18 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…when in fact it was through their own volition that they jumped not because i pushed them!
oh number one, my learned friend, that is not what happened! It is not a case of i pushing you from the building, but you choosing to jump, for you have free will, i cannot force you not to jump nor do i push you, but only warn you of the consequences of your own action, thus the error remains your own, and as time goes on, millions of people jump an ...[text shortened]... ump! when in fact it was through their own volition that they jumped not because i pushed them!
. .…
In the context of this analogy, that is a totally misleading statement! :
Using this analogy, their own volition may have led them to do things that resulted in them “jumping” BUT, and this is the critical point here, they didn’t decide nor want to ever jump!
-that is because they didn’t know that exercising their own volition in the way they did was synonymous with “jumping”!!! And you (which in this analogy represents the Christian “God&rdquo😉 set them this trap for them to fall into by not giving them proof of your existence nor any rational reason to believe you exist thus giving them no good reason to take any of you warnings seriously because, through no fault of their own, (unless using their own reason that you supposedly gave them is “their fault“!!!) they just think you are just fictitious.
In this analogy, you may not have pushed them to jump directly with your own hands but you made a pit full of crocodiles and covered it with reads with your own hands so that they will not see the pit and will fall in -so you indirectly pushed them in with your own hands! -might as well have done it directly and avoided this silly mind game.
18 Jan 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonactually my dear sir, the knowledge and principles which would have saved them from such a perilous course are well established, easily discernible, translated into every major language, available to 95% percent of the population of the entire earth, in the form of a book, which you have never taken the care to read. is it not astounding that you have never taken the time to read and understand the most widely published book in the history of mankind, for to me, it is a phenomena that you have not done so.
[b]…when in fact it was through their own volition that they jumped not because i pushed them!
. .…
In the context of this analogy, that is a totally misleading statement! :
Using this analogy, their own volition may have led them to do things that resulted in them “jumping” BUT, and this is the critical point here, they didn’t decide nor ...[text shortened]... m in with your own hands! -might as well have done it directly and avoided this silly mind game.[/b]
we play the flute for you Mr. Hamilton, but you want us to dance as well!
18 Jan 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe neat thing about josephw's theory is that you can't disprove it. Whatever you say will be declared a strategy to stifle that alleged voice telling us about God's existence. If you think that you don't know there is a god, it's because you suppress that knowledge. Josephw knows you much better than you do yourself; he knows what you know so deep down that you don't know you know it. He reminds me of some psychoanalysts who believe to know better than their patients or students what's going on in their (the patients' or students'😉 minds. And if their own ideas or beliefs are challenged, they see it as transference, something that doesn't really have anything to do with them, because of course they can't be wrong. Great strategy!
Atheists don’t believe there is a god by definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist
Therefore, if “atheists” think they “know” there is a god, then, therefore, they are not atheists and atheists don’t exist 😛
But I am an atheist and I do exist and I do not think nor claim that I “know” there is a god and neither does any other atheist -therefore atheists exist and they do NOT “know“ that there is a god -live with it!
18 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…actually my dear sir, the knowledge and principles which would have saved them from such a perilous course are well established, easily discernible, translated into every major language, available to 95% percent of the population of the entire earth, in the form of a book,
actually my dear sir, the knowledge and principles which would have saved them from such a perilous course are well established, easily discernible, translated into every major language, available to 95% percent of the population of the entire earth, in the form of a book, which you have never taken the care to read. is it not astounding that you ha ...[text shortened]... u have not done so.
we play the flute for you Mr. Hamilton, but you want us to dance as well!
. .…
Is it “well established” and “easily discernible” that what is written in this book is all true? -answer -no.
-and that is implicitly part of my point (and no1marauder’s analogy which you just don't get)
18 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by NordlysYes 🙂
The neat thing about josephw's theory is that you can't disprove it. Whatever you say will be declared a strategy to stifle that alleged voice telling us about God's existence. If you think that you don't know there is a god, it's because you suppress that knowledge. Josephw knows you much better than you do yourself; he knows what you know so deep down that ything to do with them, because of course they can't be wrong. Great strategy!
