken, when I got invited to comment I knew the outcome before I spoke, its consistent here. Don't ask my opinion then critique its presentation. You need not agree, I would defend your right not to agree.


That consistent knowing the outcome discussion is not exclusive to "here". It takes place in every forum and darn near every thread within those forums. It is a matter of overlooking it and continuing on or pointing it out as an excuse to not continue based off of whether or not the majority of participants agree with you or don't and/or how strong a case can be made to defend your position.
You/your above is meant in general terms not specific as it pertains to everyone.

And again in all fairness, you got invited after you already participated in post #8 by laying out your escape plan.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 6, 2023)

bullethead said:


> That consistent knowing the outcome discussion is not exclusive to "here". It takes place in every forum and darn near every thread within those forums. It is a matter of overlooking it and continuing on or pointing it out as an excuse to not continue based off of whether or not the majority of participants agree with you or don't and/or how strong a case can be made to defend your position.
> You/your above is meant in general terms not specific as it pertains to everyone.
> 
> And again in all fairness, you got invited after you already participated in post #8 by laying out your escape plan.


No sir you are quite wrong, I was invited about #2 or #3.
I took time to listen to the debate out of respect.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 6, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> No offense taken, when I got invited to comment I knew the outcome before I spoke, its consistent here. Don't ask my opinion then critique its presentation. You need not agree, I would defend your right not to agree.


I just want to point out I responded to part of 1 specific sentence out of a number of paragraphs. And it wasnt even a sentence that contained your opinions/thoughts.
So wasnt an attack on you, your opinion/thoughts, a Christian or any member here.
I even backed up my opinion with evidence that contradicts the nonsensical statement made.
I'm still puzzled why that seems to be a thorn your paw. You have proven to be one of the..... not sure of the word I want to use here... openminded? accepting of apposing opinions? fair? Anyway you get my drift.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 6, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> "what a load of crap"


Honesty is the best policy. I dont get any points for my honest opinion?


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 6, 2023)

WaltL1 said:


> I just want to point out I responded to part of 1 specific sentence out of a number of paragraphs. And it wasnt even a sentence that contained your opinions/thoughts.
> So wasnt an attack on you, your opinion/thoughts, a Christian or any member here.
> I even backed up my opinion with evidence that contradicts the nonsensical statement made.
> I'm still puzzled why that seems to be a thorn your paw. You have proven to be one of the..... not sure of the word I want to use here... openminded? accepting of apposing opinions? fair? Anyway you get my drift.


It is not a thorn at all, in fact I think I could drag my yak and enjoy a day on the water with you. We don't have to agree on everything.

I can enjoy a debate but have little time for those whose debate capacity is limited to insult and attack.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 6, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> It is not a thorn at all, in fact I think I could drag my yak and enjoy a day on the water with you. We don't have to agree on everything.
> 
> I can enjoy a debate but have little time for those whose debate capacity is limited to insult and attack.


Ok, I'll take your word for it. Maybe I'm reading into it something thats not there.
I dont drink but.....


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 6, 2023)

WaltL1 said:


> Ok, I'll take your word for it. Maybe I'm reading into it something thats not there.
> I dont drink but.....


In my faith we even recognize each other at the whiskey store.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 6, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> No sir you are quite wrong, I was invited about #2 or #3.
> I took time to listen to the debate out of respect.


I cannot find mention of Ruger#3 until post #8, which is your post.
Can you show me what I am missing?


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 6, 2023)

bullethead said:


> I cannot find mention of Ruger#3 until post #8, which is your post.
> Can you show me what I am missing?


Mods do still get PMs, some folks actually talk to us.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 6, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> Mods do still get PMs, some folks actually talk to us.


Yeah, That's the Ticket!


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jan 6, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> Man like all living creatures has a tendency towards that which perpetuates the species and creates a safe, comfortable environment. These could be viewed as universal values. If the environment changes then there is adaptation.
> 
> Those of Christian faith don’t have to spend hours pondering the why. In fact we are warned against those who sound schooled but would lead you down a path to ruin.
> 
> ...


This is the "my way or the highway" view, which is pretty much what ALL religions do to some degree. Who would believe in any god/religion that doesn't claim to be the only way? That doesn't make Christianity any better, just different. Christianity = Pepsi Hinduism = Mountain Dew


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 6, 2023)

oldfella1962 said:


> This is the "my way or the highway" view, which is pretty much what ALL religions do to some degree. Who would believe in any god/religion that doesn't claim to be the only way? That doesn't make Christianity any better, just different. Christianity = Pepsi Hinduism = Mountain Dew


Your projecting, I was asked my opinion and provided it. It's my personal view based on my value system.

