Jump to content

Ser Scot A Ellison

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ser Scot A Ellison

  1. 6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

    And if there is something a Christ believing in the nonsense story of Christ's resurrection and salvation must believe that there was some kind of original sin nonsense - because if that wasn't the case then there was no point in Christ dying and resurrecting at all. In that sense, the creation story in Genesis isn't as irrelevant to Christian doctrine as most of the other books of the Hebrew Bible (nobody really cares what judge followed whom or how wicked Jezebel was) and it is intellectual dishonesty to separate the concept (original sin isn't in the Hebrew text, it is much later construction derived from Christian ideology) from the actual text - meaning that people believing in Adam and Eve are more honest than people dismissing that notion but insisting that there still must have been some kind of silly original sin nonsense (which was never the actual point/theme of the Genesis story, anyway)

    Again, how much Church history do you know.  The idea of what constitutes “orginal sin” in the Orthodox East is very different from the idea of “Original Sin” in the Roman Catholic/Protestant West.  The difference matters as in the East it is the world, not every individual human being, that is fallen.  So, the creation story in Genesis doesn’t have to be taken literally for it to have impact.  It can be recognized as an allegory attempting to understand and explain the origins of humanity in a story that is not 100% fact.  

    What I find frustrating is your claim that everything in the bible has to be entirely literally true or none of it is true.  That’s clearly a false dichotomy.  You also claim that something must be repeatable to be true.  How do you square that with Hume’s criticism of inductive reasoning (Empricism)?


    From the link:

    The problem of induction is the philosophicalquestion of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge understood in the classic philosophical sense,[1] highlighting the apparent lack of justification for:

    1. Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (e.g., the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and, therefore, all swans are white", before the discovery of black swans) or
    2. Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (e.g., that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the principle of uniformity of nature.[2]

    The problem calls into question all empiricalclaims made in everyday life or through the scientific method, and, for that reason, the philosopher C. D. Broad said that "induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy." Although the problem arguably dates back to the Pyrrhonism of ancient philosophy, as well as the Carvaka school of Indian philosophyDavid Hume popularized it in the mid-18th century.


  2. 37 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

    If you go by the traditional ways to interpret the Bible the literal interpretation is always one way to go by it. Taking the Bible literally is not wrong - it can also be an allegory, have some moral meaning that's not expressly spilled out in the text. But the idea that you can tell a true believer that he cannot or should not take a part of his holy scriptures as literally true is pretty weird.

    The lukewarm people just have moved goal posts - they still insist that Jesus and/or his sacrifice are real/relevant, or that at least the god is real, etc.

    How much Church history do you actually know?  Literalist, Sola Scriptura is a low church Protestant creation.  It was not the Church tradition for the first 1500 years of the Chruch’s tradition.

  3. 2 hours ago, karaddin said:

    Emergency Navigation Hologram, Emergency Hospitality Hologram

    There was also the combat/gunnery Hologram but I don't think we got his name. He was drunk acting one at the end

    Wow, sounds like the crew is unnecessary.

  4. 53 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

    But then Boomberg didn' t run in 2016 when all of the data showed Trump would win. The same thing would likely happen again. The guy wants to win and he wants Trump to lose. Now would be given his campaign apparatus to Sanders if he doesn't get the nomination as he promised he would? Maybe not.

    Someone pointed out that for all of the money he has spent he still hasn't spent the Trump tax cut yet. Can't say if that's true but it does point out he is not  being punished financially for this run. 

    By the way it would be stupid to vote for Trump over Bloomberg if you are a left leaning person in the same way it would be stupid to vote for Trump over Sanders.

    When in 2016, prior to the election, did “all of the data show[]” Trump would win?

  5. 4 hours ago, DaveSumm said:
    6 hours ago, red snow said:


    It’s separate holograms, there’s an EMH, an ENH, an EHH, I think another one

    EMH is the “Emergency Medical Hologram”.  What are the ENH and the EHH?

  6. 28 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

    personally do respect fundamentals more than those lukewarm fellows who think they can mix superstition and reality. Of course they are also arbitrarily picking and choosing, but at least they admit that their beliefs are fundamentally not rationally justified (especially such who actually believe in 'revelation').

    They’re also easier for you to argue with.  

