Happy Easter

[SusanDoris]

BH

I have enormous respect for your knowledge and your patience.

Why do you bother to waste it on someone, anyone, who would not believe you unless you could prove that you were the reincarnation of Jesus Christ himself - except, of course, for the fact that there is absolutely no proof anywhere in reliably annotated history that Jesus Christ ever existed at all, anywhere or anywhen! Anywhere outside the accursed Bible of the Christian Church!

The fact that so many people do believe this monstrous piece of fiction., that millions of the poorest people in the world, pay what little money they have to the Christian church, effectively trying to buy their place in a non-existent heaven that the priests continue to lie about is one of the most damnable con-jobs that anywhere else other than religion would be a serious criminal offence!

Owlswing

)O(

Rant over - temperature declining - going for a large HobGolblin!

And ditto about all other religions which promise similar things.

[Owlswing]

And ditto about all other religions which promise similar things.

Of course!

But there are not many people who espouse those "other religions" posting on this Forum.

And, before the Christians start baying for my blood, my religion makes no such claims or promises.

Owlswing

)O(

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course!

But there are not many people who espouse those "other religions" posting on this Forum.

And, before the Christians start baying for my blood, my religion makes no such claims or promises.

Owlswing

)O(

I think on past record there is more chance for you starting to bay for your own blood than I.

I agree there are some terrible cons and delusions which call on the backing of God at the moment which I find I cannot agree with namely dominionism, false prophesy, the alignment of evangelicalism with the right wing and a macho calvinism.

However, that alignment was defeated in the US elections whereas in the UK there seems to be an alignment continuing between rightwing stances and an increasingly secular society which seems indefatigable.

On another point a christian wishes people a happy easter and all hell breaks lose with people reclaiming easter for anyone.

But I notice this thread hasn't been moved to the pagan thread pointing to a nasty habit of atheists and pagans spewing their bile out on the christian thread. This of course is my humble opinion.

[Aruntraveller]

ut I notice this thread hasn't been moved to the pagan thread pointing to a nasty habit of atheists and pagans spewing their bile out on the christian thread. This of course is my humble opinion.

Why would it be moved. It's primarily about Easter.

Humble?

Yes, you and Rees Mogg. Peas in a pod.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

It surprises you because you are just that unable to understand. Reality in any sensible discussion is not just what different people believe because it makes the concept worthless as it can be contradictory. Get back to me when you want to deal with your logical contradictions

Stage magicians have things called “outs” – escape routes when the trick goes wrong. Your out there was “in any sensible discussion”. If by that you mean the colloquial us of “reality” as practical agreement based generally on reason and evidence then yes of course – that’s the reality of sensible discussion. That’s why I take the lift instead of jumping out of the window – “reality” is the expectation that the former will have the better outcome.

What we were talking about though was the epistemic use of “reality” – a very different matter. The objective/subjective belief split is a practically useful one, but both ends of that spectrum are bounded by unknowables. AB’s faith beliefs are nonsense in any objective sense but they’re still his subjective reality – in his head “god” really did cure Little Timmy of his rickets or find his car keys. More yet, let’s say that at one time pretty much everyone thought the world was flat or that evil spirits caused disease – these were “the” realities of their times. They were the conclusions whole societies reached on the basis of the best tools available to them, just as our reality is for us now. Who’s to say though that some long-future descendants of ours won’t look at our objective reality in the same way that we look at the objective realities of our ancestors – ie, as also the best mapping to a substrate of reality we were capable of but fundamentally wrong nonetheless in all sorts of important ways?

To get back to the sensible discussion point: of course our objective understanding of reality allows us to have sensible discussions – so sensible that we can use it to fly rockets to Mars in fact – whereas the subjective realities of faith claims cannot be discussed sensibly because they’re all equally in/valid. Our objective understanding of reality runs out fairly quickly though. We cannot for example discuss sensibly the blueprint of a Star Trek style teleportation machine because we don’t currently have a map of reality that allows us to do that – for epistemic purposes speculations about that are effectively reduced to the status of faith claims.   

