Notices
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 401 to 497 of 497

Thread: 7 Fatal Flaws of Evolution

  1. #401  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    He called me a theist, quite funny.
    You think just like one, my mistake.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  2. #402  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Does that mean he likes knowing the answer to a question? Or that he doesn't agree with you?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  3. #403  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Does that mean he likes knowing the answer to a question? Or that he doesn't agree with you?
    Neither.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  4. #404  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Just ignore him John, he makes rather rash and uninformed claims... He called me a theist, quite funny.
    I have largely ignored him for a considerable time. Perhaps for too long. He is marginally smarter than archie, but his disregard for logic, for science and for common courtesy are just as entrenched. He is, as you half imply, a rash and uninformed person.
     

  5. #405  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    I have largely ignored him for a considerable time. Perhaps for too long. He is marginally smarter than archie, but his disregard for logic, for science and for common courtesy are just as entrenched. He is, as you half imply, a rash and uninformed person.
    And yet, John, with his vastly superior intellect, will start a thread on you and follow you around baiting. He is, after all, vastly superior, and you wouldn't want him to believe otherwise.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  6. #406  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    You are confusing baiting with asking for justification of your implicit claims that you have a reasonable degree of scientific understanding. Your knowlegde in this sphere is directly relevant to the claims that you make and therefore is a legitimate subject of enquiry. The rest of us are required to provide substantiating evidence for any claims we make. This is no different.

    If you are telling the truth all you have to do is to point to the post, or posts where you display significant scientific understanding. Your continued refusal to do so has all the appearance of an inability to do so.

    I do not know if this is indeed the case. As noted before I checked a few dozen of your posts and found zero scientific content. Frankly I would not be surprised if you had posted something of scientific value so I gave you the opportunity to disabuse me of my mistaken notion. All you have to do is provide the evidence that is requested, just as I have provided evidence for every claim that I have made. But instead you respond with arm waving and false claims of baiting.

    Not very impressive (Q).
     

  7. #407  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    He called me a theist, quite funny.
    I guess you just don't meet his standards.

    It seems to be symptomatic of the fundamenalists of a group that they have a higher set of standards to be counted as being in the group - namely that you have to agree with their point of view without too much critical thinking - otherwise according to them you are "cherry picking" and a hypocrite.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  8. #408  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    He called me a theist, quite funny.
    You think just like one, my mistake.
    Explain my thought process to me please.

    Is the fact that I'm not a "Black or White" thinker a requisite to me thinking "like a theist"? Because, I thought that by your own definitions, that you put YOU squarely in that mode. Or, is it the fact that I actually HAVE respect for religion?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  9. #409  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    you have to agree with their point of view without too much critical thinking - otherwise according to them you are "cherry picking" and a hypocrite.
    Critical thinking lead me to ask how it is theists can change their doctrines willy-nilly to suit their agendas.

    No plausible explanations were offered. I had no choice but to conclude "cherry picking."


    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt

    If you are telling the truth all you have to do is to point to the post, or posts where you display significant scientific understanding. Your continued refusal to do so has all the appearance of an inability to do so.
    Or, more precisely, I don't pander to the ego's of superiority complexes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Explain my thought process to me please.

    Is the fact that I'm not a "Black or White" thinker a requisite to me thinking "like a theist"? Because, I thought that by your own definitions, that you put YOU squarely in that mode. Or, is it the fact that I actually HAVE respect for religion?
    It was my mistake to assume you're a theist as you attempted to defend the "cherry picking" of theists doctrines. Again, I was mistaken.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  10. #410  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I'm not defending this odd concept you've put forth of "cherry picking" beliefs. I'm defending the right and ability for a religious person to be rational, and challenge their beliefs, something that, for some reason, you seem to think shouldn't be allowed. As if a religious person has lost the ability to think critically and rationalize the things s/he believes in. THAT is the point I'm defending. I'm a rather stalwart atheist, and the ONLY thing that can conceivably change my mind is if God came to earth as a ball of light, reached out with his arm (presumably made of light) and slapped me while calling me a thickheaded idiot. I do believe, as you believe, that religion is ill-founded and wrong, but unlike you, I respect it for what it is, instead of shredding it and baselessly insulting people who have it and the concept itself.

    Religion is not inherently evil, it never has been, it never will be. The problem you seem to have stems more from people who adhere to religion, who may have a tendency to commit atrocities, but never can you blame belief for anything like what they do, unless it is set in their beliefs to do exactly what they did without mercy. In the case of Christianity, it is not implicitly in their belief structure to murder non-Christians, though it is often taken to be, it isn't. No where in scripture does it state, 'Kill those who don't believe Christ to be their lord', even Archaeologist confirmed that that wasn't implicitly in there, when I pointed it out to him.

    But even the passage I had in mind, meant little, because it wasn't the word of God; it was the word of Jesus, a mortal man, not a god.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  11. #411  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    He called me a theist, quite funny.
    I guess you just don't meet his standards.

    It seems to be symptomatic of the fundamenalists of a group that they have a higher set of standards to be counted as being in the group - namely that you have to agree with their point of view without too much critical thinking - otherwise according to them you are "cherry picking" and a hypocrite.
    Another thing that seems to be symtomatic of these fundamentalists is an "us and them" mentality. This greatly helps to understand their intolerance not only for deviations in their own group by which they will start declaring that those who don't agree with them on things cannot be a member of their group, but also explains why they become fustrated with the diversity of thought among those who disagree with their point of view. They prefer to think of those who disagree with them as all being the same, attributing the "sins" or failings of any of those that they meet to all of them. Thus instead of seeing this very real diversity for what it is they will see it as a dodging and shifting of belief that is deliberately trying to confuse them.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  12. #412  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I'm not defending this odd concept you've put forth of "cherry picking" beliefs. I'm defending the right and ability for a religious person to be rational, and challenge their beliefs, something that, for some reason, you seem to think shouldn't be allowed.
    Wtf? I do challenge theists beliefs, where do you get the idea I claimed they shouldn't be allowed to be challenged?

    As if a religious person has lost the ability to think critically and rationalize the things s/he believes in. THAT is the point I'm defending.
    You're free to defend an untenable position.

    I do believe, as you believe, that religion is ill-founded and wrong, but unlike you, I respect it for what it is, instead of shredding it and baselessly insulting people who have it and the concept itself.
    You are free to respect an ideology that has cost mankind centuries of living in ignorance, war, cruelty, slavery, etc. etc. but I'm inclined to think it's time to eradicate cults and free ourselves of this plague of man.

    Religion is not inherently evil, it never has been, it never will be.
    I would submit that the Abrahamic gods are the worst murderous despots ever to be written about, one or three of them, whichever cult you follow.

    No where in scripture does it state, 'Kill those who don't believe Christ to be their lord'
    "Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

    They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

    If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

    Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

    If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)"

    There are plenty more...
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  13. #413  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    They prefer to think of those who disagree with them as all being the same, attributing the "sins" or failings of any of those that they meet to all of them. Thus instead of seeing this very real diversity for what it is they will see it as a dodging and shifting of belief that is deliberately trying to confuse them.
    When Christians, the thousands of sects espoused to each be the one true religion, actually agree with one another, then perhaps they will have their opportunity to speak. Until then, they will continue to contradict their beliefs as much as they contradict each other.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  14. #414  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    No where in scripture does it state, 'Kill those who don't believe Christ to be their lord'
    "Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

    They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

    If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

    Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

    If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)"

    There are plenty more...
    Please reread my assessment of scripture, as not one bit of that referred to Christ.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  15. #415  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    you have to agree with their point of view without too much critical thinking - otherwise according to them you are "cherry picking" and a hypocrite.
    Critical thinking lead me to ask how it is theists can change their doctrines willy-nilly to suit their agendas.

    No plausible explanations were offered. I had no choice but to conclude "cherry picking."
    I'd hardly call it willy-nilly, generally changes in thought occur because evidence to counter certain beliefs arises. Did God change his mind? No, but maybe you just recently figured out that what you thought God thought, was not actually what he was thinking. It gets annoying when most of the evidence is on one side (say science) and the rest on the other (the Bible), but if they were both is science I'd doubt you'd have a problem, theories often compete for supremacy.
     

  16. #416  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

    Please reread my assessment of scripture, as not one bit of that referred to Christ.
    Ok, what exactly did Christ write in scriptures?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  17. #417  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

    Please reread my assessment of scripture, as not one bit of that referred to Christ.
    Ok, what exactly did Christ write in scriptures?
    It's not a matter of what Christ wrote in scripture, as what was written about him. And, I'd wager there was a lot, seeing as how the new testament was based on Jesus.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  18. #418  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian

    I'd hardly call it willy-nilly, generally changes in thought occur because evidence to counter certain beliefs arises. Did God change his mind? No, but maybe you just recently figured out that what you thought God thought, was not actually what he was thinking.
    While I would agree there are some nuances to interpretation in scriptures, there is also downright contradiction and hypocrisy, on a massive scale.

    For example, much ado has been generated over whether a "day" in scriptures actually is 24 hour cycle or half a billion years. Certainly, it was believed for centuries to be a day, until it was discovered that the earth is 4.5 billions year old. It was only then theists were forced to change their beliefs. Some didn't, of course, but the vast majority did.

    What I'm referring to is the "cherry picking" exhibited by theists who simply do not believe the scriptures their cult has provided them. Do theists actually believe snakes can talk or that one should murder their child for cursing? Not likely, but you'll find theists will quote other parts of scriptures when it suits their agenda.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  19. #419  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    It's not a matter of what Christ wrote in scripture, as what was written about him. And, I'd wager there was a lot, seeing as how the new testament was based on Jesus.
    Yes, there was a lot written about Jesus in scriptures, many years after his death and by those who had never even met him. That doesn't say anything about Jesus but more about those who wrote about him.

    And, they were all obligated by the Old Testament.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  20. #420  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    It's not a matter of what Christ wrote in scripture, as what was written about him. And, I'd wager there was a lot, seeing as how the new testament was based on Jesus.
    The New Testament was compiled by scribes who obviously had their own agenda, which I would strongly suspect was certainly NOT primarily for the sake of posterity, and particularly for our scientific benefit in 2009.

    That is not to say they didn't try to keep to some level of authenticity according some pre-existing documentation, yet I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that changes, additions and omissions were necessarily introduced at various times to suit the predominant requirement - of providing the emerging religion of catholic intention with an expression of support. After all, they were being supplied by a highly corrupt and fearsome organisation, full of the objective of maintaining and furthering their world domination, so why would they not have been required in some measure; to make their results harmonise with the pontifical system which signed their cheques?

