How can it be possible for us to be "born in sin"?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The idea being that scripture mandates the sustainment of the clergy by the peasants.  The clergy in theory provide a service ... the peasants provide commodities.

Lovely, "job security" written into the Bible by the guys who needed job security from the words in the Bible. Epic.

However, being fed and being fat are not necessarily the same thing. What I've read indicates that "far friar" was not a compliment.

[facebook164]

Communication is challenging ;-)  Yes, ideas are lead to behavior, they aren't behavior itself.  The control signal (voltage) controls the generator that provides the electric power.  The control signal is the idea, the electric power is the thing. 

No. Ideas are themselves the behavior of neural systems,

Things that are dynamic ... and many things are .... those things have behavior.  But a rock isn't dynamic, it just sits there ... it doesn't have behavior. 

Yes it has. It shatters under pressure. Etc. An intact rock is a very simple system but that system has still has behavior.

A river has behavior, it flows.  But it would be an overgeneralization to say that a human is a river

No, but plain wrong.

... a human is dynamic, but a human is alive, but a river isn't alive even though it is dynamic ... and of course a static rock has neither dynamics or life.  I would be more critical in the use of the word "behavior" ... limiting it to living things, but we don't need to go there.

Are you animist? Limiting bevior to only apply to "living things" whatever that is, is ridiculus. Behaviour is the change of a system over time, its response to inout etc.

And yes, things can't have things. 

So an atom cannot have electrons?

[aitm]

We are not born in sin, that was what the whole hubbub about jebus dying, to remove the idea of original sin and to open the floodgates to heaven….now we only need to accept him…praise be….and VOILA! Whoosh, when you die, afteryoucontributeyourfairshareofmoneyandsplayyourselfabouttheearthandinundatetheheavenswiththousandsofprayersandmaybeevenkillabastardatheistorheathenandaskforgivenessforthatandthenofcoursegetitcanyoutithejustalittlemoreandohbythewayanicedonationafteryoudiewouldensureafrontrowseatandnowyouareinheavencongradulations…….you get to see jebus and god. TA-DA!

[peacewithoutgod]

I don't believe that is how sin works. The idea of sin in the Christian world is to be used as a principal of life. It should not be used to control people but unfortunately many pastors do use it for that purpose. That's wrong.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

There is no "use" and "principle" when applied to society without "control" of the same. More circular back-chat from you, none surprising.

[Baruch]

No. Ideas are themselves the behavior of neural systems,
...
Yes it has. It shatters under pressure. Etc. An intact rock is a very simple system but that system has still has behavior.
...
No, but plain wrong.
...
Are you animist? Limiting bevior to only apply to "living things" whatever that is, is ridiculus. Behaviour is the change of a system over time, its response to inout etc.
...
So an atom cannot have electrons?
...

The idea that you have a neural system ... is an idea, not a neural system ... whatever may be in your body.  People usually mistake what they think, for reality.  Your body is real, but any ideas you have ... are questionable.  But I agree, without a neural system, you can't have ideas (in a conventional sense anyway) ... though there are living beings that have no neural system.  Ideas are a part of the behavior (a better word than dynamic) of your body, which we ascribe to the neural system in those beings that have one ... because we don't view the body as a whole, but as made up of parts, like an automobile.  The idea, that you can model a whole, by referring to its parts ... only works in some circumstances, it doesn't work all the time.  With living things for example, it doesn't work (though the modern myth of epi-phenomenalism tries to escape this error) ... a living body reduced to its isolated parts is a cadaver.  But for a rock it does, it can be modeled by its parts (minerals).  And a car is not a naturally occurring thing, it only exists because living beings created it ... it didn't spontaneously self-assemble either physically or economically.  The behavior/dynamics of a rock is minimal ... because it is a solid.  You and I are not solids, we are mostly bags of ionized mineralized organic soup.  But if you artificially assemble such a bag, you probably won't be having conversations with it.

