Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Pope off

mercurydancer

LE
Book Reviewer
Yerrss I am beginning to think you might have hijacked the pope, now let the poor man go out of your broom cupboard.

A new thread possibly? I genuinely like the debate, it is entertaining. The title of the thread will be interesting... Should it be Higgs Bosun is the new God?
 
Surely the pope is the one hijacking reality... :-D


In retrospect by the time you have dropped him off a tower in the company of a feather and established if he will spread himself across the pavement, or you have proved Einsteins theory of relativity- perhaps your imaginary broom cupboard is the safest place in case he has an imaginary headache.
 
A new thread possibly? I genuinely like the debate, it is entertaining. The title of the thread will be interesting... Should it be Higgs Bosun is the new God?

Well up to a point I would agree, however I am not a boffin but I find I am genuinely confused by this issue of free will, because we either have it or we don't and its important because it has all kinds of ramifications that I wish to explore not least because it goes back to basis of having a Pope- Imaginary or otherwise- and your Pengiun has just appeared at my back door and confused the dog.
 
That a reference to Quantum Tunneling? Apparently it's only due to statistics and probability that the atoms in my cat and I haven't fallen through the bed.

There's a whole programme/course you can download from bitorrent sites about Quantum Mechanics by The Teaching Company, mad stuff. You can get it for free if you know where to look, some Physics prof talks you through it all step by step.

There are a few issues with torrent software and files so prefer streaming from safer video sites. My browser favorites go back years and include all kinds of theories... some are batshit crazy so I roll my own now :)
 
A new thread possibly? I genuinely like the debate, it is entertaining. The title of the thread will be interesting... Should it be Higgs Bosun is the new God?

Idea!...move to the US and start a new cult. Well not actually 'move'....u know wot ah mean. Hell, they are getting low on gods over there apparently...the idiots probably need another, christianity is burning out, as if it's not weird enough for em...FFS. I'll show em some quality bullshit and become stinking rich why not?
 
Reality will shortly catch up with this Pope I'm sure, he's making reformist noises and refusing to nudge turps with the sith lords of the dark side of the vatican, the vatican bank and papal Curia.

Popes who do that tend to pop their clogs soon after, or suddenly start looking very drugged and doddery, Ratzinger knew all that and bottled it, I'll give Pope Frankspikso a year tops!
 

mercurydancer

LE
Book Reviewer
Well up to a point I would agree, however I am not a boffin but I find I am genuinely confused by this issue of free will, because we either have it or we don't and its important because it has all kinds of ramifications that I wish to explore not least because it goes back to basis of having a Pope- Imaginary or otherwise- and your Pengiun has just appeared at my back door and confused the dog.

Sorry about the penguin. It does as it likes because it has free will.....

Actually HB isnt speaking complete bollocks its just that I disagree with him. His points are in the main valid apart from mass killing of religious people, (which is bollocks) but in the main his points have rationality and scientific basis behind them. The conclusions we reach are diametrically opposite but as with the best threads, its not the agreement that matters, its the challenge to think that makes it interesting.
 
Sorry about the penguin. It does as it likes because it has free will.....

Actually HB isnt speaking complete bollocks its just that I disagree with him. His points are in the main valid apart from mass killing of religious people, (which is bollocks) but in the main his points have rationality and scientific basis behind them. The conclusions we reach are diametrically opposite but as with the best threads, its not the agreement that matters, its the challenge to think that makes it interesting.

Thanks for that, No I know he isn't but the issue here is what we think of the the fact that there is a new Pope and the issues surrounding the resignation of the last one. We've all agreed that the concept of faith in itself is a form of delusion- however in my case there is an element of that delusion that is quite acceptable- on the basis of free will, that is that if you want to believe why shouldn't you. I am a pure Lutheran in the sense that I take the view that what goes on between me and my god is a matter for me in that Martin Luther preached that. That means I impose my beliefs on no one- nor am I necessarily a follower of any Christian Church or any other. However this molecular structure that is me, is having a problem with how much of me is predestined- i.e. my death is assured as it is for all living things. My Brain like all of us is functioning without my conscious control and my actions define me. Therefore to what extent is that predestined and how much of that predestination is free will.

This logic goes in different directions, because the State wants to hold me responsible for my actions and that is a PR argument telling me, a bunch of Molecules, that I have some kind of linkage to the state which is the creation of a bunch of molecules called people- hence the concept of punishment for my possible misdeeds. But does that have any validity?
 

mercurydancer

LE
Book Reviewer
Thanks for that, No I know he isn't but the issue here is what we think of the the fact that there is a new Pope and the issues surrounding the resignation of the last one. We've all agreed that the concept of faith in itself is a form of delusion- however in my case there is an element of that delusion that is quite acceptable- on the basis of free will, that is that if you want to believe why shouldn't you. I am a pure Lutheran in the sense that I take the view that what goes on between me and my god is a matter for me in that Martin Luther preached that. That means I impose my beliefs on no one- nor am I necessarily a follower of any Christian Church or any other. However this molecular structure that is me, is having a problem with how much of me is predestined- i.e. my death is assured as it is for all living things. My Brain like all of us is functioning without my conscious control and my actions define me. Therefore to what extent is that predestined and how much of that predestination is free will.