    After all, they opted to incorrectly translate the very name of the person they were writing about, so on that score alone; their audacity recognised no limitations.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
     

  21. #421  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Apopo said:

    Interestingly the ‘first love’ emotionality for the treasured acquisition, most likely presented, at some level a promise eternal, yet as we all eventually discover; concepts of forever will most often result in (feelings of) the sting of short-change, when a little extra reason needs to step into the scenario, for the item to then become released in favour of another in the renewing of the evolutionary cycle.
    Let us consider for a moment that the promised acquisition was absolutely known to be eternal. Would the selection of such a treasure be triggered by emotion or reason? Would a reasonable person turn down a known eternal treasure? It would seem that the only influence emotion would have on such a choice would be to reject it, since that would be unreasonably foolish.

    Unfortunately, when one removes the cloak Apopo attempts to place as a concealing shroud, the treasure he is talking about is eternal life. He seems to indicate he has discovered that such a treasure ends up causing the recipient to feel "short changed." The problem here is that you cannot know if there is such a thing as a spiritual eternal life. You can only be assured that your mortal life is not eternal. I do not see where emotion even enters the pictured unless the treasure has been retrieved or found to be falsely promised.

    And since that comes only after mortal life has ended and no one returns from mortal death, there is no way to prove ahead of time whether the promised treasure will be delivered no matter whether one has accepted the hope of the promise via reasoning or via emotions.

    My point is that no matter the reason for one's selection, reason or emotion, the either-or end result is the same. So what was Apopo's point?
    My current point my friend, is that you should attempt to properly comprehend that to which you design to respond, for you sadly lacked a deal of such in the above. Even so, I will thank you for response, and my chance to now clarify.

    I was NOT, at the time of posting, considering ‘eternal life’ as you put it, much less ‘talking about it’. I was in fact referring to the underlying hint of suggestion whenever anyone chooses to invest their attention or money into something; an unspoken (and largely unrecognised) expectation approaching an eternity of pleasure at the procurement of that particular possession - pleasure being SPIRITUAL!

    On the other hand, you would be correct that all physical possessions will eventually and necessarily arrive at the same concluding result – of having zero eternal quality about them – when their value on the open market will plummet mercilessly, unless someone else has some (emotive and SPIRITUAL) love develop for that physical item - prior to the landfill taking possession.

    As for your particular focus above; I would suggest that you might consider being cautious that this 'eternal life' which you seem to be chasing, doesn't turn out to be little more than a puff of wind, which might appear to be an entirely 'SPIRITUAL' entity, for we cannot physically see it; however we have by 2009, worked out it is actually 'PHYSICAL' (air particles), with (I would suggest) a motivational entity, being an entirely SPIRITUAL force behind.

    Therefore, provided you have some kind of container, you can surely capture the PHYSICAL particles of the wind as they move in your direction, then hold on to them for all your worth, yet the SPIRITUAL force will be entirely lost to you - for eternity!
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
     

  22. #422  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    It's not a matter of what Christ wrote in scripture, as what was written about him. And, I'd wager there was a lot, seeing as how the new testament was based on Jesus.
    Yes, there was a lot written about Jesus in scriptures, many years after his death and by those who had never even met him. That doesn't say anything about Jesus but more about those who wrote about him.

    And, they were all obligated by the Old Testament.
    So, in your opinion, scripture of the new testament isn't a history of events but an interpretation on folklore. I agree with you, and since it is such, it is, like ALL other folklore, open to embellishment, and therefore, interpretation as to what the original meaning is.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  23. #423  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    It's not a matter of what Christ wrote in scripture, as what was written about him. And, I'd wager there was a lot, seeing as how the new testament was based on Jesus.
    Yes, there was a lot written about Jesus in scriptures, many years after his death and by those who had never even met him. That doesn't say anything about Jesus but more about those who wrote about him.

    And, they were all obligated by the Old Testament.
    So, in your opinion, scripture of the new testament isn't a history of events but an interpretation on folklore. I agree with you, and since it is such, it is, like ALL other folklore, open to embellishment, and therefore, interpretation as to what the original meaning is.
    I would suggest we don't stop here, for likewise there is much folklore in the O.T., clearly recognised by Jeremiah [8:8], as emanating from the 'lying pens of the scribes'.

    It was at that time a practice of the warlord hierarchy of the place to convince the population that they belonged to a 'god' of greater miraculous power than the counterpart of their enemies, who were likewise busy at convincing their own peoples of an even greater authority behind which to fight. The highly religious population of the time, once being convinced their 'god' was stronger than that of their mortal foe, would be more willing to place their necks on the chopping block of war.

    The entire thing was based upon delusion, as conjured up in the minds of the king with his favoured support team - the religious priesthood. Eventually everyone got on board, including the Greeks and later - the Romans, who finally developed the most successful religious/war machine system under which we yet remain burdened today.

    Having noted the above however, it must be emphasised that the original writings (prior to the introduced corruptions), were authentic in their design; being to explain to the world at large, that there is a hidden (non physical) something of far greater consequence and authority, than we can ever witness via the natural attention we give to the surrounding ‘PHYSICAL’ environment, of which we are all aware. This non physical, 'hidden' authority is not surprisingly referred to scripturally, as 'SPIRITUAL'. It really is as simple as that - once we remove the well worn religious veil on such hoplessly mysterious terminology.

    We clearly recognize this GREATER authority today via the work of science, however due to the intervening millenniums of religious misappropriation, even scientists; although they are looking them squarely in the face; generally fall short of noticing the very essence of these abundant empiric realities, and why wouldn't they? After all, much of the pioneering work was achieved by religiously bound scientists, even if the respective handcuffs of indoctrination have been somewhat relaxed of late.

    Religionists on the other hand, as always true to form; will be ever more determined to disguise and denounce the emerging realities by whatever means they can muster. Yet the realities, which have been for much too long hidden behind the suppressive veil of religious mystification – will become, and are becoming made evident....

    Luke 8:17; "For nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light."
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
     

  24. #424  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    "The entire thing was based upon delusion, as conjured up in the minds of the king with his favoured support team - the religious priesthood. Eventually everyone got on board, including the Greeks and later - the Romans, who finally developed the most successful religious/war machine system under which we yet remain burdened today. "

    Could you please explain this in detail Apopohis? Are you saying that Greek and Roman civilization was composed of religious martial orders that allowed them to conquer and settle such large swathes of the mediterranean, Europe, and the middle east? Do you mean that both civilizations worshiped gods like Ares and Athena who had many martial qualities?
     

  25. #425  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by KomradRed
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    The entire thing was based upon delusion, as conjured up in the minds of the king with his favoured support team - the religious priesthood. Eventually everyone got on board, including the Greeks and later - the Romans, who finally developed the most successful religious/war machine system under which we yet remain burdened today. "
    Could you please explain this in detail Apopohis? Are you saying that Greek and Roman civilization was composed of religious martial orders that allowed them to conquer and settle such large swathes of the Mediterranean, Europe, and the middle east? Do you mean that both civilizations worshiped gods like Ares and Athena who had many martial qualities?
    The details of which you enquire, really are a study in a developed many faceted system of well hidden specifics, yet it is a reasonable exercise in recognising the obvious consistent thread that ran throughout the ancient world - for precisely the identical thread; is even today evident.

    The deduction of the obvious is truly not that hard to recognise, once we select the path of removing the centuries of religious mishandling over profoundly obvious displays.

    Any worldly power designing to have a victory over any enemy, will necessarily require it’s martial leadership to instill into the fighting force, a belief in itself as being ‘on the right side’; thereby giving it a moral superiority - even if it has to deal with logistical deficiencies. The more deficient the fighting force, the more ‘belief’ in itself required, otherwise the entire show will become bogged down in depression due to the overwhelming odds against it.

    No-one can successfully make war if their hope lies in a depressed army.

    Even today, we witness the deployment of the fighting machinery of each side; once being convinced, through their requisite training, of their physical superiority; finally receiving the required ‘blessings’ via some variety of (supposedly) spiritual element – to send them on their way to (an assured) victory. This really is a remnant of the ‘my god is bigger than your god’ theology of the ancients, and has a clear resonance with a couple of neighborhood 6 year olds comparing the size of their fighting sticks before engaging in battle.

    The ancient Egyptians, then (later) Greeks and Romans simply perfected their religious/war machinery system to a higher degree than their enemies, which gave them the superiority in most battles – until their resulting affluence became the albatross around their necks, which then promoted decadence and decline through an enveloping laziness.

    Rome however, once this decline became evident turned the tide with a great deal of success, for it managed to scoop up the emerging (spiritual focused) opposition coming from out of Palestine, and gradually transform itself from a military/religio structure, where the primary focus was on the martial law of the land – with an underpinning of the prevailing (pagan) religious support; into an (apparently) reverse religio/military configuration – where this explanation really becomes a lesson in complexity.

    In short, the fundamentally militaristic nature of Roman society continued, with an increasingly successful veneer being placed over it’s leadership – to the purpose of promoting it as the benign ‘religious’ paternalistic system that many see it as today. However; beware of the commonly held error of complacency in this regard; for the lessons of the Spanish Inquisition, Incas, Aztecs, World War II etc, are ‘historical’ in general conceptualisation only.

    Surely, the profoundly militaristic and avaricious nature that underlies this beast continues without compromise.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
     

  26. #426  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    I believe you are simplifying and misinterpreting Rome's religion and its influence and the rise of the Republic and Empire. From the very beginning of its history Rome was an eclectic culture that catered to all pantheons as similarities could be found between Zeus, Jupiter, Ra, and the various other gods that inhabited the Mediterranean. Roman conquest itself isnt even the right to describe Rome's relationship with its subjugated neighbors. Even during the Principate Rome's Empire was really more of a confederacy of city states that governed themselves and submitted to Roman rule and authority, providing soldiers during war and relying on Rome's protection from enemies. The Roman's seemingly inexhaustible resolve to expand their influence outwards can be seen in the sack of Rome by the gauls in in 387 B.C. Although the Roman citadel was secured and the enemy prevented from completely sacking Rome, the defeat embedded itself in such a way in the Roman conquest that it created a mindset that Rome itself shall never be threatened in such a way again.

    Apopohis, your language is confusing and bulky. Large words a good argument does not make. Try simplifying what you right so it is easier to understand what you are saying.
     