-it also shows great arrogance -I certainly don’t even come close to fool myself into thinking that I have such superior and astonishingly greater intellect than other minds that I miraculously “know” much better than they do themselves what they think that they don't know but do in fact know!!! 🙄
18 Jan 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonoh dear Mr Hamilton, you really are bordering on fantasy, for the principles themselves have been established and documented for almost 2000 years, and yet you remain oblivious to them! how do you know if they are true or otherwise, after never having considered them, its incredulous!
[b]…actually my dear sir, the knowledge and principles which would have saved them from such a perilous course are well established, easily discernible, translated into every major language, available to 95% percent of the population of the entire earth, in the form of a book,
. .…
Is it “well established” and “easily discernible” that what ...[text shortened]...
-and that is implicitly part of my point (and no1marauder’s analogy which you just don't get)[/b]
18 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI notice you failed to mention Jericho which was besieged, so that the Israelites could have easily passed by it.
so now you are able to tell what i have and have not read, do you also do the lottery, may be worth while making use of your skills of divination.
for the record, God does not arbitrarily destroy anyone, quite the contrary, he reasoned with Abraham concerning the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, let me state that again, God the creator of the un iven!
those who were killed by the sword or divine intervention brought it upon themselves!
Also, I guess it's senseless to point out to someone as brainwashed as you that it is not a sufficient reason to kill someone that they will not allow you to trespass on their property.
As for the Midianites, I was referring to the massacre of every male, including children and every non-virgin female in Numbers 31. The reason for that vicious slaughter is given in Numbers 25; apparently that was because some Israelites had had sex with Midianite women and your all-powerful God got worried that the Israelites might stop worshipping him because of the feminine "wiles" of these women (so much for the "free will" BS). So, he ordered the Israelites to massacre everybody but the virgin females in his Holy mercy.
18 Jan 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI think that he makes a perfectly valid point, for quite clearly we have a spiritual side, atheist may dispute this, but its generally accepted that as humans we have a spiritual side, after all every culture in the entire history of humanity has a sense of spirituality, whether of making sense of their environment as beetle suggests or of actual objective truth. we have a conscience, a sense of justice, the ability to reason and apply knowledge, we thrive on love and appreciation etc etc. for some its just too wonderful and phenomenal to evaluate these attributes as cognitive processes, or too constantly attempt to rationalize them in human terms, life is too beautiful and staggering in its intensity, not too mention too short, therefore if these things really exist, they are not satisfactorily explained away be the evolutionary hypothesis, the only alternative left is too conclude that they are divine in essence and that those who deny this, merely suppress this reality. that is not arrogance, nor has it been refuted!
Yes 🙂
-it also shows great arrogance -I certainly don’t even come close to fool myself into thinking that I have such superior and astonishingly greater intellect than other minds that I miraculously “know” much better than they do themselves what they think that they don't know but do in fact know!!! 🙄
18 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHave you read the Joyce book I mentioned that gives a plausible evolutionary account of many descriptive facts concerning human moral faculty that you keep insisting (on the basis of no evidence) cannot be explained by any plausible evolutionary account? Of course you haven't because you have no genuine interest in exploring this topic. Of course you haven't because you are intellectually lazy and disingenuous.
I think that he makes a perfectly valid point, for quite clearly we have a spiritual side, atheist may dispute this, but its generally accepted that as humans we have a spiritual side, after all every culture in the entire history of humanity has a sense of spirituality, whether of making sense of their environment as beetle suggests or of actual obj ...[text shortened]... se who deny this, merely suppress this reality. that is not arrogance, nor has it been refuted!
18 Jan 09
Originally posted by NordlysYep.
The neat thing about josephw's theory is that you can't disprove it. Whatever you say will be declared a strategy to stifle that alleged voice telling us about God's existence. If you think that you don't know there is a god, it's because you suppress that knowledge. Josephw knows you much better than you do yourself; he knows what you know so deep down that ...[text shortened]... ything to do with them, because of course they can't be wrong. Great strategy!