This logic goes in different directions, because the State wants to hold me responsible for my actions and that is a PR argument telling me, a bunch of Molecules, that I have some kind of linkage to the state which is the creation of a bunch of molecules called people- hence the concept of punishment for my possible misdeeds. But does that have any validity?

I certainly did not agree that faith is a delusion at all. (HIGGS BOSUN SHIELD ON) The Lutheran position is a very honourable one and one which means that the religions are not as important as the connection between man and god. In my opinion, thats because of the catholic church at the time of Luther being hugely corrupt. And further I do not agree with predestination even after distortion by Sprague and others. I certainly do not agree that works alone can not assure salvation. The predestination idea is a concept taken from the bible and made into something which suits the purpose of the people quoting it. (This is not unique to the bible, but the koran too.) The flip side of the predestination idea is that no matter how much of a bastard you might be in life, salvation will be guaranteed, if you are Lutheran/Calvinist and for those who are not of the Calvinist persuasion, then no matter how well they live their life then they can never be allowed salvation. Personally I think this is bollocks.

I answer to God. I do not know who he is, and as some wise man once said - (I paraphrase) I do not pray to the God I think exists, but to the God who knows himself to be. I am accountable for my actions and to god.

(HIGGS BOSUN SHIELD OFF) My concept of God may well be a delusion. I prefer Pascal's wager.

HB's thoughts about quantum mechanics are well thought out, but I cannot see them connecting with the macro world we live in. His comments about free will experiments are interesting too. I mostly disagree with him, but I appreciate that my concepts of things are challenged. The free will experiments measure a very small part of the brain which is very complex and some interesting experiments are now being practiced which certainly question the determinist ideology of HB.
 
I certainly did not agree that faith is a delusion at all. (HIGGS BOSUN SHIELD ON) The Lutheran position is a very honourable one and one which means that the religions are not as important as the connection between man and god. In my opinion, thats because of the catholic church at the time of Luther being hugely corrupt. And further I do not agree with predestination even after distortion by Sprague and others. I certainly do not agree that works alone can not assure salvation. The predestination idea is a concept taken from the bible and made into something which suits the purpose of the people quoting it. (This is not unique to the bible, but the koran too.) The flip side of the predestination idea is that no matter how much of a bastard you might be in life, salvation will be guaranteed, if you are Lutheran/Calvinist and for those who are not of the Calvinist persuasion, then no matter how well they live their life then they can never be allowed salvation. Personally I think this is bollocks.

I answer to God. I do not know who he is, and as some wise man once said - (I paraphrase) I do not pray to the God I think exists, but to the God who knows himself to be. I am accountable for my actions and to god.

(HIGGS BOSUN SHIELD OFF) My concept of God may well be a delusion. I prefer Pascal's wager.

HB's thoughts about quantum mechanics are well thought out, but I cannot see them connecting with the macro world we live in. His comments about free will experiments are interesting too. I mostly disagree with him, but I appreciate that my concepts of things are challenged. The free will experiments measure a very small part of the brain which is very complex and some interesting experiments are now being practiced which certainly question the determinist ideology of HB.

Well to extent any issue of Salvation is deterministic; is a personal one rather than one that is defined by any organisation and in part is part of one's own ethos. If one thinks one has to make amends for something, one does it. As far as I am concerned the concept of salvation as defined in the middle ages no longer applies- we have moved on. It should not be confused with what people might think of us because that is not a matter for us. The Luther/ Calvin issue defined by "Arbeit macht frei" is another issue that we suffer from and you can see that in the current scrounger debates and I would never subscribe to Calvinist viewpoint. In my view Luther wins hands down. Pascals wager in essence is now redundant because it depends on whether you think that God is a being in the sense that it was believed in the 18th century- that is the 20th/21st century delusion propounded by the church and is really the answer to "Wohin ist Gott?" If you read that passage that first line is really quite charged. In response to your last sentence it is clear that we do not understand what "Free will" is other than the response to the urges we all have.
This confirms my view that Society wants to hold you responsible or your actions quite simply because that is the only alternative that can be found, not because there is a scientific understanding of our actions.
 