  27. #427  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    So, in your opinion, scripture of the new testament isn't a history of events but an interpretation on folklore. I agree with you, and since it is such, it is, like ALL other folklore, open to embellishment, and therefore, interpretation as to what the original meaning is.
    That may be what you and I would opine, however scriptures are adamantly stated to be the word of god by the followers of the cult, therefore impossible to embellish or interpret from the original meaning as one would have to be god in order to do so.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  28. #428  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by KomradRed
    I believe you are simplifying and misinterpreting Rome's religion and its influence and the rise of the Republic and Empire.

    Apopohis, your language is confusing and bulky. Large words a good argument does not make. Try simplifying what you right so it is easier to understand what you are saying.
    How is this for simplified; any religion advocating or supporting any level of aggressive stance at any time in regard any principle whatsoever, is displaying at its most rudimentary level, that it falls hopelessly short of being in any way worthy of regard as a 'spiritual' focused leader - for anyone.

    It would seem obvious that any variety of warlike demeanor is according physical matters such as gain of wealth or land, or these days -oil. Therefore by all common sense, that particular religion should at the most elemental level, forfeit any estimation of respect as to being about ‘spiritual’ matters. Furthermore anyone who might feel the need to support it as being about spiritual issues, should be asking serious questions of themselves.

    After all, if I were to proclaim myself as (for instance, say) ‘God’; then demand the worship of everyone in the world, it would subsequently be less my disorder than theirs, if anyone complied.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
     

  29. #429  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    How is this for simplified; any religion advocating or supporting any level of aggressive stance at any time in regard any principle whatsoever, is displaying at its most rudimentary level, that it falls hopelessly short of being in any way worthy of regard as a 'spiritual' focused leader - for anyone.
    So if you come around a street corner and see a child being brutally raped, what non-aggressive stance would you recommend as spiritually apt?
     

  30. #430  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    So, in your opinion, scripture of the new testament isn't a history of events but an interpretation on folklore. I agree with you, and since it is such, it is, like ALL other folklore, open to embellishment, and therefore, interpretation as to what the original meaning is.
    That may be what you and I would opine, however scriptures are adamantly stated to be the word of god by the followers of the cult, therefore impossible to embellish or interpret from the original meaning as one would have to be god in order to do so.
    While we both find it to be a crock of bull, scripture is not, in any way shape or form, the word of God. It is the Word, as written by man, of God, and a religious person who admits this shouldn't be taken in as the same as one who blindly states it to be the absolute word of God. I think once they admit this, they are exempt from the "strict adherence" clause you hold to.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  31. #431  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    How is this for simplified; any religion advocating or supporting any level of aggressive stance at any time in regard any principle whatsoever, is displaying at its most rudimentary level, that it falls hopelessly short of being in any way worthy of regard as a 'spiritual' focused leader - for anyone.
    So if you come around a street corner and see a child being brutally raped, what non-aggressive stance would you recommend as spiritually apt?
    What you describe is an act of violence by one against an innocent other, as founded in emotion - an action which would be very easy to become emotional over. So, we might in turn become heated and violent; which may succeed in terminating the immediate problem, but highly unlikely to have achieved much in the greater experience of mankind.

    Of course, were we to permit our emotions the unrestricted rampage they might be demanding upon such hypothetical circumstances, the perpetrator would likely meet with a few well directed boulders to the cranium, and the entire law of ‘god’ (and most likely yourself) would be happily satiated. Even so, the spiritual component of all survivors concerned would likely require years of serious healing, which would fall well short of being the optimum solution for anyone.

    It is not always a simple thing to divorce our emotions from an emotional scenario such as you describe above, yet by the time we have become adults, it really should have dawned upon us as a most fundamental realisation, that a heated emotional reaction to an emotional stimulus rarely achieves satisfactory results, over and above satisfying the immediate emotional stressors - violence begets violence!

    Fundamentally, our emotions are inextricably entwined into, and emanate from within our flesh, which makes them all about the physical environment we inhabit, yet religion is purported to deal with the other side of life - the spiritual; to do with intellect and reason.

    So it would be a far more satisfactory result at such times, were we to divorce our (physical) emotions from the situation in order to arrive at results based upon a cooler (spiritual) reasoning rather than a heated reactive splurge. Even so, the truly alarming thing to notice in all this, is that religion has taught us zero in such regard, but rather constantly works to focus our attention back to the same fervent emotional lines that continually deliver ever deepening problems, rather than a more reasoned intellectual appreciation of our experience.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
     

  32. #432  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    How is this for simplified; any religion advocating or supporting any level of aggressive stance at any time in regard any principle whatsoever, is displaying at its most rudimentary level, that it falls hopelessly short of being in any way worthy of regard as a 'spiritual' focused leader - for anyone.
    So if you come around a street corner and see a child being brutally raped, what non-aggressive stance would you recommend as spiritually apt?
    What you describe is an act of violence by one against an innocent other, as founded in emotion - an action which would be very easy to become emotional over. So, we might in turn become heated and violent; which may succeed in terminating the immediate problem, but highly unlikely to have achieved much in the greater experience of mankind.

    Of course, were we to permit our emotions the unrestricted rampage they might be demanding upon such hypothetical circumstances, the perpetrator would likely meet with a few well directed boulders to the cranium, and the entire law of ‘god’ (and most likely yourself) would be happily satiated. Even so, the spiritual component of all survivors concerned would likely require years of serious healing, which would fall well short of being the optimum solution for anyone.

    It is not always a simple thing to divorce our emotions from an emotional scenario such as you describe above, yet by the time we have become adults, it really should have dawned upon us as a most fundamental realisation, that a heated emotional reaction to an emotional stimulus rarely achieves satisfactory results, over and above satisfying the immediate emotional stressors - violence begets violence!

    Fundamentally, our emotions are inextricably entwined into, and emanate from within our flesh, which makes them all about the physical environment we inhabit, yet religion is purported to deal with the other side of life - the spiritual; to do with intellect and reason.

    So it would be a far more satisfactory result at such times, were we to divorce our (physical) emotions from the situation in order to arrive at results based upon a cooler (spiritual) reasoning rather than a heated reactive splurge. Even so, the truly alarming thing to notice in all this, is that religion has taught us zero in such regard, but rather constantly works to focus our attention back to the same fervent emotional lines that continually deliver ever deepening problems, rather than a more reasoned intellectual appreciation of our experience.
    Are you saying you would allow the rape of a child, simply because it's spiritually better not to resort to violence? What's the proper response then?

    an aside, I'd cut off the rapists genitalia and hope to god he either bleeds out or commits suicide as a result
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  33. #433  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Are you saying you would allow the rape of a child, simply because it's spiritually better not to resort to violence?
    From which particular words in my previous post, would you possibly glean that I would permit such an abominable act?


    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    What's the proper response then?
    The 'proper response' would clearly depend upon a cool intelligent appraisal of the peculiar circumstances of a defined heated happenstance. Yet your question seeks to entrap in regards a defined intelligent appraisal of a particularly vague emotional event.

    So what exactly would your query be about, if not an observation of a lacking in appreciation for the concept of 'intelligent'?


    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    an aside, I'd cut off the rapists genitalia and hope to god he either bleeds out or commits suicide as a result
    As an aside; do you think your closing statement clarifies more than was perhaps your intention?
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
     

  34. #434  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    My question is. If you walked by a child being raped, what would you do? The third paragraph in your response to Sam made me think you would allow it to happen, as doing anything to stop it would only cause more harm. (my inference of your words tagged with "violence begets violence!")
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  35. #435  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    My question is. If you walked by a child being raped, what would you do? The third paragraph in your response to Sam made me think you would allow it to happen, as doing anything to stop it would only cause more harm. (my inference of your words tagged with "violence begets violence!")
    Again your question lacks specifics. Even so, I will attempt to honour you with a little meat to place upon your bones.

    If I were to walk past such a hypothetical event, which continued after my appearance, I would have to assume the perpetrator as either blind and deaf, or entirely stupid – or all three at once; at which time I might assume an authoritarian approach of protective action towards the child. Duh!

    Sure I might become emotionally charged at the time and deliver a couple of reactionary blows - so what? Heck, I might become heated at times like any other human - so what? Yes it would be somewhat an act of unnecessary violence – so what?

    You may have noticed that I am NOT the religionist making a statement about being ‘spiritual’, whilst at the same time advocating retribution according a fully physical determination – or perhaps do you think you may have misconstrued more in my post than you realise?

    So here now is a little meat for you to sample; what might be an individual’s emotions getting the better of him for a few seconds, is an entirely different proposition to a politico/religio organisation such as organised religion, setting itself up over centuries and millennium in the process of formulating a series of misleading dogmas for the purpose of deceptively promoting themselves to all; as being about the spiritual welfare of the world, when they are (in actuality) all about the physical welfare of themselves.

    It would seem you may lack an appreciation of the divergence between 'physical' and 'spiritual', but who could blame you for such? Religion has surely succeeded well in veiling from the eyes of the world; at least one of these concepts.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
     

  36. #436  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Edit
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  37. #437  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Sorry, Rape is a topic that tend to get me a little more than heated. Logically speaking, it makes sense to remove that person from the gene pool so as to potentially remove that unwanted trait from circulation. I never give penance to a person who will do that. How does it make sense to allow someone like that to continue to live? Genetic trait that is a detriment to human survival.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  38. #438  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Sorry, Rape is a topic that tend to get me a little more than heated. Logically speaking, it makes sense to remove that person from the gene pool so as to potentially remove that unwanted trait from circulation. I never give penance to a person who will do that. How does it make sense to allow someone like that to continue to live? Genetic trait that is a detriment to human survival.
    You may notice that it was someone else who proposed the hypothetical scenario; namely samcdkey. I merely responded to his argumentative question.

    I may personally have a similar emotive response to yourself in regards any perpetrator of such (and similar) despicable acts, however the destruction that one man can cause to the overall human species, pales into insignificance when compared to that wrought by millenniums of universal mishandling by the religionists of this world.

    So logically speaking, the real question remains – as to why you (and others) fail to realise an even more urgent hostility towards such malevolents?
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
     

  39. #439  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    814
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    I have largely ignored him for a considerable time. Perhaps for too long. He is marginally smarter than archie, but his disregard for logic, for science and for common courtesy are just as entrenched. He is, as you half imply, a rash and uninformed person.
    And yet, John, with his vastly superior intellect, will start a thread on you and follow you around baiting. He is, after all, vastly superior, and you wouldn't want him to believe otherwise.
    LoL
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (.·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.
     

