Page 22 of 105 [ 1680 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 ... 105  Next

Andrejake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 544
Location: Brasil

12 Feb 2015, 8:44 am

Oh, I see. Thank you.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

12 Feb 2015, 4:30 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
When you're "bang on the money" about something, it means you are "right on target"--meaning that you have a perfect understanding of something.


Ok put like that I think I need to rephrase, more accurately I would say I think I have enough of an understanding of your beliefs that I get what you are saying.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

12 Feb 2015, 4:34 pm

What is your idea of God is the question. If you think of Creation as God then yeah, the proof is all over. if you think of God as some giant man sitting somewhere watching all humans and that he created them special for his amusement, then no, He most likely is a figment of imagination.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

12 Feb 2015, 4:55 pm

This nature as God idea always has me a bit baffled. Do you think nature has direction and purpose and is therefore somehow sentient?


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

12 Feb 2015, 5:54 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
This nature as God idea always has me a bit baffled. Do you think nature has direction and purpose and is therefore somehow sentient?

It's obvious God is intended as a creative force. The idea he is also a moral one is more of a literary device.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

13 Feb 2015, 4:18 am

Narrator wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
Narrator wrote:
haha! and the same unproved assumptions, about us and about his cosmos.
David, you needn't rewrite every post. Just copy and paste from your previous ones. It's just as effective.
Just as ineffective.

An assessment or judgement of someone's lack of reason or integrity is not the same as hard-selling some superstitious ideology with nonscience assumptions.

Except that I can prove your assumptions wrong. You have made many wrong assumptions about what I believe - first cause being just one of them.So what lacks integrity are your accusations. Each of the above is an untrue assumption. And while you insist on seeing me incorrectly, that will colour your every response to me. Very subjective and badly prejudiced. If you decide to ask me what I think and feel, then maybe you'll show some integrity. Until then, all you're doing is painting me falsely and have refused to back away from that. How can someone who claims to love science hold onto such a prejudiced view? No integrity there :roll:
As I said before; my assessments of your integrity are not nonscience assumptions to prop up a demonstrably absurd ideology.

I cannot ignore the elephant (that nothing turns itself into everything) in your room (religious Materialism) just because you do not directly acknowledge it. If you want to "prove" that there is no elephant you'll need to supply some evidence that nothing can, does, did, turn into everything; or, at least, stop spouting an ideology that implies, infers, assumes, the elephant.

If you think you require my permission to say what you think and feel I will indulge you; the way is clear, I will not interfere with your keyboard... tell us what you think and feel.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

13 Feb 2015, 4:30 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
This nature as God idea always has me a bit baffled. Do you think nature has direction and purpose and is therefore somehow sentient?
The Nature as God idea is absurd because Nature is only Things behaving in an orderly, "natural" way. No Things = nothing to order, therefore no Nature. Nature cannot precede itself in order to create itself.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,269

13 Feb 2015, 10:52 am

Oldavid wrote:
Narrator wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
Narrator wrote:
haha! and the same unproved assumptions, about us and about his cosmos.
David, you needn't rewrite every post. Just copy and paste from your previous ones. It's just as effective.
Just as ineffective.

An assessment or judgement of someone's lack of reason or integrity is not the same as hard-selling some superstitious ideology with nonscience assumptions.

Except that I can prove your assumptions wrong. You have made many wrong assumptions about what I believe - first cause being just one of them.So what lacks integrity are your accusations. Each of the above is an untrue assumption. And while you insist on seeing me incorrectly, that will colour your every response to me. Very subjective and badly prejudiced. If you decide to ask me what I think and feel, then maybe you'll show some integrity. Until then, all you're doing is painting me falsely and have refused to back away from that. How can someone who claims to love science hold onto such a prejudiced view? No integrity there :roll:
As I said before; my assessments of your integrity are not nonscience assumptions to prop up a demonstrably absurd ideology.

I cannot ignore the elephant (that nothing turns itself into everything) in your room (religious Materialism) just because you do not directly acknowledge it. If you want to "prove" that there is no elephant you'll need to supply some evidence that nothing can, does, did, turn into everything; or, at least, stop spouting an ideology that implies, infers, assumes, the elephant.

If you think you require my permission to say what you think and feel I will indulge you; the way is clear, I will not interfere with your keyboard... tell us what you think and feel.


And yes, the Elephant CAN BE GOD, YNOT, and NOTHING TOO.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,269

13 Feb 2015, 11:29 am

Oldavid wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
This nature as God idea always has me a bit baffled. Do you think nature has direction and purpose and is therefore somehow sentient?
The Nature as God idea is absurd because Nature is only Things behaving in an orderly, "natural" way. No Things = nothing to order, therefore no Nature. Nature cannot precede itself in order to create itself.