Well to extent any issue of Salvation is deterministic; is a personal one rather than one that is defined by any organisation and in part is part of one's own ethos. If one thinks one has to make amends for something, one does it. As far as I am concerned the concept of salvation as defined in the middle ages no longer applies- we have moved on. It should not be confused with what people might think of us because that is not a matter for us. The Luther/ Calvin issue defined by "Arbeit macht frei" is another issue that we suffer from and you can see that in the current scrounger debates and I would never subscribe to Calvinist viewpoint. In my view Luther wins hands down. Pascals wager in essence is now redundant because it depends on whether you think that God is a being in the sense that it was believed in the 18th century- that is the 20th/21st century delusion propounded by the church and is really the answer to "Wohin ist Gott?" If you read that passage that first line is really quite charged. In response to your last sentence it is clear that we do not understand what "Free will" is other than the response to the urges we all have.
This confirms my view that Society wants to hold you responsible or your actions quite simply because that is the only alternative that can be found, not because there is a scientific understanding of our actions.

See bold...

Pascal’s wager has always been redundant. It presupposes that people can believe something by act of will alone. I’d like to believe that there’s a benevolent god who will grant me everlasting life surrounded by the people I love. No matter how much I *want* to believe that it doesn’t mean that I *actually* believe it. Acting and behaving as though I do will not change the fact that I don’t believe it and surely any god worthy of the name would see through my cunning ruse.

Belief can’t be forced and so the basic premise of the wager is flawed from the start. This says nothing about the inherent self-interest of such a wager (would any god want someone so self-centred?), and whether or not the right god is being “believed” in in the first place and then whether or not the interpretation of that god is correct (to be or not be circumcised, for example!).
 
Yeah...one has no choice in beliefs. One's mind is decided by mechanisms outside of your control. It's an absurd notion that you can pluck a crazy faith from those on offer, one that you 'know' is bollocks but then force yourself to go along with it just to be on the 'safe side' ...No point stroking a rabbit's foot unless you are superstitious...but even then it's not going to work FFS.

Also please note that determinism, pre-destination and fate are bollocks. I have never said that I believe in those things. We are exposed to countless random influences during our lives and are affected accordingly. What happens is a matter of probability... By chance you are born into the world, by luck you may live to maturity. Demographics, complex learning and education play a part in the tuning of your mind. A brain that has both evolved and inherited characteristics built in... how you react is a bit of a lottery. Be it nurture or nature...you are not able to alter the decisions made from the subconscious. Brainwashing is known to be a lasting effect...so those that follow a particular religion are likely to be trapped in a culture of their birth. They had no choice.
 
Yeah...one has no choice in beliefs. One's mind is decided by mechanisms outside of your control. It's an absurd notion that you can pluck a crazy faith from those on offer, one that you 'know' is bollocks but then force yourself to go along with it just to be on the 'safe side' ...No point stroking a rabbit's foot unless you are superstitious...but even then it's not going to work FFS.

Also please note that determinism, pre-destination and fate are bollocks. I have never said that I believe in those things. We are exposed to countless random influences during our lives and are affected accordingly. What happens is a matter of probability... By chance you are born into the world, by luck you may live to maturity. Demographics, complex learning and education play a part in the tuning of your mind. A brain that has both evolved and inherited characteristics built in... how you react is a bit of a lottery. Be it nurture or nature...you are not able to alter the decisions made from the subconscious. Brainwashing is known to be a lasting effect...so those that follow a particular religion are likely to be trapped in a culture of their birth. They had no choice.

So there is no possibility of Free Will.
 
See bold...

Pascal’s wager has always been redundant. It presupposes that people can believe something by act of will alone. I’d like to believe that there’s a benevolent god who will grant me everlasting life surrounded by the people I love. No matter how much I *want* to believe that it doesn’t mean that I *actually* believe it. Acting and behaving as though I do will not change the fact that I don’t believe it and surely any god worthy of the name would see through my cunning ruse.

Belief can’t be forced and so the basic premise of the wager is flawed from the start. This says nothing about the inherent self-interest of such a wager (would any god want someone so self-centred?), and whether or not the right god is being “believed” in in the first place and then whether or not the interpretation of that god is correct (to be or not be circumcised, for example!).

Pascal's wager was a very real thing if you take the mentality of the 18th century person. Of course it's redundant now but it wasn't then anymore than the argument of "how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin" was and since the belief was not forced at the time it couldn't have been flawed to them. The fact that God in those days would be able to see the cunning ruse didn't mean that people would not invent such things.
 
Pascal's wager was a very real thing if you take the mentality of the 18th century person. Of course it's redundant now but it wasn't then anymore than the argument of "how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin" was and since the belief was not forced at the time it couldn't have been flawed to them. The fact that God in those days would be able to see the cunning ruse didn't mean that people would not invent such things.

We are in a sort of agreement; Pascal’s wager may have been real in the sense that it was a philosophical construct, but that didn’t mean that the wager had any basis in reality.

You stated that the wager is “now” redundant, but it has always been redundant. That people may or may not have accepted it is another matter.
 
Top