  40. #440  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    So logically speaking, the real question remains – as to why you (and others) fail to realise an even more urgent hostility towards such malevolents?
    What am I failing to realize? That Hostile actions towards a hostile event will lead only to more violence?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  41. #441  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    While we both find it to be a crock of bull, scripture is not, in any way shape or form, the word of God. It is the Word, as written by man, of God, and a religious person who admits this shouldn't be taken in as the same as one who blindly states it to be the absolute word of God. I think once you admit this, you are exempt from the "strict adherence" clause you hold to.
    You appear to believe that this has something to do with me, it does not. It has everything to do with what theists believe, not what I believe.

    Your argument as to what you believe scripture to be is with the theists who claim it to be the word of their god, and not with me.

    I understand that, but it seems you do not.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  42. #442  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey

    So if you come around a street corner and see a child being brutally raped, what non-aggressive stance would you recommend as spiritually apt?
    Do you often find children being brutally raped around the street-corners you walk, Sam?

    You fallaciously and foolishly are attempting to support the violence of your cult with non-starters.

    Hence, the probability that you'll walk around a corner to see Muslims violently rioting over a cartoon is far greater than finding a child being raped.

    Hilarious, Sam.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  43. #443  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    While we both find it to be a crock of bull, scripture is not, in any way shape or form, the word of God. It is the Word, as written by man, of God, and a religious person who admits this shouldn't be taken in as the same as one who blindly states it to be the absolute word of God. I think once they admit this, they are exempt from the "strict adherence" clause you hold to.
    You appear to believe that this has something to do with me, it does not. It has everything to do with what theists believe, not what I believe.

    Your argument as to what you believe scripture to be is with the theists who claim it to be the word of their god, and not with me.

    I understand that, but it seems you do not.
    sorry, I used the wrong pronoun. fixed now in red.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  44. #444  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    While we both find it to be a crock of bull, scripture is not, in any way shape or form, the word of God. It is the Word, as written by man, of God, and a religious person who admits this shouldn't be taken in as the same as one who blindly states it to be the absolute word of God. I think once they admit this, they are exempt from the "strict adherence" clause you hold to.
    If the admit to such things, they go against their god's commands.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  45. #445  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    While we both find it to be a crock of bull, scripture is not, in any way shape or form, the word of God. It is the Word, as written by man, of God, and a religious person who admits this shouldn't be taken in as the same as one who blindly states it to be the absolute word of God. I think once they admit this, they are exempt from the "strict adherence" clause you hold to.
    If the admit to such things, they go against their god's commands.
    But that's they point, they don't see them as such.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  46. #446  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

    But that's they point, they don't see them as such.
    Sorry, are you saying theists don's see the commands in scriptures as gods commands?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  47. #447  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

    But that's they point, they don't see them as such.
    Sorry, are you saying theists don's see the commands in scriptures as gods commands?
    not all of them (theists), no.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  48. #448  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    not all of them (theists), no.
    Then, they are not followers of the religion. Wannabees, perhaps. Hypocrites, definitely. To be taken seriously when they talk about their gods, not a chance.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  49. #449  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    not all of them (theists), no.
    Then, they are not followers of the religion. Wannabees, perhaps. Hypocrites, definitely. To be taken seriously when they talk about their gods, not a chance.
    You really don't get it. Just because a person recognizes that a book is written by man, and thus, is subject to mistakes, doesn't mean they aren't a follower of the religion of the book. It's quite clear you simply want to define religion as a mass of willfully ignorant people who close their eyes and ears and shout "GODDIDIT!!"... You're vendetta against religion leads you to fashion that if a rational person chooses to adhere, they must be either a hypocrite or a wannabee, when that's simply not true. I don't think it's them that need not be taken seriously, quite the contrary, I think it's the dogmatic, the zealous, and the absolutist that need not be taken seriously.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  50. #450  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    You really don't get it.
    No, I suspect you don't get it.

    Just because a person recognizes that a book is written by man, and thus, is subject to mistakes, doesn't mean they aren't a follower of the religion of the book.
    Where do you get the notion that scriptures are the word of men and not gods? Theists will certainly disagree with you there.

    It's quite clear you simply want to define religion as a mass of willfully ignorant people who close their eyes and ears and shout "GODDIDIT!!"...
    Again, where do you get the notion that I've defined religion that way? That's what scriptures claim, or didn't you know that?

    You're vendetta against religion leads you to fashion that if a rational person chooses to adhere, they must be either a hypocrite or a wannabee, when that's simply not true.
    You clearly are making serious logistic errors in your thinking process. I have nothing to do with the definitions of religion or scriptures. You are also free to provide any scripture quotes demonstrating that the followers of a cult can choose what they want to believe as opposed to what they are supposed to believe.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  51. #451  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    You clearly are making serious logistic errors in your thinking process. I have nothing to do with the definitions of religion or scriptures. You are also free to provide any scripture quotes demonstrating that the followers of a cult can choose what they want to believe as opposed to what they are supposed to believe.
    This demonstrates my point, right here. You are imposing on all theists that their scriptures must be the word of their God, and not man. I seriously don't care what's written in scripture, as I, like many other theists, KNOW it was written down by man, and is therefore, since man is imperfect, subject to the imperfections and flaws of man that lead to it being twisted to man's will. It is the interpretation of God's word by a select few people, the writers. Why is this concept not getting across to you Q? Understanding that man, and he did indeed, wrote down the word of God means you can accept that the words he wrote are not the exact words of God, as man has flaws.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  52. #452  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    This demonstrates my point, right here. You are imposing on all theists that their scriptures must be the word of their God, and not man.
    *sigh*

    No, I'm not imposing anything, those are in scriptures. Please read them before making further comments.

    I seriously don't care what's written in scripture, as I, like many other theists, KNOW it was written down by man, and is therefore, since man is imperfect, subject to the imperfections and flaws of man that lead to it being twisted to man's will. It is the interpretation of God's word by a select few people, the writers. Why is this concept not getting across to you Q?
    I understand the concept perfectly. It is you who does not understand that those scriptures are the word of god as far as those scriptures are concerned, whether they were written by men or a million monkeys with typewriters. Why is that concept not getting across to you?

    Understanding that man, and he did indeed, wrote down the word of God means you can accept that the words he wrote are not the exact words of God, as man has flaws.
    Please demonstrate from scriptural quotes your claims? If you cannot do so, you're making claims you cannot support.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  53. #453  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    scripture is flawed. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it won't make it any more true. If it was a man who penned it, then it is not God's true word; it is God's word as interpreted by man, regardless of what the man wrote. If you wish to show that scripture is the perfect word of God, then first demonstrate that the individuals who wrote scripture were perfect and infallible. Can't do it? Damn... Guess you're off base then, huh?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  54. #454  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    scripture is flawed.
    That is another debate. And, you would be hard pressed to pass that one by theists.

    If you wish to show that scripture is the perfect word of God
    "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18)

    "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16)

    Guess you're off base then, huh?
    Not at all.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  55. #455  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    scripture is flawed.
    That is another debate. And, you would be hard pressed to pass that one by theists.

    If you wish to show that scripture is the perfect word of God
    "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18)

    "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16)

    Guess you're off base then, huh?
    Not at all.
    So Mathew is infallible? as was Timothy?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  56. #456  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

    So Mathew is infallible? as was Timothy?
    They may very well have been, what's your point?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  57. #457  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    If they are capable of mistakes, is it not possible that they did not accurately pen the word of God? If they are fallible, is it not reasonable to assume they could have inserted their own biases into the scripture they wrote, and altered the word of god, even if unintentionally?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  58. #458  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    I'm sure these authors used the divine autocorrection facility when writing the Holy scriptures.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
     

  59. #459  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    You clearly are making serious logistic errors in your thinking process. I have nothing to do with the definitions of religion or scriptures. You are also free to provide any scripture quotes demonstrating that the followers of a cult can choose what they want to believe as opposed to what they are supposed to believe.
    This demonstrates my point, right here. You are imposing on all theists that their scriptures must be the word of their God, and not man. I seriously don't care what's written in scripture, as I, like many other theists, KNOW it was written down by man, and is therefore, since man is imperfect, subject to the imperfections and flaws of man that lead to it being twisted to man's will. It is the interpretation of God's word by a select few people, the writers. Why is this concept not getting across to you Q? Understanding that man, and he did indeed, wrote down the word of God means you can accept that the words he wrote are not the exact words of God, as man has flaws.
    The seriousness of this issue is not so much in the scriptures, as in the selfishness of religionists themselves – who with a clenched fist and determined words, will proclaim they 'serve' (their concept of) 'god' – being ‘spiritual’, yet it doesn’t take too much delving to discover that their trust actually lies in other things, which are entirely physical, such as money, possessions and vanity.

    It has been said (re. Christianity at least) "A Christian is a man who feels repentance on a Sunday for what he did on Saturday - and is going to do again on Monday. - Thomas R. Ybarra

    The concerning part in all this is he will inevitably go to his grave with the expectation of having 'served god'; and now fully anticipating his reward of some utopian eternal afterlife - entirely unaware of the obvious reality; of having spent a lifespan patently under severe illusion, derived at by trusting his cult leader’s religious proclamations.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
     

  60. #460  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    If they are fallible, is it not reasonable to assume they could have inserted their own biases into the scripture they wrote, and altered the word of god, even if unintentionally?
    Would god allow that? Would he know? Would he make sure that didn't happen?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  61. #461  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Like I said, perhaps he just wanted to outline guidelines, and the writers blew his words out of proportion. Perhaps, as others have said, God can't directly interfere with this plane of existence (The only theory I believe has any legitimacy) and can only affect the thoughts of people, in a paranormal semblance. If the latter is the case, then it's reasonable to say he could do nothing to stymie the misuse of his words that was to come.

    Perhaps, He gave those commands, and then allowed us to write them down and follow them however we wish, just to see what would happen (assuming God is not omniscient). Maybe we are all unknowingly taking part in God's experiment on life, and after doing his work however many billion years ago to initiate the universe, he waited for sentient life to appear, and where it did, he issued his "commands" to see how the populace would behave.

    Maybe he wants us to embellish, and take what he said a few steps further. We don't know God, so we have no way knowing what he thinks nor desires.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  62. #462  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    If they are fallible, is it not reasonable to assume they could have inserted their own biases into the scripture they wrote, and altered the word of god, even if unintentionally?
    Would god allow that? Would he know? Would he make sure that didn't happen?
    If He thought that the result better accomplished His purpose, then I think He would.

    However, I think there is a fallacy here in what "Arcane_Mathematician" said, not about there being biases from the author but about there being an original word of God. I believe that the Bible is the word of God, BUT using history, nation and human authors as His writing instruments. But that means that the actual words put on put on paper were always put there by human beings and so a human being changing those words could be just as much an instrument of God as the author who wrote the original version.