If you think that has logical contradictions though, then by all means tell me what they are.               

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not sure about this unknown unknown thing nor how it fits in with the question of the existence of God..but then it seems to have come from Donald Rumsfeld via yourself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course!

But there are not many people who espouse those "other religions" posting on this Forum.

And, before the Christians start baying for my blood, my religion makes no such claims or promises.

Owlswing

)O(

Doesn't your religion promise supernatural power?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Not sure about this unknown unknown thing nor how it fits in with the question of the existence of God..but then it seems to have come from Donald Rumsfeld via yourself.

What is it that you're not sure about? To claim categoric correctness about something is to claim omniscience - people aren't omniscient.   

[Steve H]

I think you may find that many people celebrating Easter are celebrating the coming Spring-time, as per the origin of the term Easter, which has absolutely nothing to do with christianity, and everything to do with celebration of the Spring.

So for those that claim the 'real' meaning of Christmas is the birth of Jesus (rather than the winter solstice) then you a being a touch hypocritical if you also claim the 'real' meaning of Easter is the resurrection story of Jesus.

The reality is that in both cases the christian 'meaning' has been (almost certainly deliberatively) mashed up with an older celebration of the seasons.

Cheap, cynical bollocks. "Easter" was originall called in English "Pasch", and we should go back to that.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Pasch

[ProfessorDavey]

Cheap, cynical bollocks. "Easter" was originall called in English "Pasch", and we should go back to that.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Pasch

Pasch and Easter are entirely different words with different etymologies - hence the discussion.

Pasch is derived from passion and ultimately from passover. It is the derivative term linked to the death and purported resurrection of Jesus.

Easter is derived from at least one purported god of the Spring and its etymology is entirely different from Pasch or Pascal etc.

Most countries refer to the Christian festival marking the death and purported resurrection of Jesus as Pasch, Passion, Paschal etc. In the UK we refer to Easter which has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus or Christianity, and indeed is linked to a pagan goddess of the Spring.

More than happy for you Christians to go back to celebrating Pasch, and the rest of us can celebrate Easter as a Spring festival. In reality, of course both festivals have been mashed up over the centuries and no-one has a monopoly on the real meaning of the festival, regardless of whether you call it Pasch or Easter - it means different things to different people.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What is it that you're not sure about? To claim categoric correctness about something is to claim omniscience - people aren't omniscient.

I've seen definitions where unknown unknown kind of makes sense but even that definition is inappropriate for the question of the existence of God which is an known unknown in terms of proof.

Omniscience is a complete red herring since whether something
Is a known known or an unknown unknown doesn't involve omniscience.

In the system where you can have unknowns apparently you can have unknown knowns a term which more than adequately describes Goddodging..

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pasch and Easter are entirely different words with different etymologies - hence the discussion.

Pasch is derived from passion and ultimately from passover. It is the derivative term linked to the death and purported resurrection of Jesus.

Easter is derived from at least one purported god of the Spring and its etymology is entirely different from Pasch or Pascal etc.

Most countries refer to the Christian festival marking the death and purported resurrection of Jesus as Pasch, Passion, Paschal etc. In the UK we refer to Easter which has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus or Christianity, and indeed is linked to a pagan goddess of the Spring.

More than happy for you Christians to go back to celebrating Pasch, and the rest of us can celebrate Easter as a Spring festival. In reality, of course both festivals have been mashed up over the centuries and no-one has a monopoly on the real meaning of the festival, regardless of whether you call it Pasch or Easter - it means different things to different people.

I'm wondering why a chap such as yourself who has no trouble with the change in meaning of the word marriage is weirdly upset about the change in meaning in the word Easter.

Oh I get it it's the anti Christian thing to do.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I've seen definitions where unknown unknown kind of makes sense but even that definition is inappropriate for the question of the existence of God which is an known unknown in terms of proof.