AND NOW YOU ARE thinking like a human with school, rather than an 'Elephant'.

I suggest you try 'Elephant', 'tHEy' have better, OVERALL, 'USED' genetic memory.

OR am I thinking like a human describing an elephant in stating that....

Here's the thing, all human beings have A GREATER POTENTIAL TO CONNECT GREATER TO THEIR SUB-CONSCIOus AND GENETIC MEMORY.

IN THAT genetic memory are stored the 'memories' of the Universe aka GOD, which includes MOST everything significant about the Universe, including how it COMES TO BE, P/E/R WHATEVER HAPPENED THAT IS BEYOND HUMAN COGNITIVE ABILITIES TO put that in words, or math, as of yet.

And to be clear, a very small percentage of that language of genetic memory is verbal OR MATH oriented.

So considering the ELEPHANT THAT IS GOD, AS METAPHOR PLEASE, HAS a really good memory expressed by humans who open up their minds in mind and body balance to become mindfully aware of more of potential human consciousness per subconscious potential is to simply BE A HUMAN PROPHET, anointed, messiah, or frigging whatever the abstract words constructed are used to DESCRIBE THAT, whether it IS folks of old, or that Lady who creates the Harry Potter books who IS extremely depressed and suicidal, IN MIDLIFE, motivating a journey, FROM DARKNESS, within, TO escape ILLUSIONS OF ABSTRACT HUMAN CULTURE THAT BRINGS A HUMAN EXPLOSION OF IMAGINATION AND CREATIVITY in words from within....IN HUMAN LIGHT!

YEAH, so if Adam, EVE, Noah, Confucius, Buddha, Muhammad and Jesus live today, maybe they will wrote THOSE HARRY POTTER BOOKS, INSTEAD, of what they did THEN.

OR create the Star Wars 'Seventology' in Written WAY or Stephen Lucas Movie way.

OK, now that we have THAT OUT OF THE WAY..

ON to some of the other metaphors of Universal truth, in that fictional fairytale the bible that houses UNIVERSAL TRUTH, THROUGH THE VEHICLES AND VESSELS OF METAPHOR.

YES, LIKE THE MYTHOLOGICAL SOLDIER GOD JESUS SAYS, IN CONSTANTINE AND EARLY Catholic Cohort twisting of the NT, to make him a soldier GOD, so Constantine CAN RIDE ON THE COAT-TAILS OF that and ERECT A MEGALITHIC SUN GOD STATUE OF HIMSELF, there ARE metaphorical sentiments that remain in the NT, CAUSE psychopathic leaning folks who literally think in concrete ways, CANNOT UNDERSTAND the 'SECRETS' OF METAPHORS WITH half of their emotional brain closed OFF TO A LOT OF THAT.

YES, TASTY LITTLE DEVICES METAPHORS ARE to skip RIGHT over the head of domineering power seeking psychopathic leaning folks, WHO ARE NOT LOVED BY THEIR MAMA WHEN they are little kiddies and DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO FEEL OR GIVE LOVE, TO 'FEEL' UP THEIR 'SOUL', PER POWER AND MATERIAL THINGIES that just go into a bottomless pit, as the wiring for that is Not developed by Video Games, TV and whatever cold ways of parenting exist back in the days OF THAT JESUS DUDE.

PERHAPS Mary carried Jesus on her belly and breasts for the first two years of life, and that is WHAT CREATED 'A SAVIOR OF THE WORLD'.

So yeah, perhaps it is GREAT THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CELEBRATES 'MOTHERS' LIKE THIS, AS THEY ARE THE TRUE CREATORS OF SACRED UNCONDITIONAL LOVE IN CHILDREN.

OK, THAT GETS another metaphor of Universal Truth out of the way, AND IN CLEAR VIEW.

HERE'S ANOTHER.

ANIMALS DON'T GO TO THE DOCTORS OUT IN THE WILD, do they.

They don't go to school, with books, do they.

They come equipped to heal themselves and fend for themselves in the wild to survive in the wild, with social cooperation, in synergy, with other social animals.

Back in them days of New Testament Lore, when the Old T is in DEMAND, people start to rely on a FRIGGING BOOK FOR SURVIVAL, RATHER THAN LOOKING WITHIN FOR HEALING AND SURVIVAL, in even ways as simple as defending themselves and SCREWING WHOMEVER THEY LIKE, PER INSTINCTUALLY FEELING LIKE 'DOING', conSENsuAlly as sUCH...