    Now the point I am making is not that we should feel free to alter it according to how we feel God is guiding us, but that there simply is no original pure and unaltered version directly from God before human beings got their hands on it - there is no such thing. Now if some older version of some book of the Bible were discovered then that could not happen without the consent of God and thus I think He would see a lesson for us in how such a document affects our understanding.



    So back to there being a bias from the human author. I think the question here is what God intends to communicate to us by that bias. For those that cannot see the bias because that bias is theirs also, I think it quite likely that by speaking from their bias it is able to communicate something else to them which it could not otherwise. For those that can see the bias, I think they can weight in the implications of other scriptures to go beyond that bias and not be limited by it. Thus for example, the slave owner could be guided by the Bible to treat their slaves more humanely while the abolitionists were guided by the Bible to combat the practice of slavery at the cost of their own lives if required.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  63. #463  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    changing those words could be just as much an instrument of God as the author who wrote the original version.
    So, what you're claiming is that you are an instrument of god, and that millions of theists throughout history are instruments of god, changing scriptures as god deems necessary.

    It's rather interesting the stark contradictions and differences between you, those other millions of instruments of god, and scriptures themselves. Curious...

    ...there simply is no original pure and unaltered version directly from God before human beings got their hands on it - there is no such thing.
    That would make all scriptures utterly worthless as the word of god and we can dismiss all cults as man-made.

    Why didn't you just say so?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  64. #464  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    God can't directly interfere with this plane of existence
    Where would you get that notion? Scriptures would disagree with you.

    Maybe he wants us to embellish, and take what he said a few steps further. We don't know God, so we have no way knowing what he thinks nor desires.
    Yes, we do know god, in scriptures. And, in no way does it state there that we are to "embellish" his words. We are to follow his commands implicitly, according to scriptures.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  65. #465  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    changing those words could be just as much an instrument of God as the author who wrote the original version.
    So, what you're claiming is that you are an instrument of god, and that millions of theists throughout history are instruments of god, changing scriptures as god deems necessary.
    No I would never claim that I am an instrument of God, but I feel certain that you are.


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    It's rather interesting the stark contradictions and differences between you, those other millions of instruments of god, and scriptures themselves. Curious...
    YES! The differences between you and the others is stark indeed. The diversity of human thought is a crucial element of the salvation of mankind.


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    ...there simply is no original pure and unaltered version directly from God before human beings got their hands on it - there is no such thing.
    That would make all scriptures utterly worthless as the word of god and we can dismiss all cults as man-made.
    LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
    My words made you realize this? My words?
    LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

    Clearly I do not think it makes the Bible worthless as the word of God. But I am greatly amused that you act like the value of the Bible as the word of God was on the table as far at you are concerned. LOL

    Yes you can dismiss all cults as man made. LOL Do you feel liberated now?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  66. #466  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    God can't directly interfere with this plane of existence
    Where would you get that notion? Scriptures would disagree with you.

    Maybe he wants us to embellish, and take what he said a few steps further. We don't know God, so we have no way knowing what he thinks nor desires.
    Yes, we do know god, in scriptures. And, in no way does it state there that we are to "embellish" his words. We are to follow his commands implicitly, according to scriptures.
    thank you for ignoring my post. I get the first idea from the scientific notion from the conservation of matter on the universal scale coupled with the fact that, IF God exists; he must exist outside of this universe because he is clearly not subject to the laws of this universe, mainly because, he created the universe.

    I gave my suspicion of scriptures in the post you ignored, and I postulated ideas as to why scripture is the way it is in the post you ignored.



    MM, I'm inclined to believe there never was a word of God delivered to Man, but, going on the assumption that there was is the basis of my argument there.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  67. #467  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    No I would never claim that I am an instrument of God, but I feel certain that you are.
    You don't have to claim it, you are an instrument by god, by your own definition, and by the fact that you cherry pick your beliefs. And, since you despise that term so much, I can use the "instrument of god" clause instead, if you like.


    YES! The differences between you and the others is stark indeed. The diversity of human thought is a crucial element of the salvation of mankind.
    And, in complete opposition to scriptures. Well done.


    Clearly I do not think it makes the Bible worthless as the word of God.
    You appear to be going around in circles. Do you believe the bible is the word of god or not? Which is it, then?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  68. #468  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Clearly I do not think it makes the Bible worthless as the word of God.
    You appear to be going around in circles. Do you believe the bible is the word of god or not? Which is it, then?
    Just because you want to ignore some things that people say in order to fit them into only those extreme positions that your stubborness will allow does not mean that you can manufacture inconsistencies where none exist. I said in the first post that the Bible is the word of God AND I explained what that meant - what in fact it could only mean in any rational understanding of it.

    I am refusing to cooperate with your efforts to stick me in one of your stupid boxes, either in the insane religious box which you revile OR in the insane atheism box in which you revel. So the only one running around in circles is you in your attempt to make what I say fit into one of these idiotic extremes -- not that I care that you do so. In fact, please continue running in circles like this, I find it quite amusing.


    Let me put it this way so that perhaps even a child could understand. I believe in Santa Claus, yes I do. But I do not believe in Santa Claus in a way that would not be rational. I do not believe that an expedition to the north pole will find a village with Santa Claus and his elves. There is not and never will be objective evidence for the existence of Santa Claus or any of the other thing like God, love, justice, free will, meaning, and the value of human life which are actually some of the very MOST important things in human life. Belief in such things are a matter of choice and subjective experience - a matter of asserting our life and existence against all opposition. I cannot insist that you believe in them also but neither can you insist that I do not believe in them -- for the simple fact is that you cannot prove your case any more than I can -- and thems the facts that you will have to accept.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  69. #469  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Let me put it this way so that perhaps even a child could understand. I believe in Santa Claus, yes I do. But I do not believe in Santa Claus in a way that would not be rational. I do not believe that an expedition to the north pole will find a village with Santa Claus and his elves. There is not and never will be objective evidence for the existence of Santa Claus
    Could you please help me understand how believing in something for which there is no evidence (or sound argumentation for) could be categorized as rational?

    Or even better, could you please explain how your belief in Santa Clause is rational (since you clearly state that your belief is not irrational)?

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    or any of the other thing like God, love, justice, free will, meaning, and the value of human life which are actually some of the very MOST important things in human life.
    Some of these things are not like the others. The only thing that your list of concepts have in common is that they are intangible. While we might not be able to touch any of them, or see them under a microscope lense, or even show mathematically how they exist, some of them can be argued for (and in some cases argued against) via some basic reasoning.

    I have yet to see an argument for god that can survive even the most casual probe of reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Belief in such things are a matter of choice and subjective experience - a matter of asserting our life and existence against all opposition.
    Again, there are some problems here. Many of the things you listed either exist or do not regardless of whether or not anyone "believes" them. Simply saying that something is subjective does not make it so. Furthermore, declaring something as being subjective does not automatically shield it from critique.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I cannot insist that you believe in them also but neither can you insist that I do not believe in them -- for the simple fact is that you cannot prove your case any more than I can -- and thems the facts that you will have to accept.
    Indeed my inability to prove that the flying spaghetti monster does exists would mean that my claim would be on equal ground with your claim that it does not, however that does not mean that both claims are equally rational.

    Thanks for reading.
     

  70. #470  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    Could you please help me understand how believing in something for which there is no evidence (or sound argumentation for) could be categorized as rational?
    First of all there are two types of evidence. There is evidence which is objective - there for all to see and this is the basis of science which requires you to decribe a proceedure which any one can follow in order to make the same observation. Then there is evidence which is not objective - that is to say subjective. A simple example of this type of evidence is a one time experience, such as seeing someone walk on water, or being abducted by aliens.

    So the question is, do you believe that a belief in something for which there is no objective evidence is not rational? If that is the case then by your own belief, you believe something which is not rational.

    I however do not believe this. I, in fact, see overwhelming evidence that EVERYONE believes things for which they have no objective evidence. This is unavoidable because the restriction to repeatable proceedures is simply too great a restriction on human knowledge. Science itself is based on numerous premises and assumption for which there simply can be no objective evidence or proof. Therefore those who say that they only believe that for which there is proof or objective evidence is either deluded or simply willfuly babbling the same kind of self-interest laden rhetoric as a used car salesman.


    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    Or even better, could you please explain how your belief in Santa Clause is rational (since you clearly state that your belief is not irrational)?
    A belief is rational if it is logically consistent a person's experience of human existence. It would thus be rational for a person who experienced an abduction by aliens to believe that there are such aliens and abductions by aliens. However since I have not had any such experience, such persons cannot expect me to believe these same things.

    In the case of Santa Claus, however, this probably has a great deal more to do with what sort of thing I think this Santa Claus is. He is certainly a character in numerous stories and I certainly do not think that most of the things these stories say about him are true in a sense that an objective test would be able to substantiate these claims. That is a conclusion that most people would likely come to if they would be consistent with their own experiences.


    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    or any of the other thing like God, love, justice, free will, meaning, and the value of human life which are actually some of the very MOST important things in human life.
    Some of these things are not like the others. The only thing that your list of concepts have in common is that they are intangible. While we might not be able to touch any of them, or see them under a microscope lense, or even show mathematically how they exist, some of them can be argued for (and in some cases argued against) via some basic reasoning.
    Well of course they are all different, but these are also ALL things that people have not believed in and have argued do not exist, and in the case of every one of these I challenge you to come up with objective evidence that they do exist. Many of these exist largely because we believe in them, for belief has an impact on reality through the fact that we are a part of reality. It is because of this that the subjective can never eliminated from the human experience of existence and here is the gaping blind spot in the scientific methodology. For in striving for something that is observer independent, science for all the tremendous advantage that it has a getting at the truth about things, nevertheless blinds itself to the observer himself. Life cannot be reduced to objective observation only for life is also about subjective participation.


    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    I have yet to see an argument for god that can survive even the most casual probe of reason.
    Of course, I quite agree. I myself will attack and show the flaws of any such argument. Ultimately every one of them only works for those that make them but cannot stand up to a skeptical examination. The belief in God stands on subjective arguments and subjective evidence.

    Does this mean that God has no more reality or existence than Santa Clause? No, because the beliefs that people have about God and the experiences they have of God are quite different.


    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Belief in such things are a matter of choice and subjective experience - a matter of asserting our life and existence against all opposition.
    Again, there are some problems here. Many of the things you listed either exist or do not regardless of whether or not anyone "believes" them.
    On the contrary, it is NOT a matter of whether they exist or not, in general. That is just rhetoric of avoidance. These things all certainly do exist in some manner and the real question is and always has been, what are they?

