debate
Discord ID: 463068752725016579
34,246 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 72/137
| Next
That would infer that you were incapable of exerting your own will
No, but to exert your will you have to contest both with your body and your subconscious mind.
People do not have free will innately
According to a Christian perspective your will is either a slave to sin or righteousness
My perspective would be that your will is your intent, and your actions are the embodiment of your intent
Gnostics generally deny the idea of objective sin, since a sin is only perceptual.
Therefore your will is free
โI am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.โ - Heinlein
Similarly there is no original sin, Humanity was just in eating from the Tree of Knowledge because it granted them consciousness and free will.
Because of that, Jesus Christ (Yeshua Ha'Notzri) was not seen as a figure meant to be the redeemer of Humanity, but as a Buddhic figure brought into the world to share divine insight and enlightenment.
The Christian argument is that it is because of free will that the decision to eat the fruit ocurred, not the result
Well the snake tricked Eve
She ate from the tree because she didn't have free will.
Eden was a false paradise.
Thats not necessarily the case
It was the idyllic bliss of Man living in Nature.
She ate from the tree because she had the free will to decide between the things that God told her and the things the snake told her
What I am saying is pretty subjective
And that is probably the more canonical interpretation
Her intent was to find out the truth, her actions were done under the supposition that the snake was telling the truth
Snake dindu nuffin
She has free will, but decided to act based upon an incorrect supposition
She lacked the knowledge to know that the snake was evil
Another argument would be that the existence of the tree and the snake prove that there was free will, because without the ability to explore those options, your will is not free due to being shackled through limitations
That is a more apt way of putting it
So according to that way of thinking, you do innately have free will
But, if your consciousness is joined by that of an external party, then surely you no longer have free will
Because when your will is no longer your own, it cannot be free
If put into semantics it would be better to say you innately have 1/3 free will.
Your soul is your own, at least a normal persons soul is their own.
You're spirit is aspect of your consciousness that you do not control with free will, your subconscious.
And you're body is innately limiting, because its flesh and material.
To have full free will is to have absolute control over the nature of existence
That is not true
What you will becomes what is
Free will is the ability to manfest your intentions to the world
You're right, I should've said full free will is absolute control over your being
Which I would argue the regular person has
Can you control when you sweat?
Via my autonomic nervous system, yes
So you do not consciously do it
It is not your choice to sweat
But it is not my intent to overheat, therefore my body automatically does what it ca
I could sit in the heat, or move to the shade
I understand what you're saying, but I am being pedantic for the sake of nullifying deconstructionism. I am being as literal as possible when I say full free will, I am essentially talking about nirvana in a way, where your will and being transcend the environment around you.
If I intended to overheat, my free will allowing me so, I would sit in the heat regardless and sweat
Because as an example there are Buddhist monks who work to master control over their body. A notable case is of certain monks being able to regulate their body temperature through will.
That would mean that through training, people can exert their conscious will into being
Yes
Which would confirm that it is not strictly necessary to seperate the parts of our consciousness
They of course interact with each other
It may be that certain aspects of the same thing are being held as distinct when in actual fact they are the same
What do you mean by them being the same?
Do you not think there a distinct forces that together form consciousness?
Instead of splitting into three aspects of 'consciousness' it is merely consciousness
I have been saying it is one consciousness throughout this entire conversation
One conscious made by three parts
If you have two parts you have no consciousness
I am saying there is one consciousness, being described as having three different parts
Only because we lack the ability to define the distinctions
And that if we have one consciousness, and that the physiological human brain is only capable of suporting a single consciousness, how can we reconcile that our consciousness can join with a God's
I would argue you join with God through the comprehension of the Divine.
That is where the idea of Gnosticism comes from.
Gnosis, insight on the Divine, is what allows one to achieve enlightenment and with it salvation.
But earlier you said that something with a consciousness like our own, you would consider human. Now, the definition we have come to on human consciousness, is not enough. Therefore, logically, either a supernatural consciousness exists, or it does not.
The archetypal Human in Gnosticism is called Anthropos.
Thats just a different way of saying human in Greek
Most Gnostic language is taken from Greek because Gnosticism emerged from Neoplatonic philosophy.
The idea is that the archetypal man is a divine being, and really this doesn't have an affect on factual reality, it is not necessarily supernatural because it is not claiming the divine directly contacts factual reality.
If God's consciousness is corporeal, and untainted by the material world, not tainted by contact with matter, how can a human with a single consciousness contact it?
Let alone become one with t
And, if any humna did do that, or ever did do that, that consciousness would no longer be corporeal
God is not corporeal
He is the opposite
It says that his thought is corporeal on that wiki page
Sorry no it doesnt
I was reading the wrong thing
Let me go again: If God's mind is not corporeal, and hasnt been darkened by contact with the material world or matter, how can it be joined with a consciousness that you described as arising from the composite parts of our physical being?
Through reflections of his light in images.
In essence, through some supernatural phenomenon
Supernatural is a very subjective term, and I wouldn't call it supernatural, I would call it metaphysical phenomenon.
Which is an abstraction of philosophy
An abstraction isn't a supernatural concept though.