18 Jan 09
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you admit that there was grounds for self defense as in the case of Moab, Midianites, the ammorites and the Cannanites who were after all carrying away and enslaving the Israelites, a small but rather significant admittance! no doubt with further research, the case for Jericho may be well established as well, as it stands these nations were openly hostile, committed acts of war on their brothers, after failing to give simple hospitality, a matter of life an death itself in the east, no quarter was given even after the petition was made to pay for simple provisions, therefore what they measured out was measured out to them in return! nor can you reason away these facts in an attempt to belittle the actions of those hostile nations with frivolous attempts at minimizing their own actions!
I notice you failed to mention Jericho which was besieged, so that the Israelites could have easily passed by it.
Also, I guess it's senseless to point out to someone as brainwashed as you that it is not a sufficient reason to kill someone that they will not allow you to trespass on their property.
18 Jan 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloi remember asking you my friend to quote some verses that you were having trouble with, or in your usual fashion were lambasting, you failed to provide anything that remotely resembled a scrap of scripture, infact there was more scripture on the back of the black spot that long john silver received than you produced, thus i concluded there and then that you are typical hypocrite, the same as Mr. Hamilton, rendering judgment on a book that you have never read, and not just any book, but the most widely circulated book in the entire history of humanity! plus after your usual profanity of language and insults, i concluded, that if that's what comes out of your mouth after taking such enlightening material in, that i did not want to become the same as you, therefore i made a reasoned judgment to desist. i read the articles that you sent, or someone sent from wikipedia, asked you to explain them simply, you were unable, resorted to your usual insults therefore i resolved to have nothing more to do with you, sorry but just because you sit behind the anonymity of a pc does not empower you to say things that you would not ordinarily say to someones face, yes it can be an emotive subject, but it must be done with diplomacy!
Have you read the Joyce book I mentioned that gives a plausible evolutionary account of many descriptive facts concerning human moral faculty that you keep insisting (on the basis of no evidence) cannot be explained by any plausible evolutionary account? Of course you haven't because you have no genuine interest in exploring this topic. Of course you haven't because you are intellectually lazy and disingenuous.
19 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm not having any trouble with your scriptures. I've read them, and they are not relevant toward any scientific project aimed at explicating origins of the human moral faculty. They're just good for shouting "Goddunnit!" on the basis of no argument or evidence. Actually, they're not even "good" for that: they are characteristically metaphorical on this subject, and it's not clear at all how much propositional content they even contain (and this is not to belittle them: they offer meaningful stuff but it is in the realm of metaphorics).
i remember asking you my friend to quote some verses that you were having trouble with, or in your usual fashion were lambasting, you failed to provide anything that remotely resembled a scrap of scripture, infact there was more scripture on the back of the black spot that long john silver received than you produced, thus i concluded there and then t ily say to someones face, yes it can be an emotive subject, but it must be done with diplomacy!
I'm just trying to let others see what a frickin waste of time you are on this subject. You are not actually interested in any sort of sincere discussion on this topic. You're not actually interested in exploring whether it actually is the case that the human moral faculty admits of evolutionary explanations or not. That would actually force you to educate yourself. You would rather bury your head in scripture and stick fast to your outrageously silly caricature of an understanding of natural selection.
I am not familiar with its article, but I doubt wikipedia is a good place to look here. You should check out the book I recommended and others like it. And, basically, you should quit pretending like you have any basis for stating that such things cannot be explained in evolutionary terms if you aren't even willing to educate yourself on the topic and critically assess the body of work thereof that has been put forth.
19 Jan 09
a good book to read on the subject is eternity in their hearts anthropological evidences which builds a strong argument for your position . old Noah and his family numbered eight on board the ark as the story goes.......we wake in the present and find a chinese symbol for a flood as eight people on a boat . And it is these clues which are unalterable by men .
19 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by regosTo whom is this addressed? What position are you claiming the book strongly supports?
a good book to read on the subject is eternity in their hearts anthropological evidences which builds a strong argument for your position . old Noah and his family numbered eight on board the ark as the story goes.......we wake in the present and find a chinese symbol for a flood as eight people on a boat . And it is these clues which are unalterable by men .
I'm not really sure how any of this is relevant to anything here, but if you are interested in parallels between biblical genesiac account and Chinese characters, you could also refer to a book I am reading at the moment:
The Discovery of Genesis: How the Truths of Genesis were Found Hidden in the Chinese Language, by Kang and Nelson (Concordia Publishing House).