    But even when and if that is settled I think that in the particular, beliefs about them have EVERYTHING to do with what they are and whether they exist or not. Love does not exist where you do not believe in it. Justice cannot exist in a society that does not believe in it. How can you have free will when you do not believe that you have a choice in what you do? There are philosophers that argue that there is no such things as meaning, and I quite agree that in the case of their philosophy they are quite correct. If people do not believe in the value of human life, then what value would it have after all? And for those who do not believe in God, it is quite a forgone conclusion that God has no reality for them.


    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    Simply saying that something is subjective does not make it so. Furthermore, declaring something as being subjective does not automatically shield it from critique.
    Criticize all you want. Don't believe in them to heart content. Knock yourself out. But the fact of the matter is that you cannot prove that they do not exist and therefore my choice to believe that they do exist is as good as your choice.


    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Indeed my inability to prove that the flying spaghetti monster does exists would mean that my claim would be on equal ground with your claim that it does not, however that does not mean that both claims are equally rational.
    You do not believe in any flying spaghetti monster. If I was talking to someone who did then I would be interested to find out their reasons for doing so. It would however be unlikely that I would take away from that discussion any reason to believe in his flying spaghetti monster any more than I would be likely to believe in alien abductions any more than you would be likey to believe in God as a result of this discussion.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  71. #471  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    First of all there are two types of evidence. There is evidence which is objective - there for all to see and this is the basis of science which requires you to decribe a proceedure which any one can follow in order to make the same observation. Then there is evidence which is not objective - that is to say subjective. A simple example of this type of evidence is a one time experience, such as seeing someone walk on water, or being abducted by aliens.
    The latter isn't evidence at all, it's hearsay.

    "Evidence" by it's very definition has to be objective.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    So the question is, do you believe that a belief in something for which there is no objective evidence is not rational? If that is the case then by your own belief, you believe something which is not rational.
    No sir, I asked you the question. Trying to turn it back on me doesn't answer it for you.

    Here is it once more:

    'Could you please help me understand how believing in something for which there is no evidence (or sound argumentation for) could be categorized as rational?"

    Either you can do this or you cannot.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I however do not believe this. I, in fact, see overwhelming evidence that EVERYONE believes things for which they have no objective evidence.
    I'll agree with you, up to a point.

    For instance, I believe when I wake up in the morning that gravity will work the way that it always has (here on planet Earth) and then when I get out of bed, I won't "fall up" into the ceiling. Also, when I open up a can of soda I consume it with the belief that it has not been tainted with poison.

    The difference between this kind of belief and religious belief is that should I ever "fall up" or find myself poisoned after drinking a Dr. Pepper, I'm probably going to find myself asking some questions. I'll want to know why gravity didn't work the way it always has or how that arsenic made it's way into my sealed can of cola.

    I have good reasons for maintaining my belief in gravity and poison-free soda, but should I ever encounter something that runs contradictory to my beliefs, I will change them.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    This is unavoidable because the restriction to repeatable proceedures is simply too great a restriction on human knowledge. Science itself is based on numerous premises and assumption for which there simply can be no objective evidence or proof.
    I guess I would need to hear specific examples before I could understand what you mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Therefore those who say that they only believe that for which there is proof or objective evidence is either deluded or simply willfuly babbling the same kind of self-interest laden rhetoric as a used car salesman.
    You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    A belief is rational if it is logically consistent a person's experience of human existence.
    So if molesting children was logically consistent with my experience of human existence, it would be rational for me to support it?

    I'm afraid your standard has some issues with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    It would thus be rational for a person who experienced an abduction by aliens to believe that there are such aliens and abductions by aliens.
    Circular reasoning. A person believes that aliens exist because aliens exist.

    Would you care to try again with another example?

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    However since I have not had any such experience, such persons cannot expect me to believe these same things.
    Well, unless they were able to provide you with evidence, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    In the case of Santa Claus, however, this probably has a great deal more to do with what sort of thing I think this Santa Claus is. He is certainly a character in numerous stories and I certainly do not think that most of the things these stories say about him are true in a sense that an objective test would be able to substantiate these claims. That is a conclusion that most people would likely come to if they would be consistent with their own experiences.
    There is a lot of slippery language here. I'm not seeing where you provide a definitive argument for how your belief in Santa Claus is rational.

    I agree that many people would agree that there are many stories about Santa Claus. I think that clearly meets the definition of "undeniable fact", but evidence for stories is not the same thing as evidence for the subject of the stories. Otherwise we would have to accept that the explosion of Harry Potter fandom is sound argumentation for the existence of boy wizards, etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Well of course they are all different, but these are also ALL things that people have not believed in and have argued do not exist, and in the case of every one of these I challenge you to come up with objective evidence that they do exist.
    I see you studied at the William Lane Craig School of Burden of Proof Fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Many of these exist largely because we believe in them, for belief has an impact on reality through the fact that we are a part of reality.
    Your argument eats itself. If these things are subjective, then they cannot also be objective.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    It is because of this that the subjective can never eliminated from the human experience of existence and here is the gaping blind spot in the scientific methodology.
    Non sequitur. Mankind might decide to spend the next thousand years debating whether the invisible pink unicorn prefers hay or apples, but that "debate" won't have any impact whatsoever on the scientific method.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    For in striving for something that is observer independent, science for all the tremendous advantage that it has a getting at the truth about things, nevertheless blinds itself to the observer himself. Life cannot be reduced to objective observation only for life is also about subjective participation.
    False dichotomy. It isn't all or nothing. Scientists conducting (legitimate) experiments go to great lengths to establish controls. Some times they succeed. Sometimes they fail and then have to go back to the drawing board, but that doesn't mean that scientific experimentation cannot be objective.


    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Does this mean that God has no more reality or existence than Santa Clause? No, because the beliefs that people have about God and the experiences they have of God are quite different.
    I'm not sure I follow. If I have zero evidence for two things, how can I argue that one is more likely than another?

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    On the contrary, it is NOT a matter of whether they exist or not, in general. That is just rhetoric of avoidance. These things all certainly do exist in some manner and the real question is and always has been, what are they?
    Firstly, I specifically said "many" not "all" therefore your tone is unnecessary and unwelcome.

    Second, you have made the claim that all these things have existed. We have a couple of options here:

    1) we can all take a break while you go build your case for the existence for each and every thing on your list (best of luck with free will), since the burden of proof is on you to support your claim.

    2) we can acknowledge that you spoke hastily and you can withdraw you claim.

    Which would you prefer?

    While you decide...

    These these "do exist" as nothing more than ideas. That does not mean that they are tangible or real. The same thing is true for god, santa claus, or the FSM. Not all ideas are created equal.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    But even when and if that is settled I think that in the particular, beliefs about them have EVERYTHING to do with what they are and whether they exist or not.
    In some cases, yes and in others, no.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Love does not exist where you do not believe in it.
    So if you don't believe in love then I can never have felt it?

    Try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Justice cannot exist in a society that does not believe in it.
    And if "justice" is a silly idea held by poorly educated humans who haven't thought things through, then it still won't exist, even if every man, woman, and child who ever drew breath upon this Earth believed in it.

    Try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    How can you have free will when you do not believe that you have a choice in what you do?
    And if free will is nothing more than a concept that you've been conditioned (and therefore predetermined) to have, then you don't really have free will anyway, do you?

    Try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    There are philosophers that argue that there is no such things as meaning, and I quite agree that in the case of their philosophy they are quite correct. If people do not believe in the value of human life, then what value would it have after all?
    I imagine that life would have as much or as little meaning (for that person) as they choose to assign to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    And for those who do not believe in God, it is quite a forgone conclusion that God has no reality for them.
    And if god doesn't really exist, then it never had any reality for the others either.


    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Criticize all you want. Don't believe in them to heart content. Knock yourself out. But the fact of the matter is that you cannot prove that they do not exist and therefore my choice to believe that they do exist is as good as your choice.
    No. Believing is something without evidence is not "just as good" as not believing in something that has no evidence.

    Case in point: if there is no free will (as the current evidence would suggest), then believing in free will is not just as good as not believing in it. Furthermore, where ideas can, in some cases, do more harm than good, believing in something would quite obviously be much worse than not believing.


    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    You do not believe in any flying spaghetti monster.
    I don't? That's a very interesting claim to make. How do you intend to support it?

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    If I was talking to someone who did then I would be interested to find out their reasons for doing so.
    Because He was revealed to me in a vision.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    It would however be unlikely that I would take away from that discussion any reason to believe in his flying spaghetti monster any more than I would be likely to believe in alien abductions any more than you would be likey to believe in God as a result of this discussion.
    Because you've already made up your mind regarding His existence? It doesn't sound to me as though you are someone who is hear to dialog with others in good faith then. It seems that you've already made up your mind and are not keen to change it despite whatever evidence or argumentation might be presented.

    I'm kinda new here, so I don't know if this your modus operandi or what, but it scares me to think that you're kinda in charge here.

    Thanks for your post.
     

  72. #472  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    Because you've already made up your mind regarding His existence? It doesn't sound to me as though you are someone who is hear to dialog with others in good faith then. It seems that you've already made up your mind and are not keen to change it despite whatever evidence or argumentation might be presented.

    I'm kinda new here, so I don't know if this your modus operandi or what, but it scares me to think that you're kinda in charge here.

    Thanks for your post.
    Be afraid. Be very afraid. For I will send all believers in the flying spagetti monster straight into the fiery dumpster of my unbelief. LOL
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  73. #473  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Be afraid. Be very afraid. For I will send all believers in the flying spagetti monster straight into the fiery dumpster of my unbelief. LOL
    +1 witty dodge

    At least we've been able to establish where I should set my expectations re: your involvement.
     

  74. #474  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Be afraid. Be very afraid. For I will send all believers in the flying spagetti monster straight into the fiery dumpster of my unbelief. LOL
    +1 witty dodge

    At least we've been able to establish where I should set my expectations re: your involvement.
    Yes if you are come to evangelize then you are wasting your time. If you are come indulge in the safety of a herd of "truth" believers, then you will get no such comfort from me, whether you are a theist or an atheist.

    We have a favorite saying here: "be open minded but not so open minded that your brains fall out." There are indeed many things that will not get much of a "fair hearing" in this forum, and these are things that are firmly entrenched in the consensus of the scientific community because the accumulated evidence is overwhelming. So the pseudoscience crackpots whether they are creationists or Trekkies trying to prove that Einstein was wrong about relativity will not be taken very seriously.