SO JESUS comes along, spends 40 days out in the desert, away from the culture of that time, and looks within and CONNECTS TO HIS GENETIC MEMORY, ALSO KNOWN AS ANIMAL INSTINCT AND INTUITION.

AND THEN HE EXCLAIMS, OH MY GOD! this is so FRIGGING SIMPLE, I ALREADY HAVE THE ANSWERS WITHIN, THEY AIN'T ALL IN NO frigging cultural bible book to RULE MY LIFE!

AND that's sort of what happened to THE AUTHOR OF THE HARRY POTTER BOOKS.

SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS, my friend of the OLDavid ways of thinking, THE NEWDAVID WAYS OF THINKING ARE HERE.

JOIN IN, AND JUST DO IT TOO..

OR STAY BACK..

IN THE

OLDEN DAYS.. OF DAVID THEN.

I ALREADY FIND MY MODERN SLINGSHOT, TO SLAY THE GIANT OF RELIGION, like Jesus did too.

HOW ABOUT YOU......

Perhaps a trip to the DESERT, WILL HELP. ;)

Or, STAY 'WERE' YOU ARE, AND stagnate, or whatever you WILL TO DO, WITH RELATIVE HUMAN FREE WILL OR NOT.

GOD IS NOW AND THAT IS ALL ThERE IS TO IT.

IT'S SO SIMPLE, IT'S SCARY TO MOST FOLKS.

BUT WHAT A GIFT 'THE GOD OF ELEPHANT' PROVIDES PER OUR GENETIC MEMORIES, TO SURVIVE, AND BE HAPPY TOO.....

'i' 'JUST' 'DO' 'IT'.

'THAT' 'IS' 'ALL' i Need to DO.

'JUST DO GOD.'

THAT'S REALLY WHAT 'NIKE' MEANS.....


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,269

13 Feb 2015, 12:14 pm

Ah.. dam restrictive editing thingy..

ForGET 'my' musciK video to better illustrate IN THE ART OF GOD..

THAT SLINGSHOT THINGY i AM talking about.....

And here IT IS..

IN Centuries....

past and present @

HERE.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

13 Feb 2015, 12:47 pm

I seem to pop into the forum about once a year - curiosity, I guess. Hoping things will have changed? Helpful hint - no clear evidence for change spotted in this groundhog's environment.

Just for the record - I have no evidence I exist. Cogito - ergo I THINK I am, said the Little Engine that [maybe] Was.

Postulate - if as often suggested A cannot create A, but only A -x - something less, how does A-x prove A exists? My computer may guess there in a User, but can hardly prove it.

Fact of life - which we simply have to put up with, whether Theists or Atheists, Gnostics or Agnostics [and I DO know what I am doing with parallelism] - you cannot by most standrards of proof prove God or gods - which by most accepted standrards of proof does not DISPROVE God or gods.

So, Brother Pascal, we live with it until all bets are off.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,269

13 Feb 2015, 1:45 pm

Philologos wrote:
I seem to pop into the forum about once a year - curiosity, I guess. Hoping things will have changed? Helpful hint - no clear evidence for change spotted in this groundhog's environment.

Just for the record - I have no evidence I exist. Cogito - ergo I THINK I am, said the Little Engine that [maybe] Was.

Postulate - if as often suggested A cannot create A, but only A -x - something less, how does A-x prove A exists? My computer may guess there in a User, but can hardly prove it.

Fact of life - which we simply have to put up with, whether Theists or Atheists, Gnostics or Agnostics [and I DO know what I am doing with parallelism] - you cannot by most standrards of proof prove God or gods - which by most accepted standrards of proof does not DISPROVE God or gods.

So, Brother Pascal, we live with it until all bets are off.


Proving reality exists is a waste of to me...

But never the less, welcome back for a moment of now..;)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

16 Feb 2015, 8:07 am

Philologos wrote:
Just for the record - I have no evidence I exist. Cogito - ergo I THINK I am, said the Little Engine that [maybe] Was.
It would have to get around to this depth of absurdity... although there is more.

However, I can prove that you think you exist by just punching your (maybe) non-existent self in the nose. The things you crack-pots come up with is beyond belief. I wouldn't believe that a human intellect could be so insanely degraded if I hadn't seen so many instances of it.

I will contend that an uncaused First Cause is a logical necessity.

Although I know full well that falsifying one option does not "prove" an alternative, but it does remove the falsified option from the list of possibilities.

The only instance of a "Klein Bottle" is a Materialist with his head in his own arse.