No, but neither philosophy nor religion are scientifically quantifiable
I believe where this was all coming from was whether a supernatural or metaphysical being was necessary for humans, and whether atheism replaced that, or in my view whether that supposition was in actual fact a valid supposition and that there is a possibility of a human to exercise their free will to think freely
**Question**: Should political topics be involved in tests like the SAT and ACT? I just took the PSAT today, and in the reading section there were two excerpts about black feminism. Though I forget what the excerpts were from, it offset me to see it in such a test.
No.
But the colleges have decided that's "nonpolitical" and inline with what they want to teach.
Unless you can rally enough people to really fight back...
It's troubling to me because the test makers are fairly secretive in what they put in the test.
I hate to break it to you, but the next 4 years are only going to get worse.
I'm in academia (sort of) and I can say that's exactly the kind of thing they do these days.
True, I remember taking the PSAT 2 years ago and there no questions of that sort back then.
Yeah, the far left kinda has uncontested control of the humanities at this point.
There's as many or more radicals in departments like Sociology than there are moderates.
And (in all likelihood) 0 conservatives of any kind. And those that do exist don't exactly have the mass to accomplish anything besides get defunded.
If you want someone to talk to, you're welcome to PM me anytime.
And for students there's definitely organizations you can join.
Thanks, I just find it disturbing that the excerpts are in such a widespread test like the PSAT.
I find it disturbing too. But I'm somehow unsurprised.
The excepts had to have gone through a slew of people to be approved, and apparently none of them thought it wasn't political
Mostly underpaid faculty and grad students in humanities programs.
You should look at the colloquia list. It's farther Social Justice Left than you've ever imagined. Even at "right wing" schools in "red states"
I called someone out on that point in another discord
His argument was that Rand is bad and has been debunked by academics (though he initially worded it as an appeal to authority) and then proceeded to try to defend academia, which is where I hopped in with the hoaxes and bias
How do 'academics' debunk a philosophical ideology on- you know what, never mind.
Lol
Just fire everyone who holds it of course! And replace them with your friends from the recent protest.
It's just so ridiculous. I'm no objectivist, but acting like Rand had 0 valid points is silly
Welcome to the modulus operandi of the modern academy.
You're either on the right side of history...or you're stupid and need education.
It's become fashionable among lefty circles to shit on Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand is my waifu though.
Because the characters are not total rando normies that do mundane shit, they are supposedly not believable - while their stuff is filled with Mary Sues that roundhouse kick 800 lbs gorillas.
They expect characters with zero personality, like 50 shades of rape, so that they can project their own miserable being into them.
They can't have characters that challenge them, because that would require self-reflection.
So, naturally they hate Ayn Rand.
Although I am not a laissez-faire capitalistic, I can at least appreciate the substance of her work.
i'm not sure she is
Although that might not be the best classification of her, I am still pretty sure she held up laissez-faire capitalism as the unreachable perfect form of capitalism.
I get what she is saying, if government wasn't corrupt then a laissez-faire market can flourish. However I personally do not believe that there should be an international free market.
I'll be in talk room #1 if anyone wants to go there and talk about something interesting
Can words be violent
can property destruction be violent
Yes.
You can shout words really loudly really close to people's ears and hurt them.
Or you can cause a lot more damage a lot more easily with a loudspeaker.
I mean like the people who think that me speaking in a certain tone means I'm being violent
No.
yeah, nah
you're not the dovahkiin
wth is so wrong with blackfacing?
e.g. in austria the "3 kings" that visited jesus, go around and sing at your door
one of them is usually blackfaced
same in germany
Because people took some of the American history of skin darkening, minstrel shows, divorced it from historical context and now claim that any attempt to darken one's skin is blackface.
@mer.at black face used to be a very specific style of panting a face, usually made to make fun of black people. It usually evolved leaving lots of skin still showing around the eyes and mouth to try and exaggerate a monkey style look.
this has ballooned to trying to look anything other than your race is now racist
Megyn clearly thought blackface simply meant a white person using makeup to look like a black person, she clearly didn't know there was connotation to racist minstrel shows.
We no longer look at a persons intent with there words.
She blasphemed so she must be punished.
i feel part of her confusion may come from the recent incident where people accused producers of using black face. http://www.tmz.com/2018/08/01/good-boys-child-actor-stand-in-blackface-keith-l-williams/
To be fair, that's not realyl common usage anymore
Black face _is_ "darkening skin"
Even the article Tim read specified it that way
nah, blackface still refers to the racist caricature
using it for any darkening of skin is unhelpful
I'm not going to argue whether it _should_
Or whether people should be educated on a more accurate usage
That is just how people in fact use it
It may have started metaphorically (i.e. "That is _like_ blackface") but has slowly shifted to just being the term for it
apart from troll blogs and some more out-of-touch social justice ppl, i've only ever seen it used for the caricature
would be interesting to see a study among different crowds as to what they understand under the term
Fair enough
It's honestly a bit of an esoteric term, so most people probably don't know what it is
But the usage has been consistent in the media
valid
probably a good sign if most people don't know about it
So if blackface is the darkening of the skin, is tanning blackface?