    As for the existence of God, no I have not come here seeking answers and enlightenment from wise elders of the atheist community. LOL Give me a break! Being a scientist myself I know better that to fall for this common pretense and delusion that a few atheists have that being an atheist makes them a scientist, and far from scientists being the high priests of their religion of atheism or naturalism, the truth is that science is absolutely silent on questions regarding God.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  75. #475  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Yes if you are come to evangelize then you are wasting your time. If you are come indulge in the safety of a herd of "truth" believers, then you will get no such comfort from me, whether you are a theist or an atheist.
    Odd that you would question my motives when quite clearly this discussion began by me questioning various things that you said. They appear to be comprised of many fallacies and instead of assuming things about you, I've asked for clarification. You appear to be either unable or unwilling to defend what you post.

    So perhaps it would behoove to you concern yourself more with what you post than what I post.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    We have a favorite saying here: "be open minded but not so open minded that your brains fall out." There are indeed many things that will not get much of a "fair hearing" in this forum, and these are things that are firmly entrenched in the consensus of the scientific community because the accumulated evidence is overwhelming. So the pseudoscience crackpots whether they are creationists or Trekkies trying to prove that Einstein was wrong about relativity will not be taken very seriously.
    Relevance?

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    As for the existence of God, no I have not come here seeking answers and enlightenment from wise elders of the atheist community.
    That's great. Good for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Being a scientist myself I know better that to fall for this common pretense and delusion that a few atheists have that being an atheist makes them a scientist, and far from scientists being the high priests of their religion of atheism or naturalism, the truth is that science is absolutely silent on questions regarding God.
    Again, relevance?

    Or are you hoping that a barrage of non sequitur will make me forget that you entirely dodged my post?
     

  76. #476  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    Again, relevance?
    Seemed relevant to me. Relevant to the comment which I was responding to in elaboration of my response.


    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    Or are you hoping that a barrage of non sequitur will make me forget that you entirely dodged my post?
    No. I could care less what you remember or forget, let alone what you believe or think you know.

    I am simply not in the habit of wasting my time with repetion and what is only a very small step above childish games of: "you are wrong." "no, you are wrong." "I said you are wrong." "no YOU are wrong." etc.

    I said what I had to say, and if you don't like you can lump it. But if it makes you happy you can simply write a response of, "I disagree." "Yep." "Nope." "Very interesting." "None of the above." "I don't." "You are on your own." "Do your own research." "Not interested." And lets not forget your favorite "relevance?" ... take your pick... because I don't care.

    I decide what I respond to according to what I find interesting. If you want my response that desperately, then I am sorry but you are just going to have to find something more interesting to say.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  77. #477  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I am simply not in the habit of wasting my time with repetion and what is only a very small step above childish games of: "you are wrong." "no, you are wrong." "I said you are wrong." "no YOU are wrong." etc.
    I guess I have a difficult time seeing where this took place. You're certainly welcome to represent yourself however you choose, but again I find it a little concerning that someone responsible for moderating is opting to dodge perfectly valid points and counter-arguments with non-sequitur.

    My hope would have been that you would either choose to respond with sound argumentation of your own (which might allow me and others reading to learn something) or acknowledge that you are mistaken and learn something yourself.

    So if you aren't here to learn or to help others learn, why are you? I still find it curious that you would accuse me of being here to "evangelize". Hmmm.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I decide what I respond to according to what I find interesting. If you want my response that desperately, then I am sorry but you are just going to have to find some more interesting to say.
    Of course, I would not presume to tell you how to spend your time. However I do think you should know that dodging questions and throwing tantrums does effect how others perceive you. You've already stated that you don't care and that you don't find my posts very interesting, so based on this, I can only expect that you won't waste your time with any more of my posts in the future? Surely you would agree that taking the time to type up a bunch of words that don't really say anything wastes your time and mine, correct?
     

  78. #478  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    I guess I have a difficult time seeing where this took place. You're certainly welcome to represent yourself however you choose, but again I find it a little concerning that someone responsible for moderating is opting to dodge perfectly valid points and counter-arguments with non-sequitur.

    My hope would have been that you would either choose to respond with sound argumentation of your own (which might allow me and others reading to learn something) or acknowledge that you are mistaken and learn something yourself.

    So if you aren't here to learn or to help others learn, why are you? I still find it curious that you would accuse me of being here to "evangelize". Hmmm.

    Of course, I would not presume to tell you how to spend your time. However I do think you should know that dodging questions and throwing tantrums does effect how others perceive you. You've already stated that you don't care and that you don't find my posts very interesting, so based on this, I can only expect that you won't waste your time with any more of my posts in the future? Surely you would agree that taking the time to type up a bunch of words that don't really say anything wastes your time and mine, correct?
    I still do not find anything interesting in your meaningless challenges, rhetorical questions and pointless accusations. Your opinion of me is of no interest to me, and if you insist on these types of personal battles with others here then you will have me on your case as a moderator, for your opinions of other members here is of even less interest to me. If you have anything to say on the topic of other posts, then let them rip and anyone who finds what you say interesting are free to respond.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  79. #479  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    Just because you want to ignore some things that people say in order to fit them into only those extreme positions that your stubborness will allow does not mean that you can manufacture inconsistencies where none exist. I said in the first post that the Bible is the word of God AND I explained what that meant - what in fact it could only mean in any rational understanding of it.
    It wasn't an explanation at all. And, it smacked of contradictions, those of which you laughed off and tossed back at me. No Mitch, you haven't explained anything.

    I am refusing to cooperate with your efforts to stick me in one of your stupid boxes, either in the insane religious box which you revile OR in the insane atheism box in which you revel.
    You have pegged yourself in a religious box, Mitch. I'm simply trying to peek inside that box to see what makes it tick. All I've found so far are a bunch of broken springs and cogs. Most likely due to the huge gravitational field generated by a black hole of contradiction.

    So the only one running around in circles is you in your attempt to make what I say fit into one of these idiotic extremes -- not that I care that you do so. In fact, please continue running in circles like this, I find it quite amusing.
    Yes, I'm sure you do find it amusing. You're free to define your cult anyway you wish to suit whatever agenda you're pursuing at the time, but will adamantly deny on the flip side, your beliefs follow scriptures.


    I do not believe in Santa Claus in a way that would not be rational. I do not believe that an expedition to the north pole will find a village with Santa Claus and his elves. There is not and never will be objective evidence for the existence of Santa Claus or any of the other thing like God, love, justice, free will, meaning, and the value of human life which are actually some of the very MOST important things in human life.
    That's nice, but you left out the "rational" part altogether and instead provided a fallacious response. Well done.

    Belief in such things are a matter of choice and subjective experience - a matter of asserting our life and existence against all opposition. I cannot insist that you believe in them also but neither can you insist that I do not believe in them -- for the simple fact is that you cannot prove your case any more than I can -- and thems the facts that you will have to accept.
    And, you can believe me when I say that you are free to believe in Santa Claus and all the little imps and demons your cult claims to exist, but your cult should not have any of the privileges society is forced to adapt, nor should it be given the respect most cults demand of society.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  80. #480  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    I still do not find your anything interesting in your meaningless challenges, rhetorical questions and pointless accusations. Your opinion of me is of no interest to me, and if you insist on these types of personal battles with others here then you will have me on your case as a moderator, for your opinions of other members here is of even less interest to me.
    Mitch is cornered, once again, and provides the same response in such scenarios.

    You know, Mitch, as a physicist, you should be able to construct an airtight argument for your beliefs based on current physical laws.

    Poke holes in General Relativity and on paper we can create a time machine. Backing up a god shouldn't be any more difficult than that.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  81. #481  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    I still do not find your anything interesting in your meaningless challenges, rhetorical questions and pointless accusations. Your opinion of me is of no interest to me, and if you insist on these types of personal battles with others here then you will have me on your case as a moderator, for your opinions of other members here is of even less interest to me.
    Mitch is cornered, once again, and provides the same response in such scenarios.
    I suspected that this was par for the course. Thanks for the confirmation/insight.
     

  82. #482  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG

    I suspected that this was par for the course. Thanks for the confirmation/insight.
    To Mitch's defense, he does come up with some damn good arguments, it's usually only when he begins to defend a contradiction of his beliefs do we see this type of behavior.

    It's no secret that theists take their beliefs very seriously, to the point of letting it become one of their arms and legs (actually, it's more like the belief has manifested itself as the brain) and as much as Mitch is well rounded in constructing prose and analysis, he makes the same critical error of embracing an ideology. Of course, to the theist, their religion is no ideology, hence you'll rarely ever hearing of them admitting such.

    Besmirching the ideology most certainly is the same as attacking them personally, or so they fallaciously argue such.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  83. #483  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Besmirching the ideology most certainly is the same as attacking them personally, or so they fallaciously argue such.
    Of course, which is why moderators that personalize conflict tend to worry me. Especially when they demonstrate that objectively debating the topic they're supposed to be moderating is a challenge for them.
     

  84. #484  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    None taken.
     

  85. #485  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    Of course, which is why moderators that personalize conflict tend to worry me. Especially when they demonstrate that objectively debating the topic they're supposed to be moderating is a challenge for them.
    I have no interest in your kind of "debate". It is certainly not what I would call challenging. I would use a very different adjective. But to each his own. However, you will have to find someone else for whatever thrill find in that sort of thing. Find something you disagree with Q on. He seems to like your sort of sport, though perhaps he can provide you with the some herd comfort if that is what you want. Q definitely seems into that as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by KomradRed
    To be fair Q has been warned several times for trollish activity.
    Hmmm... To be fair.... I am not all that sure that a comment like this is appropriate or relevant. No offense, I hope.

    PhoenixG should form his own opinion of Q and I think it would be just great if they can be buddies. But I certainly do find it very interesting what sort of newbies find an ally in Q. LOL
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  86. #486  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I have no interest in your kind of "debate". It is certainly not what I would call challenging. I would use a very different adjective. But to each his own. However, you will have to find someone else for whatever thrill find in that sort of thing. Find something you disagree with Q on. He seems to like your sort of sport, though perhaps he can provide you with the some herd comfort if that is what you want. Q definitely seems into that as well.
    Apparently not. Apparently you find questioning my character and avoiding my questions much more rewarding. Again, I'll leave it to the audience to decide for themselves what that says about you.
     

  87. #487  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    However, you will have to find someone else for whatever thrill find in that sort of thing. Find something you disagree with Q on.