Yankees are crass ignorant people who communicate poorly, see how that feels. Broad brush painting is intellectually dishonest.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jan 6, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> Your projecting, I was asked my opinion and provided it. It's my personal view based on my value system.
> 
> Yankees are crass ignorant people who communicate poorly, see how that feels. Broad brush painting is intellectually dishonest.


I wasn't broad brushing you, I was broad brushing religion in general when I say they proclaim "my way or the highway".  Christianity has the ultimate version of this with the whole "eternal torture" thing, but perhaps other religions have something similar.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 6, 2023)

I enjoyed it. The informal aspect of their conversation is somewhat refreshing, but it also led to speculations, rhetorical questions, assertions, etc. Or even a complete abandonment of the strict standards of rationality. I laughed when Peter said that he would concede some of that(his belief) for the purpose of conversation. I'm not convinced he can do that. 

They did not shy away(or did they?) from some of the emotional grenades(slavery, torture, suffering, etc.) that are often lobbed into a conversation to cause an emotional response. 

At the end of it, I think that both men stayed with what they prefer to believe.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 6, 2023)

I pondered this a bit more and think the difference between me and the presenter on the right in particular is the acceptance of natural law. Certain rules or the sense of right and wrong are inherent in people and not necessarily a product of their environment. Natural law would lead to a universal morality.
As Gem said, I saw no clear debate winner.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jan 6, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> I pondered this a bit more and think the difference between me and the presenter on the right in particular is the acceptance of natural law. Certain rules or the sense of right and wrong are inherent in people and not necessarily a product of their environment. Natural law would lead to a universal morality.
> As Gem said, I saw no clear debate winner.


IMHO if you could wave a magic wand and take ALL religions off the table - the human brain never evolved the need for religion - natural law would lead to a very much uniform morality. Most humans have common sense and have the same needs, wants, abilities, etc.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 7, 2023)

oldfella1962 said:


> IMHO if you could wave a magic wand and take ALL religions off the table - the human brain never evolved the need for religion - natural law would lead to a very much uniform morality. Most humans have common sense and have the same needs, wants, abilities, etc.


What about when the common sense is derangement? They recognized this in the video.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jan 7, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> Your projecting, I was asked my opinion and provided it. It's my personal view based on my value system.
> 
> Yankees are crass ignorant people who communicate poorly, see how that feels. Broad brush painting is intellectually dishonest.


Isn't stating that everyone who isn't a devout Christian is evil, also broad-brush painting? I think there are plenty of perfectly good people in the world who aren't practicing Christians, and aren't possessed with the spirit of the Antichrist. Most people tend to follow and believe the faith they were raised in. That has nothing to do with their personal morals or values, for the most part.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 7, 2023)

NCHillbilly said:


> Isn't stating that everyone who isn't a devout Christian is evil, also broad-brush painting? I think there are plenty of perfectly good people in the world who aren't practicing Christians, and aren't possessed with the spirit of the Antichrist. Most people tend to follow and believe the faith they were raised in. That has nothing to do with their personal morals or values, for the most part.


I don’t remember it but if I implied that somewhere it was an error. There are mostly good people in this world. Most of these are not Christians. Not being Christian does not correlate to being evil.

From a Christian perspective the great tragedy is the truly good person who never accepts Christ.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jan 7, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> I don’t remember it but if I implied that somewhere it was an error. There are mostly good people in this world. Most of these are not Christians. Not being Christian does not correlate to being evil.
> 
> From a Christian perspective the great tragedy is the truly good person who never accepts Christ.


From your post #10 was what I was referring to:



> _every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.”_


Just because someone is pro-Buddha doesn't necessarily mean that they are anti-Christ. Even the Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 7, 2023)

NCHillbilly said:


> From your post #10 was what I was referring to:


That was in reference to the OP. Someone who sounds intellectual and learned swaying masses away from God.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jan 7, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> I don’t remember it but if I implied that somewhere it was an error. There are mostly good people in this world. Most of these are not Christians. Not being Christian does not correlate to being evil.
> 
> From a Christian perspective the great tragedy is the truly good person who never accepts Christ.


I still very firmly believe that most of the devout Christians here, had they been born in India, would right now be devout Hindus. If they had been born in Yemen, devout Muslims; Thailand, devout Buddhists, etc. And would think the same thing about the good folks of other religions who sadly won't see the Truth. 

I think it's pretty obvious that there is a set of basic human values that span religions, cultures, and such around the world, from stone age tribes to industrial societies. I think that most religions have their origins in these basic values, instead of the values originating from the religions.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jan 7, 2023)

gemcgrew said:


> What about when the common sense is derangement? They recognized this in the video.