Actully yes. There have been articles written about how much tan can you have before it's considered appropriation.
No way is this a real thing
NBC wanted Megan Kelly out because her ratings dropped this was just an excuse to look better and get rid of her
I really don't like it. I have been Megan Kelly'd before.
The regressive left saves their worst ire to those of their protected classes that speak contrary to groupthink
It's pretty much the only time I see people sincerely using racial slurs
Did you know that 74% of terrorist attacks in the state come from right wing motivations?
Did you know that 130% of all random statistics are either made up or twisted? Islam is a "Right Wing" authoritarian philosophy, so you could easily count that as right wing. Citation please.
Politifact lul
Go through his videos and you will understand the reason behind the statement. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
You didnโt even read it
It cites the sources. Itโs not just statistics but full studies
No seriously you didn't click my link either
And my studies trump your Youtube video. Sorry
He specialies in going in fact check after fact check to show you how fact checkers misinterpret the truth.
Again, you can read the actual studies listed
But I know you guys hate reading so...
Oh good job insult me
๐
Reading is so boring. Complaining is more stimulating to my impulses
Itโs not an insult, itโs a fact
Really insulting someones intelligence is a great job of winning an argument
Anything that takes over 10 minutes to read you will reject
My studies have established the facts
Mind if we do a voice convo?
Why?
I don't mind discussing actual opinions. But you dropping a link and saying that I am stupid for not reading it. Is like an sjw refusing to read a link to a fox news article.
I'll bring the popcorn
All I will say is that the second biggest terrorist attack on US soil after 9/11 was a Christian Identity Warrior, Timothy McVeigh. Beyond that, I'm not really familiar with the statistics. I will say the big events of late were not derived from the American polar political ideologies. Orlando, Las Vegas, all the school shootings...none of it was left/right stuff.
There were lots of left-wing attacks in the 60s and 70s as part of the weatherman movement, but they were generally ineffective.
Small bombs, arson, etc.
True
My alma mater was hit by PETA while I was there. Trashed a lot of offices and released a bunch of rodents to starve in the wild. I had to help clean up the mess. Have I mentioned yet how much I despise PETA?
No human died, but a lot of small mammals did. Way to go for ethical animal treatment.
At least when I sacrificed furry things to science I was fast about it.
One sore point for conservatives is that many of the prominent figures in the weathermen ended up being accepted back into society and have risen to positions of respect.
Actually, that has been a mind blower for me.
We have locked up so many people for petty shit.
But if it has the right narrative, you can basically be a terrorist and even get a posh position at some lefty university.
Or be on the board of a NGO or something.
Yeah, the non-profit industrial complex is cancer.
It's basically a bunch of people who got together, who had no marketable skills, who make money by being victims.
I know them very well, because I used to be part of those groups, in my spare time.
When I saw how fucking unethical and unhinged they were, I released a lot of shit they were doing to the public.
Some say that the most recent converts out of an ideology often times hate their prior ideology with the most fervor - that definitely applies to me.
@Joe_Limon this is not a matter of opinion. Itโs a mater of hard fact
"It's a fact that you don't like to read"
Sure is good faith in here
Yeah, things got kind of venomous.
"I don't need to watch the video you linked because I already know my link is better"
Real honest and factual
You check his link yet?
@Beemann I will watch a specific video, not an entire channel
Fair, @Joe_Limon got a specific video citation?
Youโre probably going to tell me google is biased
" The fatalities reported last year include 49 people killed in the June 2016 shooting spree at the Pulse nightclub by terrorist Omar Mateen, who pledged allegiance to ISIS and referred to the Boston Marathon bombers during the attack"
Google *is* biased. They fix your search results. This is documented my dude
So, yes, we will continue to endeavor to speak truths.
Open Society Foundations
$1,000,000+
Jennifer and Jonathan Allan Soros Foundation
Yes, Soros donates a lot of money. Just like CATO is coche funded. This is normal
>didn't address how his link undermined his point and proved a critic right
Itโs not grass roots but itโs not biased either
I don't know man, it certainly calls its objectivity into question, and that's before you even crack the spine.
Which Beemann did and is apparently finding some problems.
Nah, prior link
If Soros were to pull his funding then they can still survive.
You guyโs donโt understand how biased funding actually works
The ADL article admitted that it's not da ebil righties
At least not lately
Da ebil righties?
Pulse dwarfs that shit, and now we're getting black nationalist attacks, unless you're dishonestly trying to lump all of these separate ideologies together
Yes, muh natzee threat my dude
Pulse is one incident
There were 11 incidents in 2016, pulse was the largest. Omar was not some Republican redneck or KKK boy
>69 people killed
>49 by an ISIScuck
>8 by black nationalists
White supremacists and anti government movements btfo
Iโm talking about the last 10 years
In the last 10 years, 74% of all attacks were motivated by white, rightwing extreamisim
The largest victims per capita are (in order) gays, jews, then muslims
How many people died per extremist group, and why specifically 10 years?
You could go back to 2001 and it would look simmer
10 years is a great sample size
Okay, where's the list of incidents for those years? I just started skimming, but I haven't found it yet.
34,246 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 72/137
| Next