As far as rocks go, they roll or shatter or weather under outside forces.  If we include outside forces, the only thing real is the whole universe.  But then that would support my point regarding holism.  A rock has no motivation, unlike say a bacterium, which acts on its own, in the context of an environment, but independently of it.  A bacterium is alive, but a rock is not ... and a bacterium has no neural system.  Whatever ideas it may have, it would be alien to us ... but well known to say your own white blood cells.  As as a multicellular organism ... we aren't strictly individual, but a symbiotic community of a trillion individuals.  Our ideas as a person, are the result of the behavior of that whole community ... though neural tissue has specialist roles to play.

So a river is alive? ... and I don't mean as an ecology, but as its own thing?  There are things in the river that are alive, that exist in a complex interdependence we call an ecology.  A river is dynamic ... because of gravity and capillary activity of the portion of the river that flows more slowly thru the water table ... it doesn't just sit there.  But it has no will.  It didn't choose to go downhill because it was too tired to go uphill.  So no, I am not an animist or vitalist.  Some things are alive, and other things are not ... but the living things I call persons ... even a bacterium ... otherwise I am muddying my synonyms.  By making alive and not-alive the same, or by making a person to be a thing, or by mixing behavior with dynamics ... is poor language skill.

An ionized nucleus does not have all its electrons, or perhaps even any electrons if it is totally ionized.  But I think examples at the atomic level ... doesn't help our discussion.  At the atomic level there is no life and no ideas ... and if reductionism was correct, there would be no life and no ideas at our macro level.

[peacewithoutgod]

But I agree, without a neural system, you can't have ideas (in a conventional sense anyway) ... though there are living beings that have no neural system.

Living beings? By that do you mean organisms which think? Plants don't have centralized neural networks, but they do respond to stimuli, and they communicate chemically with each other to some degree, and I would still say it's ridiculous to call them "beings" by those facts alone. Then again, the word "being" is itself a ridiculously religious construct.

As far as rocks go, they roll or shatter or weather under outside forces.  If we include outside forces, the only thing real is the whole universe.  But then that would support my point regarding holism.  A rock has no motivation, unlike say a bacterium, which acts on its own, in the context of an environment, but independently of it.  A bacterium is alive, but a rock is not ... and a bacterium has no neural system.  Whatever ideas it may have, it would be alien to us ... but well known to say your own white blood cells.  As as a multicellular organism ... we aren't strictly individual, but a symbiotic community of a trillion individuals.  Our ideas as a person, are the result of the behavior of that whole community ... though neural tissue has specialist roles to play.

You think bacterium have "motivation" and "ideas"? Please! They have chemical propulsion, and it drives them to duplicate themselves. They don't need ideas or motivating thoughts to keep them going, LOL!

So a river is alive? ... and I don't mean as an ecology, but as its own thing?  There are things in the river that are alive, that exist in a complex interdependence we call an ecology.  A river is dynamic ... because of gravity and capillary activity of the portion of the river that flows more slowly thru the water table ... it doesn't just sit there.  But it has no will.  It didn't choose to go downhill because it was too tired to go uphill.  So no, I am not an animist or vitalist.  Some things are alive, and other things are not ... but the living things I call persons ... even a bacterium ... otherwise I am muddying my synonyms.  By making alive and not-alive the same, or by making a person to be a thing, or by mixing behavior with dynamics ... is poor language skill.

If having a conscious will to live was necessary for a system to have life, then life certainly never would have arisen at all. Does your computer not have life? What happens to it when it suddenly stops working?

Rivers have life as long as their watery blood is in continuous supply, causing it to act on its environment while being continuously rejuvenated from outside sources. There is a strong theory that life could have arisen from silicaceous molecules as they formed clay deposits in river beds, which would have the effect of replicating early RNA bases, which may have led to the forming of early nucleotides.

An ionized nucleus does not have all its electrons, or perhaps even any electrons if it is totally ionized.  But I think examples at the atomic level ... doesn't help our discussion.  At the atomic level there is no life and no ideas ... and if reductionism was correct, there would be no life and no ideas at our macro level.