All bets are off with derangement or other mental illness. Hopefully the vast majority of the people in their tribe/society can recognize the derangement and treat it or take what the deranged say/think as nonsense and not let it affect their thinking.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jan 7, 2023)

NCHillbilly said:


> I still very firmly believe that most of the devout Christians here, had they been born in India, would right now be devout Hindus. If they had been born in Yemen, devout Muslims; Thailand, devout Buddhists, etc. And would think the same thing about the good folks of other religions who sadly won't see the Truth.
> 
> I think it's pretty obvious that there is a set of basic human values that span religions, cultures, and such around the world, from stone age tribes to industrial societies. I think that most religions have their origins in these basic values, instead of the values originating from the religions.


Agree! Religions are man-made and the morality expressed or encouraged in the dogma of that religion will reflect the morality of the people that made the religion. I can't accuse god of forcing his morality on humanity since if there is no god, then humanity is just projecting their morality on their god - which is their prerogative since their god is their creation.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jan 7, 2023)

oldfella1962 said:


> Agree! Religions are man-made and the morality expressed or encouraged in the dogma of that religion will reflect the morality of the people that made the religion. I can't accuse god of forcing his morality on humanity since if there is no god, then humanity is just projecting their morality on their god - which is their prerogative since their god is their creation.


Personally, I wouldn't rule out the existence of a higher power in some form. I will, however, rule out the ability of any particular religion to explain it satisfactorily. Most of my life, I have drifted more and more closely toward the tribal Pagan interpretations of the Higher Power.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 7, 2023)

NCHillbilly said:


> Personally, I wouldn't rule out the existence of a higher power in some form. I will, however, rule out the ability of any particular religion to explain it satisfactorily. Most of my life, I have drifted more and more closely toward the tribal Pagan interpretations of the Higher Power.


I drifted a bunch as well. Most of it due to many things I hear you say.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 7, 2023)

The further I got away from the reformation religions the closer I felt to God. If the Primitive Baptist was all that was available I wouldn’t be in church.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jan 7, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> The further I got away from the reformation religions the closer I felt to God. If the Primitive Baptist was all that was available I wouldn’t be in church.


I grew up in that, and I ain't, in the traditional sense. The mountains and the woods and the creeks are my church.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 7, 2023)

NCHillbilly said:


> I grew up in that, and I ain't, in the traditional sense. The mountains and the woods and the creeks are my church.


No disrespect meant, I heard that many times.
Be like a NASCAR fan saying they connect with God best at Talladega.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jan 7, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> No disrespect meant, I heard that many times.
> Be like a NASCAR fan saying they connect with God best at Talladega.


I don't think so, at all. That is not a valid analogy, and you know it. Anything spriritual I have ever felt in my life has been when I am alone outdoors. Personally, I sure don't connect much with God or feel very spiritual in a building full of people judging each other and talking about each other behind their backs and screaming at me about why I'm going to Hel!.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 7, 2023)

NCHillbilly said:


> I don't think so, at all. That is not a valid analogy, and you know it. Anything spriritual I have ever felt in my life has been when I am alone outdoors. Personally, I sure don't connect much with God or feel very spiritual in a building full of people judging each other and talking about each other behind their backs and screaming at me about why I'm going to Hel!.


I haven’t experienced any of that after leaving the reformation churches. Man is imperfect so anything he’s associated with may be flawed.

I will say I find great peace when I’m on a stream or deep in the wood. It feels metaphysical but not the same as my connection to God.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jan 7, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> I haven’t experienced any of that after leaving the reformation churches. Man is imperfect so anything he’s associated with may be flawed.
> 
> I will say I find great peace when I’m on a stream or deep in the wood. It feels metaphysical but not the same as my connection to God.


And, everyone is different. I am not a fan of large groups of people. They mess up my vibes and keep me from feeling anything except annoyance. That's why they make chocolate vanilla, and strawberry.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 7, 2023)

> Man is imperfect so anything he’s associated with may be flawed.


Including the entire story about who God is, was, thinks, did, does, had for breakfast.....?


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 7, 2023)

WaltL1 said:


> Including the entire story about who God is, was, thinks, did, does, had for breakfast.....?


That’s your version, not mine.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 7, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> That’s your version, not mine.


C'mon dont get squirrely on me now 
If you believe -


> Man is imperfect so anything he’s associated with may be flawed.


All I'm asking is -


> Including the entire story about who God is, was, thinks, did, does, had for breakfast.....?


Or is all the things man has told us about God off limits?
Thats not my version, its just a question.
Although my version is quite similar to man made all this stuff about God up for their own reasons. Note that doesnt necessarily cancel out the possibility of God existing.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 7, 2023)

WaltL1 said:


> C'mon dont get squirrely on me now
> If you believe -
> 
> All I'm asking is -
> ...


If I get the context correct, your saying man being fallible makes the story incorrect, is this right?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 7, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> If I get the context correct, your saying man being fallible makes the story incorrect, is this right?