No. You cannot rely on me to jump on socially, politically "correct" band wagons. I will develop this aversion to fashionable stupidity as time permits.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 72,286
Location: Queens, NYC

16 Feb 2015, 9:00 am

C'mon David......too early in the morning for this. How are the wife and kiddies?



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

16 Feb 2015, 11:20 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
C'mon David......too early in the morning for this. How are the wife and kiddies?
The wife is as grumpy as all-get-out and the kiddies are feasting on nonsense. Perfectly usual!



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,100
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

16 Feb 2015, 11:52 am

Oldavid wrote:
Philologos wrote:
Just for the record - I have no evidence I exist. Cogito - ergo I THINK I am, said the Little Engine that [maybe] Was.
It would have to get around to this depth of absurdity... although there is more.

However, I can prove that you think you exist by just punching your (maybe) non-existent self in the nose. The things you crack-pots come up with is beyond belief. I wouldn't believe that a human intellect could be so insanely degraded if I hadn't seen so many instances of it.

I will contend that an uncaused First Cause is a logical necessity.

If your worldview includes the existence of God, then, yes, you're absolutely right. But you cannot assume that every worldview allows for God to exist. My opinion on this is less that people don't know God exists and more people don't want God to exist--wishful thinking. But regardless, put yourself in their shoes. If your worldview is founded on the precept of God's non-existence, then logically, NO, an uncaused cause is NOT a logical necessity. The reason why it's not a logical necessity is that there are documented, peer-reviewed hypotheses that suggest that the universe or Big Bang weren't actually preceded by a singularity. Without a singularity, it is difficult to say that the universe ever began to exist. The cosmological argument in part depends on the Big Bang and the necessity for a First Cause. There are other questions, of course, such as whether the First Cause is personal or impersonal. But none of that matters if you can't firmly establish the fact of origins theories in the first place.

I'm not a well-educated scientist…I have a master's degree in music composition, so any string theory that doesn't apply to violins, brane theory that doesn't apply to drums, and wave theory that doesn't involve filtered saw/triangle/pulse waves or sine waves ordered by harmonic ratios is mostly lost on me. What little bit I've picked up here and there, though, does seem to point to a beginning of some sort. As to the exact nature of that beginning, well, we can't empirically know that with any real certainty. The kinds of people you're arguing against here really, REALLY don't like using the F-word to describe it, but it's nothing more than what we believers possess. If we're being completely intellectually honest, F**** in God is as practically good as F**** in anything else. Perhaps you have no chance at all of actually moving the needle in this discussion--but you lack even the HOPE of moving that needle if you fail to understand that much.

One of the first things I did when I started posting faith-based responses was I refused to mock opposing viewpoints. Disagree, yes. Support and defend my own ideas, yes. Attack and belittle others, NO. And I didn't tolerate my opponents treating me that way, either. It took a long time. I learned who to dialogue with and who to pretend didn't exist. I learned to tell the difference between someone opposing my ideology and someone who was abusing me--and I WAS abused by at least two users. A lot of "those" atheists and agnostics either left WP or were banned. I don't entirely agree with how some of that was handled, but, at any rate, PPR is much friendlier than it used to be without devolving into an echo chamber.

I think, while we want to watch out for "those" atheists or anti-theists, we should be even more vigilant that we don't become "THOSE" Christians, either. I stand by the Bible and by my faith in Christ. I won't deny in the slightest how I feel on certain moral and political issues. I won't budge one bit on the evangelical message that all should repent and be saved. But I also know you can't fight hatred with hatred. No apology built on hateful mockery can stand. If you want a meaningful discussion, you should start by encouraging positive responses to positive challenges. All you're going to get for mocking another POV is mockery in return.

Dent and I have been there. I don't get the impression he feels any seething hatred towards me, even if he does feel that way about what I believe. I often don't respond, not for lack of will, but for lack of time, and the kinds of challenges I get from Dent go a lot deeper than what I'm usually prepared for. I don't doubt what I already know to be true. But good responses are going to require a lot more digging and a lot more study. I DON'T try to mock or belittle Dent. We throw the old saws back and forth, we both trot out the classic arguments/counterarguments, but he strikes me as more than reasonably intelligent. So I think we've managed to avoid a lot of the amateurish, trollish behaviors that others have exhibited.

I firmly believe we need more people of faith in here. You're more useful here than not. I'd rather focus on longevity than asserting my own correctness through belittling others. Trust me on this…I've had "official" warnings called on me for less than that. Please, PLEASE adjust your tactics to be more consistent with your faith.