Ideas are unimportant, or are not required for the existence nor causation of any life form. Simple, unthinking chains of molecules which had the chemical power to self-replicate were alive just for that, and they led to more complex life forms.

[g2perk]

There is no "use" and "principle" when applied to society without "control" of the same. More circular back-chat from you, none surprising.

What do you mean no use. With out knowing right from wrong how would any one know what they should or should not do. Sin ( adultery, murder, etc.)tells society if you do these types of acts you will face the consequences of Your actions.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[facebook164]

The idea that you have a neural system ... is an idea, not a neural system ... whatever may be in your body.  People usually mistake what they think, for reality.  Your body is real, but any ideas you have ... are questionable. 
But I agree, without a neural system, you can't have ideas (in a conventional sense anyway) ... though there are living beings that have no neural system.  Ideas are a part of the behavior (a better word than dynamic) of your body, which we ascribe to the neural system in those beings that have one ... because we don't view the body as a whole, but as made up of parts, like an automobile.  The idea, that you can model a whole, by referring to its parts ... only works in some circumstances, it doesn't work all the time.  With living things for example, it doesn't work (though the modern myth of epi-phenomenalism tries to escape this error) ... a living body reduced to its isolated parts is a cadaver.  But for a rock it does, it can be modeled by its parts (minerals).  And a car is not a naturally occurring thing, it only exists because living beings created it ... it didn't spontaneously self-assemble either physically or economically.  The behavior/dynamics of a rock is minimal ... because it is a solid.  You and I are not solids, we are mostly bags of ionized mineralized organic soup.  But if you artificially assemble such a bag, you probably won't be having conversations with it.

As far as rocks go, they roll or shatter or weather under outside forces.  If we include outside forces, the only thing real is the whole universe.  But then that would support my point regarding holism.  A rock has no motivation, unlike say a bacterium, which acts on its own, in the context of an environment, but independently of it.  A bacterium is alive, but a rock is not ... and a bacterium has no neural system.  Whatever ideas it may have, it would be alien to us ... but well known to say your own white blood cells.  As as a multicellular organism ... we aren't strictly individual, but a symbiotic community of a trillion individuals.  Our ideas as a person, are the result of the behavior of that whole community ... though neural tissue has specialist roles to play.

So a river is alive? ... and I don't mean as an ecology, but as its own thing?  There are things in the river that are alive, that exist in a complex interdependence we call an ecology.  A river is dynamic ... because of gravity and capillary activity of the portion of the river that flows more slowly thru the water table ... it doesn't just sit there.  But it has no will.  It didn't choose to go downhill because it was too tired to go uphill.  So no, I am not an animist or vitalist.  Some things are alive, and other things are not ... but the living things I call persons ... even a bacterium ... otherwise I am muddying my synonyms.  By making alive and not-alive the same, or by making a person to be a thing, or by mixing behavior with dynamics ... is poor language skill.

An ionized nucleus does not have all its electrons, or perhaps even any electrons if it is totally ionized.  But I think examples at the atomic level ... doesn't help our discussion.  At the atomic level there is no life and no ideas ... and if reductionism was correct, there would be no life and no ideas at our macro level.

Thoughts are real, ideas are real. Maybe not in the sense you would think but never the less they maps to behavior of real matter.
When you think, the brain are doing the gymnastics and your neurons the ticking.

And about rocks snd living: there is nothing special about living things than that they are extremely complex.

[peacewithoutgod]

You can look at the world standing on your feet, or standing on your head.  Ideas are things.  People have ideas ... ideas don't have people.

Then in that case everything which you believe is what you made up by yourself. No? Your ideas do have you then!