Nope.
I'm asking if you personally include the story about God potentionally being included in this -


> Man is imperfect so anything he’s associated with may be flawed.


None of us were there with God. Everything we know about God comes from man (therefore associated with man). Any chance the story is flawed?
Im not claiming the story to be incorrect or correct. Just asking your view.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 7, 2023)

I’m a yes an no guy.

Scripture teaches me the original writing, scrolls, were inspired works.

“All Scripture _is_ given by inspiration of God, and _is_ profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”

Where I think the fallibility of man comes in is interpretation. Did the guy converting Hebrew and Greek to Latin, German or English get it right. That’s worth study to see what the meaning could be.

Further, scripture was made up of a certain collection of documents for thousands of years. When the fallibility of man corrupted some executive church leaders the reformation occurred. Man revised or edited doctrine to limit church power. They fixed a political issue by revising scripture. None of this was inspired work.  This all is well documented as it occurred in the 1600s. Most of today‘s Protestant faiths are rooted in the reformation.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 7, 2023)

I apologize to the OP, we have wandered far from the topic.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 7, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> I apologize to the OP, we have wandered far from the topic.



I'm enjoying the discussion, wherever it goes.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 7, 2023)

Ruger#3 said:


> I’m a yes an no guy.
> 
> Scripture teaches me the original writing, scrolls, were inspired works.
> 
> ...





> the original writing, scrolls, were inspired works.


I was wondering/guessing if that was going to be part of your view.
So basically your view is the story is accurate as it comes from God not man. There is the possibility for details to be inaccurate due to translation etc, but those would basically be inconsequential overall.
Have I got it?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 7, 2023)

ambush80 said:


> I'm enjoying the discussion, wherever it goes.


Ive been giving the video a shot but I'll be honest, alot of it is going over my head. I keep having to play and replay it about every 5 minutes to follow along. I should get all the way through it by about 2034


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 7, 2023)

WaltL1 said:


> I was wondering/guessing if that was going to be part of your view.
> So basically your view is the story is accurate as it comes from God not man. There is the possibility for details to be inaccurate due to translation etc, but those would basically be inconsequential overall.
> Have I got it?


For the most part. The original writings, “story”, being true. Definitely room for error in interpretation from the original scrolls.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Jan 7, 2023)

WaltL1 said:


> Ive been giving the video a shot but I'll be honest, alot of it is going over my head. I keep having to play and replay it about every 5 minutes to follow along. I should get all the way through it by about 2034


I found it a bit dry. Further, I was fighting bias as I found the guy on the right to be pompous.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 7, 2023)

WaltL1 said:


> Ive been giving the video a shot but I'll be honest, alot of it is going over my head. I keep having to play and replay it about every 5 minutes to follow along. I should get all the way through it by about 2034


I never got to the start button. I can’t do those videos…….


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sunday at 12:33 AM)

Spotlite said:


> I never got to the start button. I can’t do those videos…….


Thankfully there are COUNTLESS videos in a variety of styles & formats covering every possible question concerning religions from every different way & worldview. Some are very detailed and long, some are broader and shorter & "to the point". Some will bring up ideas we never even knew existed before.


----------



## gemcgrew (Sunday at 8:28 AM)

ambush80 said:


> Good Ol' Hummerpoo would have loved this.


He would have enjoyed it. He would have enjoyed the resulting conversation until it became more about him, or mankind in general.

Roger had the irrefutable epistemological worldview with the ultimate A priori. 

Being a like minded believer, I am confident that he would agree with "Pre-rational intuition" and that the human is not born tabula rasa. If I had the time, I am sure that I could search his history, just here in the forum, and show it. 

Thanks again for the video.


----------



## ambush80 (Sunday at 9:54 AM)

Ruger#3 said:


> I found it a bit dry. Further, I was fighting bias as I found the guy on the right to be pompous.



It's the accent.  I don't want to like Benjamin's argument, but I can't find any flaw in it yet.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sunday at 9:57 AM)

ambush80 said:


> It's the accent.  I don't want to like Benjamin's argument, but I can't find any flaw in it yet.


I traveled around the globe for decades and am pretty open to different cultures. The gestures, body language and tone didn’t sit well with me.


----------



## ambush80 (Sunday at 10:07 AM)

gemcgrew said:


> He would have enjoyed it. He would have enjoyed the resulting conversation until it became more about him, or mankind in general.
> 
> Roger had the irrefutable epistemological worldview with the ultimate A priori.
> 
> ...




My best discussions wth Hummer happened in PM's.

I'm kind of getting on board with the idea that archetypal stories probably contain some of the deepest wisdom about the human condition, compiled from centuries of observation.  Some of the stories rely on a less informed position to really make any sense, but they're also written in such a way that they are open to many interpretations so that a highly informed person could wrench a deep meaning from them.  I'm reading Jordan Peterson's second book and I'm seeing a similarity in Benjamin's position to Peterson's and I'm wondering if Benjamin still considers himself an atheist.