  7. 27 minutes ago, john said:

    Well sure, absolutely no problem with that. But I am curious nonetheless.

    For me, the less mystical faith is the harder I find it to wrap my head around it. Going back to the non physicalist interpretation of a conscious mind, for example, does that extra element signify some spiritual connection to the metaphysical universe or is it just some added awareness currently beyond our understanding granted by the normal function of human development?

    (To answer the OP, btw, I’d say basically the same as Tywin a couple of pages ago, which is you join a digital consciousness not for yourself but for your dependents/descendants. Same reason why you make a will or help plan your funeral).

    I would argue my faith is more mystical than the fundamentalist’s faith:


  8. 13 minutes ago, john said:

    There just doesn’t seem much point if you’re not going the fundamentalist route. Evolution created the world versus God created the world through evolution is essentially the same thing. Why even bother with the God aspect?

    Because it’s my faith.  I don’t ask much less insist that you share it.  

    My point with the Origen quote is simply that it is inaccurate to claim that Christians have always believed as modern American Evangelical Fundamentals do.  Origen wrote that in the 3rd Century AD.

  9. 24 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

    The idea of this being taken literally really does sound insane if you spend a second thinking about it.

    How were Adam and Eve even supposed to have sex, if neither of the are remotely lustful? If Adam can't get it up the two couldn't have sex. How could they be fruitful and multiply? It’d the equivalent of telling a man who's paralyzed to do jumping jacks.

    Which is many Christians-especially in the Catholic Church-didn’t.

    The Big Bang theory was formulated by a priest.
    And the theory was praised by the pope at the time. 

    It’s my understanding this sort of understanding of the Bible being so literal is a problem found more in the US than other parts of the “Western world.”

    It’ll probably be even more exacerbated by virtue of conservatives putting creationism as a suitable alternative to evolution and the big bang theory, or just the only thing taught in general. 

    I also think that anti-theists like to attempt to box Christians in by claiming that the only “valid” interpretation of scripture is the fundamentalist literalist interpretation.

  10. 18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

    Not that I'm aware of. Genesis was historically not read as an allegory - or if it was then not in the sense that anyone doubted that gods or deities weren't the one who had created the plants and animals and humans. Whether you buy the garden and original sin and the other stuff is another thing. But there was no other explanation but creationism for the origin of plants and animals that I'm aware of. It became a very strong argument for god with natural theology and all that in modern times (18th century and so).

    This is from Origen in the 3rd Century AD:


    For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.[14]


    And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone), and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world.[15]

  11. 4 minutes ago, ithanos said:

    You taking that from the John Hopkins Dashboard?

    It uses more data sources than the WHO Dashboard, which is still showing ~45K confirmed cases. A couple of those data sources are from Chinese sites where "suspected cases" are recorded (~16K). The suspected cases are assessed by experienced clinicians at the coal-face. It seems a large number of these have now been taken as confirmed.  

    I've been following Dr. John Campbell's YouTube channel for my evidence based analysis of the situation. The case studies are fascinating, albeit worrying. In his latest video update, look to time stamp 18:16 for the breakdown of the latest figures.  

    Yes that is from the Johns Hopkins dashboard.

  12. 29 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

    It's been apparent for a while that people in Harry's life including McCoy, Lash, Lea and others have kept things from Harry.  I like it and I like the idea that Morgan was Harry's unknowing protector even while tormenting him. 

    Morgan is very frank that he thought that after Harry (apparently) killed Justin the safer thing to do was execute him.  That's hard core particularly if he had promised to protect Harry


  13. 7 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

    Then We the People storm the Bastille and he'll go out just like the Romanovs. 

    Before anyone gets their hackles up, I hope that doesn't happen. But if he refuses to leave and the Secret Service doesn't do its job and remove him, then there's really no other option. 

    Is it the Secret Service's job to remove someone refusing to vacate the White House?  I suppose I can see that as they provide protection for the incoming administration, what is odd, is that they provide protection for former Presidents as well.

  14. 4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

    And yet you think that some horrible outrage will be the cause of a civil war. How do you square this actual evidence with this thought? 

    Republicans now are fully onboard with any and all atrocities caused by Trump. Any who wouldn't be have long declared themselves independent. There is no line they will not cross. 