[peacewithoutgod]

What do you mean no use. With out knowing right from wrong how would any one know what they should or should not do. Sin ( adultery, murder, etc.)tells society if you do these types of acts you will face the consequences of Your actions.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Your current fallacy is that people need to be told what right and wrong is, and that's utter bullshit. Children learn it all from experience, and being told does nothing to help them learn faster. What they learn isn't what pleases your god, but what best ensures their chances for survival, happiness, and prosperity with other humans. By the time they are old enough to read your ten commandments, they already know enough not to hit their little siblings, because they don't want to really hurt them, and they also understand that their parents won't tolerate disrespect. As for other commandments, it's you Xtains who want to hide all ideas of sex from them, but there you go making them memorize commandments which they are much too young to understand concerning adultery! Oh, and don't go worshiping other gods because your god is a jealous daddy, therefore kids learn that mean, jealous fuckers are good.

[g2perk]

Yes people do need to be told other wise how would they know. You are talking about children learning from experience. Okay Will you let your child touch a hot stove to learn or will you teach them. You are always talking about My GOD. What about common sense. Where is that. This is the problem with some adults today they expect society to teach there children what the world fails at themselves. What needs to happen is parents teach your own children at home so they know how to act in public. And I don't hide sex from them I teach them to wait for there spouses because it the right thing to do. I am not sure where you learned what was wrong or right but I hope you had guidance along they way. By the way the 10 commandments are not meant for any one person to fulfill. Its purpose is Guidance. This can be proved and has been proven by parents across this world so if you still don't agree that simply because you hate being wrong.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

Then in that case everything which you believe is what you made up by yourself. No? Your ideas do have you then!

Yes, ideas are all made up, we aren't intuiting Platonic forms.  But some things made up, have more verisimilitude than others.  An idea of an regular elephant is more realistic (not real) than an idea of a pink elephant.  I don't just believe my right hand is connected to me ... I have something more substantial to back it up.  What is delusion, is believing that my ideas or your ideas are reality.  My right hand is real, my ideas of my right hand ... are ideas, that may or may not be true.

[Baruch]

Thoughts are real, ideas are real. Maybe not in the sense you would think but never the less they maps to behavior of real matter.
When you think, the brain are doing the gymnastics and your neurons the ticking.

And about rocks snd living: there is nothing special about living things than that they are extremely complex.

Thanks Monsieur Descartes.  I think, therefore I am.  Really?  I slap you across the face, therefore both of us are real.  Get Empiricism not just milk.

A pile of rocks is extremely complex, more so than a single rock.  Yet it is not alive.

[peacewithoutgod]

Yes people do need to be told other wise how would they know. You are talking about children learning from experience. Okay Will you let your child touch a hot stove to learn or will you teach them. You are always talking about My GOD. What about common sense. Where is that. This is the problem with some adults today they expect society to teach there children what the world fails at themselves. What needs to happen is parents teach your own children at home so they know how to act in public. And I don't hide sex from them I teach them to wait for there spouses because it the right thing to do. I am not sure where you learned what was wrong or right but I hope you had guidance along they way. By the way the 10 commandments are not meant for any one person to fulfill. Its purpose is Guidance. This can be proved and has been proven by parents across this world so if you still don't agree that simply because you hate being wrong.

Which commandment says "thou shalt not touch a hot stove"? This falls directly under "obey your parents" (when you are a child), which smart children will do because they have learned from experience that their parents are wise, and they have their best interests in mind. Your 10 commandments remain vile at worst, or redundant at best.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
[/quote]

[peacewithoutgod]

Yes, ideas are all made up, we aren't intuiting Platonic forms.  But some things made up, have more verisimilitude than others.  An idea of an regular elephant is more realistic (not real) than an idea of a pink elephant.  I don't just believe my right hand is connected to me ... I have something more substantial to back it up.  What is delusion, is believing that my ideas or your ideas are reality.  My right hand is real, my ideas of my right hand ... are ideas, that may or may not be true.

The question wasn't whether ideas are made up, it's whether you made up your own ideas. You said that people have ideas, not the other way around, which implies that you make up all of your own ideas without them ever taking hold of your mind as vectors from other minds which hosted them. Is that true or false, Baruch?