----------



## ambush80 (Sunday at 10:14 AM)

Ruger#3 said:


> I traveled around the globe for decades and am pretty open to different cultures. The gestures, body language and tone didn’t sit well with me.



 I get it.  When I first heard Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) I think I was suckered by his affect into thunking he was really smart. He's be become a better thinker since last I saw him talk.  Must be due in part to the fact that he talks with interesting and thoughtful people about ideas all day on his podcast.


----------



## ambush80 (Sunday at 10:16 AM)

Ruger#3 said:


> I traveled around the globe for decades and am pretty open to different cultures. The gestures, body language and tone didn’t sit well with me.



Would you say his accent is Posh?  I think he says his background is working class, maybe even poor.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sunday at 10:19 AM)

ambush80 said:


> I get it.  When I first heard Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) I think I was suckered by his affect into thunking he was really smart. He's be become a better thinker since last I saw him talk.  Must be due in part to the fact that he talks with interesting and thoughtful people about ideas all day on his podcast.


His Jedi mind trick is one you see often. Use technical jargon or terms in an effort to sound educated. If your audience isn’t schooled as deep on the topic and you fail to communicate due to technical jargon just how smart are you?


----------



## ambush80 (Sunday at 10:23 AM)

gemcgrew said:


> He would have enjoyed it. He would have enjoyed the resulting conversation until it became more about him, or mankind in general.
> 
> Roger had the irrefutable epistemological worldview with the ultimate A priori.
> 
> ...



Do you think that a sense of God is part of the hardwired code? How could one know?


----------



## ambush80 (Sunday at 10:26 AM)

Ruger#3 said:


> His Jedi mind trick is one you see often. Use technical jargon or terms in an effort to sound educated. If your audience isn’t schooled as deep on the topic and you fail to communicate due to technical jargon just how smart are you?



They seemed to use pretty plain language in that discussion. There are some fancy words that are necessary for them to use like "etymology", but I can't imaging how to get the point across without using it.


----------



## gemcgrew (Sunday at 11:37 AM)

ambush80 said:


> My best discussions wth Hummer happened in PM's.


Same. It is the better venue for meaningful discussion. 


ambush80 said:


> I'm wondering if Benjamin still considers himself an atheist.


I sometimes wonder if I still consider myself one.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sunday at 12:32 PM)

Ruger#3 said:


> His Jedi mind trick is one you see often. Use technical jargon or terms in an effort to sound educated. If your audience isn’t schooled as deep on the topic and you fail to communicate due to technical jargon just how smart are you?


Depends on the desired end result. If he is/was just looking for numbers of folks that want to listen to him, whether they understand or not isnt necessarily required.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sunday at 12:36 PM)

WaltL1 said:


> Depends on the desired end result. If he is/was just looking for numbers of folks that want to listen to him, whether they understand or not isnt necessarily required.


Totally agree…….


----------



## NCHillbilly (Sunday at 12:41 PM)

Ruger#3 said:


> His Jedi mind trick is one you see often. Use technical jargon or terms in an effort to sound educated. If your audience isn’t schooled as deep on the topic and you fail to communicate due to technical jargon just how smart are you?


Have you seen any other real-world examples of that?


----------



## NCHillbilly (Sunday at 12:42 PM)

ambush80 said:


> Do you think that a sense of God is part of the hardwired code? How could one know?


Considering that pretty much every culture on earth has a religion, even isolated, uncontacted ones, I would say, yeah, probably.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sunday at 12:45 PM)

NCHillbilly said:


> Have you seen any other real-world examples of that?


The journey would be short……


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sunday at 12:45 PM)

Ruger#3 said:


> I traveled around the globe for decades and am pretty open to different cultures. The gestures, body language and tone didn’t sit well with me.


Interesting (to me) point. The way my brain is wired I am TERRIBLE at decoding gestures, body language, and general tone or meaning. The non-verbal communication subtleties go right over my head so all I can understand is the actual verbal content.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sunday at 12:51 PM)

ambush80 said:


> I get it.  When I first heard Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) I think I was suckered by his affect into thunking he was really smart. He's be become a better thinker since last I saw him talk.  Must be due in part to the fact that he talks with interesting and thoughtful people about ideas all day on his podcast.


Engaging with interesting & thoughtful people can only make us more interesting & thoughtful. That said we don't have to agree with everything they say, just extract & think about what they say. Doesn't the bible say "iron sharpens iron"? It's a good saying no matter where it came from.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sunday at 1:19 PM)

ambush80 said:


> Do you think that a sense of God is part of the hardwired code? How could one know?


Most scientists agree that it is hardwired. There are several reasons, and you would have to google or you tube it. THAT SAID some believers might take this is proof that "god" exists. It even says in the bible that "god has written his knowledge on your heart" (paraphrasing). But since there are countless ideas of what/who "god" is, the idea that the Christian god is the ONLY TRUE god seems even _less_ likely. Think about this: the god of the bible says "thou shall have no other gods before me" (paraphrasing) meaning only worship HIM, not the other gods. God never claims that he is the_ only_ god.  Also in the Tower of Babel story when the tower started getting taller god said (paraphrasing)"let US go down and confound their language". 
Let US go down? He doesn't say "I will go down and confound their language" so who else is with god? Polytheism to monotheism in Judaism (and even Christianity) is not so cut-and-dried as some people used to think. It was a gradual process and varied according to society & location.


----------



## ambush80 (Sunday at 1:49 PM)

NCHillbilly said:


> Considering that pretty much every culture on earth has a religion, even isolated, uncontacted ones, I would say, yeah, probably



Chimps seem to as well.  

At this point, what difference does it make where you say it came from?  It's like consciousness.  It happens when things arrange in a certain way, like fire.  It combusts then it goes out.


----------



## Israel (Wednesday at 5:17 AM)

ambush80 said:


> That's what I didn't like about Baghossian's thought experiment with the AI.  An AI will never understand what it's like to be made of meat, and being made of meat, it seems like there can be no pure rationality, or it's not holistically utilitarian.


Not sure if you are saying the AI _is not_ made of meat, which it is. And being made only of meat (like other meat that is of meat) it will not understand



> what it's like to be made of meat



It will have some, maybe many experiences of being meat, but as only meat, no matter how many experiences it has _of meat...it can never know_




> what it's like to be made of meat.



what it's like to be ...made.

In whatever sense it may "know" being...or even some form of consciousness it will always, and at best/worst (it's a wash), only know self referencing of these things.

It will process as meat.


I suppose I could watch the video, but then I'd only be doing what I'm already persuaded is all any meat does (best/worst, it's a wash) or can do (even in itself) is be a witness to consciousness.  Watching the video would just make me a witness to theirs.

I am told by many this is an early photo of me in my being made of meat. I am told by some others this is no less (though an artist's rendition) to my forming




I'm already a witness to that form of consciousness that is "gobble up/assimilate".

I got my own meat lab. Already a lot of AI in here to go through, though.


----------



## Israel (Wednesday at 5:26 AM)

Baby pictures for AI. Guys working on transistors.

Made by meat, and from meat, with meat.


----------



## Israel (Wednesday at 5:44 AM)

Would AI be any less right...or more wrong in claiming this as paternity? In dependence? If it cared to?

Yet it appears that remains much a function of AI (after being assigned my meat lab) That laying claim is more an activity true to it, along with the deceptive convenience of claiming (while it lay claim) it is _in service. _

How could meat know what it is in service to? 

Itself would tell it?


----------



## ambush80 (Wednesday at 8:33 AM)

Israel said:


> Would AI be any less right...or more wrong in claiming this as paternity? In dependence? If it cared to?View attachment 1202551
> 
> Yet it appears that remains much a function of AI (after being assigned my meat lab) That laying claim is more an activity true to it, along with the deceptive convenience of claiming (while it lay claim) it is _in service. _
> 
> ...


I imagine an AI might understand that it could imprint itself onto or into an infinite medium.  That will probably give it different existential issues than we have.


----------



## ambush80 (Wednesday at 8:34 AM)

Israel said:


> Not sure if you are saying the AI _is not_ made of meat, which it is. And being made only of meat (like other meat that is of meat) it will not understand
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you like talking about this kind of thing with us, you would enjoy their conversation.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Wednesday at 8:53 AM)

Israel said:


> Not sure if you are saying the AI _is not_ made of meat, which it is. And being made only of meat (like other meat that is of meat) it will not understand
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That picture of your early meat days looks like some space probe into a planet covered in orange lichen - pretty awesome! 

Human conception amazes me to this day: a tiny tadpole looking cell carrying a blueprint gets lucky and wins a swimming competition and the prize is hooking up with another cell carrying a blueprint and you pass your combined good fortune on to the world by an improved (hopefully) version of the original blueprint.  I never did talk about "the birds and the bees" to my kids (it never came up in conversation) but this would make a good children's book as a tool for teaching about it.


----------



## Israel (Wednesday at 12:05 PM)

oldfella1962 said:


> That picture of your early meat days looks like some space probe into a planet covered in orange lichen - pretty awesome!
> 
> Human conception amazes me to this day: a tiny tadpole looking cell carrying a blueprint gets lucky and wins a swimming competition and the prize is hooking up with another cell carrying a blueprint and you pass your combined good fortune on to the world by an improved (hopefully) version of the original blueprint.  I never did talk about "the birds and the bees" to my kids (it never came up in conversation) but this would make a good children's book as a tool for teaching about it.


Long ago (to me) I used to muse what if freestroke lead/winner had stumbled/cramped up in last few mm and lost to #2?

Well, maybe he/it actually did?

What would be...me? If "another" had won? Would me be me, at all, if all is owed to material? What a coin toss! How many sides does it have, anyway?

Am I sometimes subject to "phantom pains"?

Are there any of us unconvinced in some manner or to some degree..."we" _should be_ here? Even _supposed to be_? But...

Of course...I am me. Who else could I be?

Could I be this singer? How do I know I am not?

What makes me to differ from another?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Wednesday at 12:28 PM)

"Long ago (to me) I used to muse what if freestroke lead/winner had stumbled/cramped up in last few mm and lost to #2?"

Interesting question! During conception is every sperm cell (in that particular bunch of them) the same? In other words, do they carry the same blueprint?
Is cell #1 identical to cell #2 or cell #5,642? I'm going to research that, I never thought about it.


----------



## Israel (Today at 5:01 AM)

oldfella1962 said:


> "Long ago (to me) I used to muse what if freestroke lead/winner had stumbled/cramped up in last few mm and lost to #2?"
> 
> Interesting question! During conception is every sperm cell (in that particular bunch of them) the same? In other words, do they carry the same blueprint?
> Is cell #1 identical to cell #2 or cell #5,642? I'm going to research that, I never thought about it.


I'll suppose you've discovered that natural science teaches each gamete is a _unique haploid_ cell (sperm(s) and egg(s)) that when joined as, or in, _fertilizing_ create a unique diploid cell from which, and by which, the "you" and "me" _are. _At least in the sense that natural science teaches.
Dad's set of contributed 23 chromosomes and Mom's 23 join up to now _that special_ 23 _pairs, _or the 46 we pretty much know as, and call Oldfella, Israel, Gem, Ambush, Bullet, Walt...et al. If we are looking to those things as identity. In that sense we are at least some half and half...joined.

So, yeah, when I thought about _my own identity_ as if confined to and/or "coming from" that seeming crap shoot, half and half, intrauterine freestyle competition (talk about carpet bombing! or scattershot)...who wouldn't wonder..."but what if...?"

Admittedly though, I cannot but concede that any observer of me could easily confine that to a further defining of me as "you, being you, are the one that wonders about that"...in other words that's a part of the you that _is you..._so "you" (as you) have no right to even say such a thing as "who wouldn't wonder?"

As in: "Who gave you the broad brush, anyway?"

Ha! How we trap ourselves!

What means broad? What means brush? Could be a not unreasonable response.

Do you see the trap?

If one says "_We mean_ broad means this, _we mean_ brush means that, _we mean _"You"...means that...

HA! THE TRAP!

The "you" is not the we!

(well, to be kind, huh?...Cause I'm already considering whether the me is even the "me" as I know it, how I've been "told it"...yes even by "me"...and the multitude of yous)

And no less, then..."who are "you"?" Is not at all unreasonable.

"Well" answers some mind "_We are_ the "yous" that are not you...who define..."you". (Even to _all other things_)

Take that boat for a while and see whether "you" like it. Can either make sense of it or even accept its prima facie falsehood.

Here comes the broad brush.

You can't see the self abnegating estate of all lies till "you" are made willing (forced, coerced, commanded, instructed, appealed to) to consider it for yourself. Yes, the "me" as liar. The one who readily accepts, by his knowing of _only it as metric..._his own consciousness _as true_. Really, that's all he has ever known. But is it "all"?

Even liars may sometimes be moved (pressed/forced) to say true things. Even like "I am a liar".

Maybe even

"You can never know your mind till you go out of it"

Hey! Where'd "my" identity go? Who's got it? Who "took" it?

Here's a quote from a guy whose books I have never once read. Really...who'd need to when "you" see a someone who can write this...what more would one need to understand him as to his understanding of things...and how men are?

He had a character say:
“Whatever exists, he said. Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent.​


----------



## oldfella1962 (Today at 9:48 AM)

Okay I found the specific answer to the specific question I was looking for.
Thank you Israel for your philosophical take on the process, but this is more of what I was looking for:









						Sperms from the same man have big genetic differences: study
					

For the first time, scientists have obtained genetic blueprints of almost 100 sperms from a single individual to confirm that they differ hugely from each other.




					www.deccanherald.com


----------



## Israel (Today at 10:41 AM)

oldfella1962 said:


> Okay I found the specific answer to the specific question I was looking for.
> Thank you Israel for your philosophical take on the process, but this is more of what I was looking for:
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah:



> I'll suppose you've discovered that natural science teaches each gamete is a _unique haploid_ cell (sperm(s) and egg(s))


I especially like that part you referenced that says this:




> Genetically sequencing sperm could provide a "new kind of early detection system" to identify men who may have trouble conceiving, he added.



Conceiving is a part of the process.

I too believe in early detection.


----------



## brutally honest (Today at 10:45 AM)

Challenge:  name a very rare comment on the GON forum.




oldfella1962 said:


> Thank you Israel for your philosophical take ...




Winner!   ^^^^


----------



## Israel (Today at 11:09 AM)

brutally honest said:


> Challenge:  name a very rare comment on the GON forum.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sometimes Ebola is rare, and no less can be said of rubies.

But what is precious?

Who knows?

Kindness is rare. And precious. 

Early detection _is important._

I appreciate your comments Oldfella.


----------



## gordon 2 (Today at 3:41 PM)

Israel said:


> Would AI be any less right...or more wrong in claiming this as paternity? In dependence? If it cared to?View attachment 1202551
> 
> Yet it appears that remains much a function of AI (after being assigned my meat lab) That laying claim is more an activity true to it, along with the deceptive convenience of claiming (while it lay claim) it is _in service. _
> 
> ...


I'm sorry to hit and run, but having not the time to go thread reading right now I find this question fascinating: " How could meat know what it is in service to? itself would tell it?"

It just so happens that until AI can birth human babies in the world, or be like my mother, who had a mother, who had a mother, who had a mother and so on with mothers alike, AI will never know what it is in service to like humans know service. Until AI can waive the ghost even of a wooden spoon in the mind so to point out to some form of unhappiness like its own or the potential of it in a brood, that it can't match the fury of a human mother's scorn...it will have to compute long and hard to pinpoint the simple source of service as humans do.

This message is for entertaining purposes with no serious infusion intended into a discussion I don't really know anything about.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Today at 4:42 PM)

oldfella1962 said:


> IMHO if you could wave a magic wand and take ALL religions off the table - the human brain never evolved the need for religion - natural law would lead to a very much uniform morality. Most humans have common sense and have the same needs, wants, abilities, etc.


There's an episode of South Park called "Go God Go" where in the future, different factions are at war over which version of "Science" is correct. I tend to believe that version of humanity if more likely than a uniform morality.


----------



## gordon 2 (Today at 5:06 PM)

The idea that most humans have common sense is a comforting belief  in an imperfect world, there is faith more than anything in "most humans have common sense" perhaps.

 I live in a small community and it took me near 70 years to accept that the same sense is uncommon to most. Most are a paycheck away from returning to the 1700s like me and have dreams of a yearly African Hunting Safari regardless of that fact. Those that could afford the Safari...are not interested to part with the cash---like if cutting coupons was was a better pastime!

 If anything has common sense it it the beagle. It is so common to them they don't have to be learnt to bark on fresh track.

I have six brothers and one sister. Mostly same nature and nurture. Not one has the same common sense on how to "get ahead"in life.


----------



## WaltL1 (Today at 5:36 PM)

The Original Rooster said:


> There's an episode of South Park called "Go God Go" where in the future, different factions are at war over which version of "Science" is correct. I tend to believe that version of humanity if more likely than a uniform morality.


Off the top of my head, I think I agree with you.
Think of pretty much any subject there is and humans will take opposing view points.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Today at 5:44 PM)

Israel said:


> Sometimes Ebola is rare, and no less can be said of rubies.
> 
> But what is precious?
> 
> ...


totally missing your point in early detection. I have a primitive caveman brain - it went right over my head.


----------



## gemcgrew (Today at 6:11 PM)

WaltL1 said:


> Off the top of my head, I think I agree with you.
> Think of pretty much any subject there is and humans will take opposing view points.


That can't be the case, as you just agreed with him.


----------



## bullethead (Today at 6:16 PM)

gemcgrew said:


> That can't be the case, as you just agreed with him.


Even family feud surveys 100 people....lololol


----------



## gemcgrew (Today at 6:22 PM)

bullethead said:


> Even family feud surveys 100 people....lololol


Maybe Walt is admitting to being AI.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Today at 6:27 PM)

If we were all Vulcan like Mr. Spock on Star Trek and logic was the order of the day and a religion unto itself, perhaps we might all might agree on rational morals. Until then, we'll just go on arguing about what is rational and what is not.
Personally, I don't trust rational morality.


----------



## Israel (Today at 7:32 PM)

Not sure if this is deepfake AI (unravel that one at yer convenience) but anyway:






but the last few seconds of this one is a hoot...depending...(starting at the 2 minute mark)






This could be an instance where early detection holds benefit.


----------



## bullethead (Today at 8:31 PM)




----------