    I think that if Trump openly declares himself above the Constitution, openly (without claiming it’s a joke to “troll the libs”) that he will seek a third term (assuming for sake of discussion that he wins a second term) regardless of the 22nd Amendment, or refuses to surrender the office of the POTUS if he loses that all bets are off and we are in uncharted waters.  Waters that could lead to civil war if even a significant minority of the US military attempts to back his claim.

  15. 16 minutes ago, mcbigski said:
    1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:


    What's the problem with Trump expressing his opinion on this?  He has the legitimate power to unilaterally commute Stone's sentence to zero via pardon.  He's actually being restrained by merely commenting.  When a bunch of Democrat appointee holdovers resign in protest, and the next day the House is rumbling about investigations, it's clearly just more of the same manufactured outrage.  Why can't the Democrats "Move on

    The problem is the President isn’t a Judge and it is fundamentally inappropriate for him to comment on any criminal case (because of his influence) much less a case where he is friends with the convicted Defendant.  

    It is within his power to commute or pardon but he is neither a judge nor a prosecutor.  His interference with this case is illustrative of Trump’s view that he “owns” the Executive branch because he is President.  He does not.  He was not elected King for 4 years.  The DOJ (and the rest of the Executive branch) does not work for him.  They, and Trump, work for us and act on our behalf.  Interposing himself in a case he is personally interested in is a perfect example of the abuse of power that should be grounds for removal from office.

    And you know I would say exactly the same thing if a Democratic President were behaving in a similar fashion.  Donald Trump is unworthy of the office he holds.

  16. 17 minutes ago, maarsen said:

    Consciousness is a very hard problem to solve. Zeno's paradox was a very hard problem to solve in its day. It took Newton and Leibnitz to crack that one. A hard problem is not an unsolvable problem. Very large networks do not seem to generate consciousness but small collections of neurons do as experiments have shown that some birds can act with intent, make tools and think about the future. i would consider these signifiers of consciousness.

    As for believing in something I can't see, well we do that all the time. Quarks are assumed to exist, though none have been seen and in fact cannot in theory be seen as individual particles. Nevertheless they are accepted as having a real existence.

    For me consciousness exists as much as atoms, and quarks, and neutrinos exist.  Consciousness also seems to be an emergent quality of brains and as such something is going on in brains that is not going on in other types of matter. All of this is well within our scope of study now as we have tools that did not exist even a few years ago.

    Just an aside about Lord Kelvin and his theory of vortexes. Roger Penrose created a theory of Twistors back in the 80's. Right now it has become the hot new theory for calculating  the results of quantum interactions within atomic nuclei that would take years of computer time with older methods. Twistors, vortices. 6 of one, half a dozen of another? Penrose has a lot to say about consciousness also. He may end up as the Newton of the 21st century.

    Penrose thinks that Brains are quantum computers.  I think, I'm not certain about this, that he buys into the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics and that he thinks our brains actually sample cross talk from the various quantum possibilities that exists from moment to moment and derive our perception of reality from that quantum phenomena.  

  17. 5 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

    I swear, every time I think "this, THIS is the breaking point. Rs can't deny THIS, right?" I go on a right wing site and see how it's being spun and the fan boys cheering it and I get depressed all over again.

    Precisely.  This is what I'm railing about to my friends and family who I would call "reluctant Trump" supporters.  I'm asking them what it will actually take for this horrible human being to do before you will withdraw your "reluctant support"?  Hell, my Father who I love and respect was attempting to claim that Trump's tweet about the Stone sentencing was the same thing as a private citizen expressing their opinion.  I let him know in no uncertain terms that private citizens don't control employment and policy at the DOJ.  Private citizens aren't talking about the possibility of pardoning people who happen to be allies of Trump.  

    It just makes my blood boil to see rational people offering apologia for this horrible man.

  18. 30 minutes ago, Eric Cartman said:

    Not sure how you calculate that. Molly became Winter Lady in Cold Days. Peace Talks is set 2 years after Cold Days...and that how long she's been his boss for. 

    Exactly.  These books are no longer set in "real time".  In fact I think this is less than two years after Cold Days.  I think this is a year and a few months after Cold Days.  I seem to remember reading that Peace Talks is set six weeks after the end of Skin Game.