    I'm sure we'll probably get around to that. One thing is certain, though, I won't be getting MY panties twisted in a knot over it.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  88. #488  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    Of course, which is why moderators that personalize conflict tend to worry me. Especially when they demonstrate that objectively debating the topic they're supposed to be moderating is a challenge for them.
    I have no interest in your kind of "debate". It is certainly not what I would call challenging. I would use a very different adjective. But to each his own. However, you will have to find someone else for whatever thrill find in that sort of thing. Find something you disagree with Q on. He seems to like your sort of sport, though perhaps he can provide you with the some herd comfort if that is what you want. Q definitely seems into that as well.
    I always find it really interesting how people become accused of enjoying such things as 'herd mentality' for their (almost) singular and (certainly) courageous efforts to step outside the millenniums olde, planet dominating - largest herd of them all; fondly known as 'religion'.

    Yet apparently the vast majority of us - those who drowsily remain in a state of a constant stupor to indoctrination, well inside this world-consuming herd; must yet be grazing the hillside 'free' of all similar encumbrances.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
     

  89. #489  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    I always find it really interesting how people become accused of enjoying such things as 'herd mentality' for their (almost) singular and (certainly) courageous efforts to step outside the millenniums old world controlling - largest herd of them all; fondly known as religion.
    LOL LOL LOL LOL

    Religion is the biggest and best example of herd mentality and yet they supposedly use this argument? You make me laugh. It is true that in the earliest stages of a religion, it quite often that they offer an alternative to the suffocating banality of a society and culture whose creativity has dried up, leaving life empty of meaning and joy. But it is not long before the innovation becomes the institution and people are back where they started.

    But as we have recently observed -- my having mentioned it and everyone else being quick as lightning to agree, that atheism is no cure for the irrationality of man. But likewise it most certainly is NOT the cure to other ills like this pervasive habit that people have of hiding in a crowd to justify themselves with numbers. LOL

    This is the very habit of ideology, that each of these groups advertise that they are the truth keepers and the solution to the ills of the world and therefore in the evangelical fervor of their solicitation, they try to pretend not to see how they do exactly the same things. They don't want to accept the truth that it is human nature that is the problem and not the fact that people don't have their "wonderful truth"! LOL

    So....? What do you think? When we see one religion or group harping on these irrationalities and herd like behavior of another, shall we not expose their hypocrisy when they do exactly the same things themselves?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  90. #490  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    This is the very habit of ideology, that each of these groups advertise that they are the truth keepers and the solution to the ills of the world and therefore in the evangelical fervor of their solicitation, they try to pretend not to see how they do exactly the same things.
    Ideology is based on dogma. What is unfortunate is that for some strange reason (perhaps bias or stubbornness) you refuse to acknowledge the your argument ("lack of dogma is dogma") is bereft of logic.

    I've only been here a few days, but I've already noticed that you continue to trot out this tired argument after it's been shown to be fallacious. I really don't know what you hope to gain by continuously putting yourself out this way.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    They don't want to accept the truth that it is human nature that is the problem and not the fact that people don't have their "wonderful truth"! LOL
    Which part of "human nature"? Also, does your "wonderful truth" extend to your own ideology? If so, then doesn't it have the same problem that you profess all others have? Or is this an argument from special pleading?

    Anyone want to wager that all of these questions are ignored?

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    So....? What do you think? When we see one religion or group harping on these irrationalities and herd like behavior of another, shall we not expose their hypocrisy when they do exactly the same things themselves?
    Indeed! Anything posted in a public forum is open for criticism!

    Will you stick around to defend your arguments if they are shown to be inadequate though? Will you concede if it is shown that your criticisms are fallacious or misguided? If not then you are only here to preach and to preach while mocking preachers would make you a hypocrite.
     

  91. #491  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    I always find it really interesting how people become accused of enjoying such things as 'herd mentality' for their (almost) singular and (certainly) courageous efforts to step outside the millenniums old world controlling - largest herd of them all; fondly known as religion.
    LOL LOL LOL LOL

    Religion is the biggest and best example of herd mentality and yet they supposedly use this argument? You make me laugh.
    Ummmm ........ When you manage to ease up on that merriment a little, you might recall it was apparently yourself who (previously) employed this very argument - in particular, about Q.

    On the other hand, I would certainly agree with you that all religions are profoundly hypocritical AND employ 'herd behaviour', likewise all religionists a 'herd mentality', Yet I would argue that their primary issue has never been between each other, for they all fundamentally belong in their private sector of the very same paddock.

    Indeed, their main concern is anyone who courageously steps outside the impound confines, to discover that there is a bigger and far more vital world - out there!
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
     

  92. #492  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Ummmm ........ When you manage to ease up on that merriment a little, you might recall it was apparently yourself who (previously) employed this very argument - in particular, about Q.
    That is correct. But it has absolutely NOTHING to do with him being an atheist. When the last fundie creationist was here, Q was his best friend. But for all that they disagreed their mentalities were startlingly similar. I was quite amused at the time because the similarity to the start of world war 2 with a non-agression pact between Hitler and Stalin. It was classic. The one thing that they could agree on was that the diversity of human thought could not be tolerated. Those who oppose their "vital truth" have to be stopped, and if you are not with them then you are against them. This is the poison of ideology.


    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Indeed, their main concern is anyone who courageously steps outside the impound confines, to discover that there is a bigger and far more vital world - out there!
    Yes indeed! But the irony is that most of these relgions themselves started out by rebeling against the establish order of society and its ideas. New religious groups are constantly starting with the same motivation. But if someone is really clever, they can step out of this endlessly cyclical process and observe the pattern and try to understand how such revolutionary groups are transformed into the institutions that oppose change and innovation.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  93. #493  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Indeed, their main concern is anyone who courageously steps outside the impound confines, to discover that there is a bigger and far more vital world - out there!
    Yes indeed! But the irony is that most of these relgions themselves started out by rebeling against the establish order of society and its ideas. New religious groups are constantly starting with the same motivation. But if someone is really clever, they can step out of this endlessly cyclical process and observe the pattern and try to understand how such revolutionary groups are transformed into the institutions that oppose change and innovation.
    The problem for all religions, is that as soon as a few (escaped to freedom) people begin to band together according their herd mentality 'safety in numbers', a set of standards seems to be required to maintain some semblance of uniform policy to which 'we all agree/adhere'.

    This becomes the basis of a newish-version set of indoctrinations, and the price each participant subsequently pays is his recently acquired freedom - for they have immediately returned (via a new edition) to the very same catholic paddock which embraces all the other religious herds - including the one/s from which they originally absconded.

    This is the greatest irony of all, and is also become their greatest problem; for each herd employs an underlying suspicion, and yes - hatred for each other - for religion is so spiritual!
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
     

  94. #494  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    [The problem for all religions, is that as soon as a few (escaped to freedom) people begin to band together according their herd mentality 'safety in numbers', a set of standards seems to be required to maintain some semblance of uniform policy to which 'we all agree/adhere'.

    This becomes the basis of a newish-version set of indoctrinations, and the price each participant subsequently pays is his recently acquired freedom - for they have immediately returned (via a new edition) to the very same catholic paddock which embraces all the other religious herds - including the one/s from which they originally absconded.

    This is the greatest irony of all, and is also become their greatest problem; for each herd employs an underlying suspicion, and yes - hatred for each other - for religion is so spiritual!
    Yep. But none of this has anything to do with religious beliefs. Its social dynamics. Therefore the beliefs of religion are irrelevant to this kind of behavior, and that is why as atheism becomes more popular we see exactly this same kind of behavior among atheists. Not all atheists, of course, but it never was the behavior of all theists either.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  95. #495  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Yep. But none of this has anything to do with religious beliefs. Its social dynamics. Therefore the beliefs of religion are irrelevant to this kind of behavior, and that is why as atheism becomes more popular we see exactly this same kind of behavior among atheists. Not all atheists, of course, but it never was the behavior of all theists either.
    It has everything to do with human nature which must include the religious beliefs that human nature has absorbed over the past 2000+ years. In this regard, religion certainly majors in fear.

    For instance; no human being is born with an inbuilt fear of rejection. Such is generated through various disappointments and loss throughout his life, so he generally develops a sense of need to belong within a 'herd' where he is accepted and (he reasons) loved - by far the most prolific being according some version of competing religious indoctrination.

    It is true that the religious beliefs under this scenario are basically immaterial, yet the same engineering of the nature is evident wherever you care to look - for no matter what brand religion may operate under, it invariably taps into precisely the same generated human weaknesses - of fear.

    Another of these awakening weaknesses has to do with a second great fear - impending death.

    Sir, I am yet to see any mass athiestic indoctrination (if one is emerging), which majors in fear in quite the same way religion has found so successful.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
     

  96. #496  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Sir, I am yet to see any mass athiestic indoctrination (if one is emerging), which majors in fear in quite the same way religion has found so successful.
    Its a "no true Scottsman" thing. The religious will claim that "religion" based on fear isn't really relgion or isn't whatever they call themselves, for sometimes they say religion is about fear and legalism but what they are doing isn't religion (Christians say that a lot). Meanwhile the atheists will deny that any atheists or atheist groups that do the same thing, are really atheists. From my perspective, communism is an atheist ideology and with Mao's "religion is a disease" refrain I find it rather difficult to see any significant difference from the rhetoric of a lot of the atheists here in this forum. But of course they will all say, but that isn't really atheism, so of course all those re-education camps and teaching kids to turn in their parents cannot be called an example of atheist indoctrination,.... blah blah blah....
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  97. #497  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    That is correct. But it has absolutely NOTHING to do with him being an atheist. When the last fundie creationist was here, Q was his best friend.
    Often, I find theists lie to support their claims, but I didn't expect it from you, Mitch.

    But for all that they disagreed their mentalities were startlingly similar. I was quite amused at the time because the similarity to the start of world war 2 with a non-agression pact between Hitler and Stalin. It was classic. The one thing that they could agree on was that the diversity of human thought could not be tolerated. Those who oppose their "vital truth" have to be stopped, and if you are not with them then you are against them. This is the poison of ideology.
    It could be that Mitch is completely delusional and is not lying, and it would be to his integrity and intellectual honesty why we would seek such clarification.

    What Mitch is referring to is the fact that he cherry picks his beliefs in and around Christianity, which I have labeled "Mitchianity." For some reason or other, he will quote the bible when it suits his agenda, and "LOL's" when other quotes are brought forth to him for comment, claiming this is the "Modern" form of Christianity, whatever that's supposed to be. So, it remains unknown, how he went from Christianity to Mitchianity in one fell swoop.

    The only way Mitch has been able to get out of this corner, or so he imagines, is to throw it back at me claiming I'm a fundamentalist. Silly in the extreme, of course, but again, we look towards Mitch's integrity and intellectual honesty here for some clarification.

    None has been forthcoming.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •