Brainteaserfan Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Ok, i apologize, i did indeed misread your statement but the fact remains that theist and deist are not the same thing and fact no Christian by definition can be a deist. Are both of you really trying to assert that your particular take on the mythology of theism is absolute truth and therefore really suitable for being required or even supported by a government that is based on freedom of religion? If you are then there is no more room for discussion, your path leads to an intellectual black hole from which nothing returns. No, many of them claimed to be deists and by definition cannot be Christians. No, I am not saying that a religious government is good (although I believe it is). I am saying however that it is legal according to the US founding documents. Which part of the following leads you to believe that some were not theists? ...there are 204 unique individuals in this group of "Founding Fathers." These are the people who did one or more of the following: - signed the Declaration of Independence - signed the Articles of Confederation - attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787 - signed the Constitution of the United States of America - served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791) - served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an "American Founding Father." But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more. Religious Affiliation of U.S. Founding Fathers -- # of Founding Fathers -- % of Founding Fathers Episcopalian/Anglican -- 88 -- 54.7% Presbyterian-- 30-- 18.6% Congregationalist-- 27-- 16.8% Quaker-- 7 --4.3% Dutch Reformed/German Reformed-- 6 --3.7% Lutheran-- 5-- 3.1% Catholic-- 3-- 1.9% Huguenot --3 --1.9% Unitarian-- 3 --1.9% Methodist-- 2 --1.2% Calvinist-- 1 --0.6% TOTAL-- 204
Moontanman Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Oh horse shit, are we going back to the dueling links again? Can you give me one from a site not affiliated with the promotion of religion and if you do want a religious government I suggest you move to Saudi Arabia, nice little religious government they have going there, of course you could go back to the Christian religious governments the people who came here were so desperate to escape from and get into some good old fashioned killing anyone who doesn't agree with your particular brand of mythology, mmmm roasted witch, sounds good doesn't it? You cannot provide any evidence that your idea of God is anything but mythology because so far you haven't shown any. I would think that by now you would have used your "big gun" to blow me out of the water, you can't do it because there is no evidence for God, none what so ever, NONE! But i can assert rationalism as the prime mover of our civilization and the primary cause you have the right to even discuss what religion you want to believe. Secularism is the very reason you have the right to choose your religion, it's not god's law you can choose your religion, it's man's law, do you really want to go back to the good old days of requiring everyone worship your way and to hell or jail with everyone else, get a damn clue....
zapatos Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Are both of you really trying to assert that your particular take on the mythology of theism is absolute truth and therefore really suitable for being required or even supported by a government that is based on freedom of religion? If you are then there is no more room for discussion, your path leads to an intellectual black hole from which nothing returns. Not me. You had previously made the point that freedom of religion was essentially 'man made' and not 'god made'. I just made the observation, because I thought it interesting, that none of the founding fathers who defined that right for Americans were atheists. I try not to be too subtle because it often leads to misunderstandings. I only meant what I said, nothing more. No, I am not saying that a religious government is good (although I believe it is). I am saying however that it is legal according to the US founding documents. Which part of the following leads you to believe that some were not theists? ... Oh horse shit, are we going back to the dueling links again? Can you give me one from a site not affiliated with the promotion of religion and if you do want a religious government I suggest you move to Saudi Arabia, nice little religious government they have going there, of course you could go back to the Christian religious governments the people who came here were so desperate to escape from and get into some good old fashioned killing anyone who doesn't agree with your particular brand of mythology, mmmm roasted witch, sounds good doesn't it? You cannot provide any evidence that your idea of God is anything but mythology because so far you haven't shown any. I would think that by now you would have used your "big gun" to blow me out of the water, you can't do it because there is no evidence for God, none what so ever, NONE! But i can assert rationalism as the prime mover of our civilization and the primary cause you have the right to even discuss what religion you want to believe. Secularism is the very reason you have the right to choose your religion, it's not god's law you can choose your religion, it's man's law, do you really want to go back to the good old days of requiring everyone worship your way and to hell or jail with everyone else, get a damn clue.... Nicely constructed argument to refute Brainteaserfan's question. Very respectful. I was going to continue in this conversation but I don't want to run the risk of being barked at if I question something you feel so strongly about. I'm out of here. 1
Brainteaserfan Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Oh horse shit, are we going back to the dueling links again? Can you give me one from a site not affiliated with the promotion of religion and if you do want a religious government I suggest you move to Saudi Arabia, nice little religious government they have going there, of course you could go back to the Christian religious governments the people who came here were so desperate to escape from and get into some good old fashioned killing anyone who doesn't agree with your particular brand of mythology, mmmm roasted witch, sounds good doesn't it? You cannot provide any evidence that your idea of God is anything but mythology because so far you haven't shown any. I would think that by now you would have used your "big gun" to blow me out of the water, you can't do it because there is no evidence for God, none what so ever, NONE! But i can assert rationalism as the prime mover of our civilization and the primary cause you have the right to even discuss what religion you want to believe. Secularism is the very reason you have the right to choose your religion, it's not god's law you can choose your religion, it's man's law, do you really want to go back to the good old days of requiring everyone worship your way and to hell or jail with everyone else, get a damn clue.... You can have a religious government that doesn't force people to worship a certain way. Why would a non-Christian site trumpet the fact that most of those mentioned claimed to be Christian? In the sites you posted, they took scripture out of context, and I didn't see any showing percentage polls or anything. In one, it shows the Tripoli document. Certainly, that is some good evidence. However, IMO, the US was simply lying in order to gain the Muslim's favor. When that treaty was later renewed, that article was dropped. ..... Ok now I've done a bit of research. The % of Christian founding fathers is closer to 90%. The Tripoli treaty was signed under Johm Adams, who said that Hell didn't exist, and that a perfect world would have no religion. This link is, (at not to obviously), not biased. http://www.jameswatkins.com/foundingfathers.htm
Moontanman Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Not me. You had previously made the point that freedom of religion was essentially 'man made' and not 'god made'. I just made the observation, because I thought it interesting, that none of the founding fathers who defined that right for Americans were atheists. I try not to be too subtle because it often leads to misunderstandings. I only meant what I said, nothing more. Nicely constructed argument to refute Brainteaserfan's question. Very respectful. I was going to continue in this conversation but I don't want to run the risk of being barked at if I question something you feel so strongly about. I'm out of here. I have apologized for misreading your statement but I will not allow you to use that to assert i am wrong, i have asserted nothing that I cannot back up with evidence, if you feel i have in anyway gottin out of hand I suggest you report me to the moderators, i assure they will be just as quick to shoot me down as they would anyone else, as for brainteaser, leave him to me, he has been just as disrespectful and i will not allow his assertions to go unanswered. sorry i am not as subtle as you or he would prefer, it gets old fast refuting the same old tired crap over and over while your opponent never makes any assertions that can be backed up by anyone but people who have a bias. to assert that any secular information cannot be neutral suggest that secularism is based in the same type of belief that religion is, this is demonstrably wrong can and if not could be easily refuted by you are anyone else but so far I have seen no refutation what so ever, just assertions that mythology stand on the same ground as rationalism, you can claim that until the cows come home but it will never be true by mere assertion. You are welcome to believe in any fairy tales you choose due to secular laws, not any god's laws, if you can refute that feel free to do so or as you say, go outa here, it is sad you cannot refute any of my assertions of secular law or the reason it is so important to us all, from religious to the atheist or anyone who is anywhere in between. I feel very strongly that the religious people of our country need to understand that freedom of religion protects us all from the abuses of religion unleashed. it is easy to show evidence of what happens when religion is allowed to dictate reality, people die, often horribly for simply believing the "wrong" way. Even if I was a devout "religionist" i would be able to see how separation of church and state is important to us all. It truly saddens me to see the very people who are protected by law denouncing that very law. You can have a religious government that doesn't force people to worship a certain way. No you cannot, it might start out that way but it has never ended up that, never ever.... Why would a non-Christian site trumpet the fact that most of those mentioned claimed to be Christian? Umm, just a wild guess here but because it is the truth? is the truth so hard for religious people to understand? rationalists do not deny reality no matter if it agrees with them or not. Religionists on the other hand consistently claim to have the absolute truth but it is never backed up by anything but lies and misinformation and the insistence that bronze age mythology is the absolute truth, religious apologetics is all you ever get from them, it is a fact that the 'Christian religion as we know it has asserted from the very beginning that lying to preserve religion is ok, in fact it is required, any evidence of anything that disagrees with the Christian religion has to be denied. Look it up, i am tired of looking up stuff. i would start with the guy who started the entire protestant movement and go from there, Martin Luther is his i name I think, admirably the catholic church does not (at least anymore) assert dogma over reality but protestants not so much... In the sites you posted, they took scripture out of context, and I didn't see any showing percentage polls or anything. In one, it shows the Tripoli document. Certainly, that is some good evidence. However, IMO, the US was simply lying in order to gain the Muslim's favor. When that treaty was later renewed, that article was dropped. Which Scriptures were taken out of context, please be specific. ..... Ok now I've done a bit of research. The % of Christian founding fathers is closer to 90%. The Tripoli treaty was signed under Johm Adams, who said that Hell didn't exist, and that a perfect world would have no religion. This link is, (at not to obviously), not biased. http://www.jameswatkins.com/foundingfathers.htm Not obviosly biased? Research? There's no way around it: Despite his many great qualities, Thomas Jefferson was as vigorous a critic of traditional Christianity as the Enlightenment ever produced. so Thomas Jefferson was ok except for his critique of Christianity? seriously, not biased, the entire site is biased toward Christianity and the fact is that at that time it was near impossible to live in the US and not at least give lip service to Christianity in some way, if they were so Christian why did they suggest such a strong separation of church and state? if they really believed it why did they geld it? But even if they were indeed devout Christians I can and still have demonstrated very well that our civilization is not based in any religion but our first world civilization is indeed based in rationalism, take that away and we are back to square one, burning witches, hanging catholics or who ever happens to disagree with you and you don't get to feed clothe and heal the billions of people on the earth who need it because the support for those things would never have been invented with out rationalism, secularism is why you can have the debate of which religion you want to take over to begin with....
baric Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Are all discussions of God speculative nonsense? Only if you are unable to define what you mean by "God" in a sensible, non-speculative manner. This seems to be a real problem for many proponents.
Brainteaserfan Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 I have apologized for misreading your statement but I will not allow you to use that to assert i am wrong, i have asserted nothing that I cannot back up with evidence, if you feel i have in anyway gottin out of hand I suggest you report me to the moderators, i assure they will be just as quick to shoot me down as they would anyone else, as for brainteaser, leave him to me, he has been just as disrespectful and i will not allow his assertions to go unanswered. sorry i am not as subtle as you or he would prefer, it gets old fast refuting the same old tired crap over and over while your opponent never makes any assertions that can be backed up by anyone but people who have a bias. to assert that any secular information cannot be neutral suggest that secularism is based in the same type of belief that religion is, this is demonstrably wrong can and if not could be easily refuted by you are anyone else but so far I have seen no refutation what so ever, just assertions that mythology stand on the same ground as rationalism, you can claim that until the cows come home but it will never be true by mere assertion. You are welcome to believe in any fairy tales you choose due to secular laws, not any god's laws, if you can refute that feel free to do so or as you say, go outa here, it is sad you cannot refute any of my assertions of secular law or the reason it is so important to us all, from religious to the atheist or anyone who is anywhere in between. I feel very strongly that the religious people of our country need to understand that freedom of religion protects us all from the abuses of religion unleashed. it is easy to show evidence of what happens when religion is allowed to dictate reality, people die, often horribly for simply believing the "wrong" way. Even if I was a devout "religionist" i would be able to see how separation of church and state is important to us all. It truly saddens me to see the very people who are protected by law denouncing that very law. No you cannot, it might start out that way but it has never ended up that, never ever.... Umm, just a wild guess here but because it is the truth? is the truth so hard for religious people to understand? rationalists do not deny reality no matter if it agrees with them or not. Religionists on the other hand consistently claim to have the absolute truth but it is never backed up by anything but lies and misinformation and the insistence that bronze age mythology is the absolute truth, religious apologetics is all you ever get from them, it is a fact that the 'Christian religion as we know it has asserted from the very beginning that lying to preserve religion is ok, in fact it is required, any evidence of anything that disagrees with the Christian religion has to be denied. Look it up, i am tired of looking up stuff. i would start with the guy who started the entire protestant movement and go from there, Martin Luther is his i name I think, admirably the catholic church does not (at least anymore) assert dogma over reality but protestants not so much... Which Scriptures were taken out of context, please be specific. Not obviosly biased? Research? so Thomas Jefferson was ok except for his critique of Christianity? seriously, not biased, the entire site is biased toward Christianity and the fact is that at that time it was near impossible to live in the US and not at least give lip service to Christianity in some way, if they were so Christian why did they suggest such a strong separation of church and state? if they really believed it why did they geld it? But even if they were indeed devout Christians I can and still have demonstrated very well that our civilization is not based in any religion but our first world civilization is indeed based in rationalism, take that away and we are back to square one, burning witches, hanging catholics or who ever happens to disagree with you and you don't get to feed clothe and heal the billions of people on the earth who need it because the support for those things would never have been invented with out rationalism, secularism is why you can have the debate of which religion you want to take over to begin with.... I think that the f. father's separated church and state was because they were trying to form a democracy that would mold to the beliefs of the majority. As for scripture being taken out of context, well, since the first one I saw was 1 Sam 15:23, I'll use that. On the free thought site it uses part of this verse, quoting, "for rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft". Now maybe that was what God really meant, but I have far more often heard it meaning rebellion against the Lord, because Samuel was talking to Saul, who had sinned. Here is some context. And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king. 24 And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice. As for religious nations failing to promote free belief, has there ever been a Christian democracy? I am very happy with my country, and I understand why many want the separation. I would only want no separation in a country where we all had similar, Christian, beliefs. IMO, we are going in circles now around the main issue and can't seem to agree on the main point, so I am done in this topic. Also, moontanman, although this may have become a little heated, I want to tell you that I'd very much agree with almost every post I've seen you make on this forum, this topic included, ......if I didn't have such strong feelings about Christianity.
Greatest I am Posted June 27, 2011 Author Posted June 27, 2011 Moontanman “So all the evidence you have is your wife confirmed it? Interesting I admit but hardly conformation.” Strange that evidence that any court in the land would accept, you would not. “We live in the first and only civilization based on science” The way I look at society, we and the ancients have used science from day one. In the beginning, how did we learn what to eat and how to act to survive. By observation and trial and error. Rudimentary science and technology for sure. Science never the less. ====================================================== Brainteaserfan “Most Biblical literalists do not disagree with science” Yes they do and the caveat you give shows exactly why. Science is showing what nature and physics are and what laws control them, so to say they believe in it, except for their God being able to breach them, shows clearly that they do not believe in science and physics. Their atoms are held together by God, not natural physical forces. BTW, you clam an experience like mine. It was not. If it was you would be a universalist and not a Christian. Knowing the mind of God, you would know that none are lost. “If you were God, how would you carry out population control? “ To think that a God would not build in all the necessary requirements to his perfect systems shows lack of faith in those system if they have to be continuously tweaked. Does the God you know not get things right the first time around? Do you see us as his make work project. If you look at man within nature, we are doing exactly what our instincts tell us to do. “No, I am not saying that a religious government is good (although I believe it is). Need I say more? ================================================ A Tripolation “...one person is not considered an affirmation by scientific standards. You would have to replicate this, many times, under a controlled, monitored environment.” I agree. This testimony from two people is not trying to confirm a scientific method. The testimony of both of us is more of a proof for law than science. We attest to the reality of an experience, not that we or I can replicate it at will. In fact, since I consider it an assault, and think there may be shields against it if I can use that term, then replication is likely impossible. “Or I would have at least created a perfect world. Not this one plagued with evil.” If you need it, I can link you to where it is shown that the markers for evil, such as slavery and violent crimes, that you hint that the world id full of, are actually the best they have ever been. The world is not basically evil. It is basically good. Only if you are unable to define what you mean by "God" in a sensible, non-speculative manner. This seems to be a real problem for many proponents. Yes. In fact without God ending his hiding phase and stepping up to be questioned about his attributes, we cannot know his attributes. Regards DL
Moontanman Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Moontanman “So all the evidence you have is your wife confirmed it? Interesting I admit but hardly conformation.” Strange that evidence that any court in the land would accept, you would not. Dude, please try to use the quote function, it is confusing to try and sort out what you are saying from what others you are quoting. but to getting back to what you said, can you really think that a court of law would recognize mental telepathy because you and your wife talked to god? I mean really? Most people who would stand up in court saying they hear god end up in psychiatric care, what you are saying is not even hearsay, it is just a totally unsupported claim, it might be true and so might the UFO film in another thread in this forum but I have my doubts... “We live in the first and only civilization based on science” The way I look at society, we and the ancients have used science from day one. Well the way you look at it is wrong, the ancients used trail and error, it does work for simple things but real science is accomplished through the scientific method, once this was established science began to progress at a startling rate. In the beginning, how did we learn what to eat and how to act to survive. By observation and trial and error. Rudimentary science and technology for sure. Science never the less. Nope, not science by any definition of the word dude.... if that is science then so is astrology and alchemy and counting the bumps on your head, not science, just groping in the dark for low hanging fruit... In fact without God ending his hiding phase and stepping up to be questioned about his attributes, we cannot know his attributes. Regards DL I thought he had already reveled himself to you, when can i expect the heavenly phone call? Or are you just special? I think that the f. father's separated church and state was because they were trying to form a democracy that would mold to the beliefs of the majority. As for scripture being taken out of context, well, since the first one I saw was 1 Sam 15:23, I'll use that. On the free thought site it uses part of this verse, quoting, "for rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft". Now maybe that was what God really meant, but I have far more often heard it meaning rebellion against the Lord, because Samuel was talking to Saul, who had sinned. Here is some context. And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king. 24 And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice. As for religious nations failing to promote free belief, has there ever been a Christian democracy? I am very happy with my country, and I understand why many want the separation. I would only want no separation in a country where we all had similar, Christian, beliefs. IMO, we are going in circles now around the main issue and can't seem to agree on the main point, so I am done in this topic. Also, moontanman, although this may have become a little heated, I want to tell you that I'd very much agree with almost every post I've seen you make on this forum, this topic included, ......if I didn't have such strong feelings about Christianity. Ok brainteaserfan, I'd like to discuss this concept of a Christian democracy, we should probably start a new thread so as to not hijack GIA's thread but I would like to understand what you mean by a Christian democracy, lets try to discuss it as accurately. fairly and civilly as possible, are you game? I think that the f. father's separated church and state was because they were trying to form a democracy that would mold to the beliefs of the majority. Or maybe they were trying to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority? As for scripture being taken out of context, well, since the first one I saw was 1 Sam 15:23, I'll use that. On the free thought site it uses part of this verse, quoting, "for rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft". Now maybe that was what God really meant, but I have far more often heard it meaning rebellion against the Lord, because Samuel was talking to Saul, who had sinned. Here is some context. And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king. 24 And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice. I am sorry what has this got to do with anything? I know many witches, very nice people, very family orientated law abiding citizens. Have I missed something here? As for religious nations failing to promote free belief, has there ever been a Christian democracy? I am very happy with my country, and I understand why many want the separation. I would only want no separation in a country where we all had similar, Christian, beliefs. IMO, we are going in circles now around the main issue and can't seem to agree on the main point, so I am done in this topic. Also, moontanman, although this may have become a little heated, I want to tell you that I'd very much agree with almost every post I've seen you make on this forum, this topic included, ......if I didn't have such strong feelings about Christianity. I honestly do not want to dissuade you from your religion but i strongly recommend you read the bible, not in bits an pieces picked out by some pastor trying to make a point but read it, word for word and see what it says, it's the best defense against religion getting out of hand I know if, to really know what it says.