It’s simpler than that. Some people claim “god” as an absolute, categoric, “not even the possibility of being wrong about that ever ever ever” truth. Unless you can eliminate every piece of information in the universe that could potentially at least falsify the claim though – ie, omniscience – you cannot make that claim.   

Omniscience is a complete red herring since whether something
Is a known known or an unknown unknown doesn't involve omniscience.

Oh dear. Omniscience is necessary for absolute, epistemic certainty for the reason I just explained. Without it you cannot eliminate the possibility of a piece of information that could show you to be wrong. 

In the system where you can have unknowns apparently you can have unknown knowns a term which more than adequately describes Goddodging.

Incoherent word salad, but if it means what I think you mean by it then the same is true for leprechaun dodging. How does that help you? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sorry Hillside your attempts at making a known unknown into an unknown unknown have been blown.

Your turdpolishing has thus become a known known.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Sorry Hillside your attempts at making a known unknown into an unknown unknown have been blown.

Your turdpolishing has thus become a known known.

Do you genuinely not understand what's being said here or are you just straw manning again to get off the hook of your own mistake?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Do you genuinely not understand what's being said here or are you just straw manning again to get off the hook of your own mistake?

There is no mistake. The question of God's existence is not an unknown unknown. Therefore omniscience and indeed the existence of unknown unknowns has nothing to do with it...since this is a known unknown.

The existence of the four categories makes Goddodging a possibility.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There is no mistake. The question of God's existence is not an unknown unknown.

Yes there is – the unknown unknown is the possibility that the “question of God’s existence” could be answered in the negative. You have no way to eliminate that possibility.

Therefore…

You don’t have a therefore when your premise has collapsed…

… omniscience and indeed the existence of unknown unknowns has nothing to do with it...since this is a known unknown.

Gibberish. It’s not the existence of something that’s being claimed, just its possibility. How would you propose to eliminate that possibility?   

The existence of the four categories makes Goddodging a possibility.

Again, so's leprechaun dodging. And again, how does that help you? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes there is – the unknown unknown is the possibility that the “question of God’s existence” could be answered in the negative. You have no way to eliminate that possibility.

You don’t have a therefore when your premise has collapsed…

Gibberish. It’s not the existence of something that’s being claimed, just its possibility. How would you propose to eliminate that possibility?   

Again, so's leprechaun dodging. And again, how does that help you?

Yes I suppose there could be Leprechaun dodging but your thesis that there cannot be Goddodging is undone by unknown knowns.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes there is – the unknown unknown is the possibility that the “question of God’s existence” could be answered in the negative.

That is a known unknown if you know you dont know it.

[Steve H]

Pasch and Easter are entirely different words with different etymologies - hence the discussion.

Pasch is derived from passion and ultimately from passover. It is the derivative term linked to the death and purported resurrection of Jesus.

Easter is derived from at least one purported god of the Spring and its etymology is entirely different from Pasch or Pascal etc.

Most countries refer to the Christian festival marking the death and purported resurrection of Jesus as Pasch, Passion, Paschal etc. In the UK we refer to Easter which has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus or Christianity, and indeed is linked to a pagan goddess of the Spring.

More than happy for you Christians to go back to celebrating Pasch, and the rest of us can celebrate Easter as a Spring festival. In reality, of course both festivals have been mashed up over the centuries and no-one has a monopoly on the real meaning of the festival, regardless of whether you call it Pasch or Easter - it means different things to different people.

Yes, I know. That's why I think we should go back to calling the Christian festival Pasch.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That is a known unknown if you know you dont know it.

There is no "it" - just possibilities. Anything's possible, and you have no way to know what the possible things might be - they're unknown unknowns. That's your problem.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

There is no "it" - just possibilities. Anything's possible, and you have no way to know what the possible things might be - they're unknown unknowns. That's your problem.

First of all there are things which are impossible. Square circles etc.
Secondly If I had asked you to name/describe an example of an unknown unknown you would have said that was a silly request...and yet you've named one! So that becomes a known unknown.

But again this has nothing to do whether God exists which is a known unknown however you try to cut it.

It's God or no God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

First of all there are things which are impossible. Square circles etc.

But only if you assume that reason, logic etc are absolute. What if reality isn’t that way though – eg the brain in a bottle problem? What you’re missing here is that our understanding of reality is only as good as our ability to understand reality. And unless you’re claiming omniscience, that ability is limited.       

Secondly If I had asked you to name/describe an example of an unknown unknown you would have said that was a silly request...and yet you've named one! So that becomes a known unknown.

We really should have a face palm emoji here. Again – when anything is possible it’s impossible to name all those possible things. As you have no way of knowing what they might be, you have an unknown unknowns problem.   

But again this has nothing to do whether God exists which is a known unknown however you try to cut it.

But it does have everything to do with the claim “god certainly exists”. The “certainly” is your problem here. How would you eliminate the possibility that you’re wrong about that? 

It's God or no God.

Depends what you mean by “God”, but this isn’t about the (supposed) fact of god – it’s about the epistemic robustness of the claim you’re making about the existence of “him” being certain.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

But only if you assume that reason, logic etc are absolute. What if reality isn’t that way though – eg the brain in a bottle problem? What you’re missing here is that our understanding of reality is only as good as our ability to understand reality. And unless you’re claiming omniscience, that ability is limited.

Omniscience is a red herring since we can discuss God without  discussing  omniscience. You seem to be suggesting then that there can be no known unknowns.     
 If you are willing to chuck out reason and logic for a dubious idea then your credibility is dashed since the same argument will be used against your good self.

We really should have a face palm emoji here. Again – when anything is possible

Let me stop you there anything is possible is just a cliche to encourage people and not true

But it does have everything to do with the claim “god certainly exists”. The “certainly” is your problem here. How would you eliminate the possibility that you’re wrong about that? 
 

But I'm not saying that, since not everybody knows it and those that might cannot prove it. That is why I'm happy to use the term Known unknown. Unfortunately then God certainly exists is still a known unknown because he either does or doesn't. There is no unknown unknown that can slip in. There is no third way. If there were it would confound both Atheism and theism.

'God certainly exists' is also not a known known since ''we'' do not all know that. You leave here Hillside, having suggested reason and logic might be unreliable completely discredited on your appeal to both of those. Funnily enough I feel myself mourning over that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Omniscience is a red herring since we can discuss God without  discussing  omniscience.

No it isn’t a red herring for reasons I keep explaining and you keep ignoring. Certainty at a colloquial, everyday, functional level is fine. At an absolute level though you cannot have epistemic certainty unless you know every possible thing that could be, ie omniscience.

This shouldn’t be difficult to understand.   

You seem to be suggesting then that there can be no known unknowns.

Don’t be daft. If I had a complicated maths problem I wouldn’t know the answer, but I’d know there is one.
     

If you are willing to chuck out reason and logic for a dubious idea then your credibility is dashed since the same argument will be used against your good self.

See above.

Let me stop you there anything is possible is just a cliche to encourage people and not true

Why isn’t it true?

But I'm not saying that, since not everybody knows it and those that might cannot prove it. That is why I'm happy to use the term Known unknown. Unfortunately then God certainly exists is still a known unknown because he either does or doesn't. There is no unknown unknown that can slip in. There is no third way. If there were it would confound both Atheism and theism.

Oh dear. Again – “God’s” existence is your realty. Your reality is bounded by your ability to understand it. That ability is limited. Thus the claim “god is” cannot be epistemically certain (unless you’re also omniscient).   

'God certainly exists' is also not a known known since ''we'' do not all know that. You leave here Hillside, having suggested reason and logic might be unreliable completely discredited on your appeal to both of those. Funnily enough I feel myself mourning over that.

Wrong again – see above. All I’m saying here is that there can be no absolute positions when our ability to understand reality isn’t also total.

Why is this difficult for you to grasp?