A Tripolation Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Strange that evidence that any court in the land would accept, you would not. It has been shown time and time again (when checked against available cameras and forensics) that eye-witness testimony is the most unreliable form of evidence. The testimony of both of us is more of a proof for law than science. I think you need to learn what "law" means in science. We attest to the reality of an experience, not that we or I can replicate it at will. Then what use is the whole thing? In fact, since I consider it an assault, and think there may be shields against it if I can use that term, then replication is likely impossible. ...what? If you need it, I can link you to where it is shown that the markers for evil, such as slavery and violent crimes, that you hint that the world id full of, are actually the best they have ever been. The world is not basically evil. It is basically good. I tend to agree. But it is still plagued with evil.
Greatest I am Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 Moontanman First. I cannot get the quote function to work for me. Second. I was speaking of my wife and I swearing to telepathy. Not to finding the Godhead. I was alone in that one. As to whether the courts would believe us, I don’t really care. I have no agenda or dogma to sell. As to the scientific method and trial and error. Have you heard of any discoveries that did not include trial and error. I have not and you are quite short sighted if you think our scientific method was that much different in principle from what the ancients were using. Regards DL A Tripolation. Quote We attest to the reality of an experience, not that we or I can replicate it at will. Then what use is the whole thing? FMPOV, it is our vehicle, so to speak, to our next evolutionary step. What use is it FYPOV, the same as your earlobes or remnants of your tail bone. Quote In fact, since I consider it an assault, and think there may be shields against it if I can use that term, then replication is likely impossible. ...what? My wife tells me that it felt like an assault. After much discussion and thought, I speculate that we may be able to shield ourselves from such communication. It is quite invasive and we may have developed a mental block along with the ability. Regards DL
Moontanman Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Moontanman First. I cannot get the quote function to work for me. Second. I was speaking of my wife and I swearing to telepathy. Not to finding the Godhead. I was alone in that one. As to whether the courts would believe us, I don’t really care. I have no agenda or dogma to sell. I question that you have no agenda or dogma to sell, at least metaphorically. You seem to be doing exactly that As to the scientific method and trial and error. Have you heard of any discoveries that did not include trial and error. I have not and you are quite short sighted if you think our scientific method was that much different in principle from what the ancients were using. I absolutely call you on that one, evidently you have no idea what the scientific method is, one thing it is not is trial and error, I have a difficult time believing you even asserted that one. I suggest you watch this short video and then get back to me on trail and error and the scientific method. http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/50/zcavPAFiG14 2
Brainteaserfan Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Ok brainteaserfan, I'd like to discuss this concept of a Christian democracy, we should probably start a new thread so as to not hijack GIA's thread but I would like to understand what you mean by a Christian democracy, lets try to discuss it as accurately. fairly and civilly as possible, are you game? Yes, I'm game. I don't know how much time I'll have to discuss it though. I mean a nation based on conservative Christian Principles, that promotes Christianity, but that elects leaders and does not force people to be Christian. Moontanman First. I cannot get the quote function to work for me. Second. I was speaking of my wife and I swearing to telepathy. Not to finding the Godhead. I was alone in that one. As to whether the courts would believe us, I don’t really care. I have no agenda or dogma to sell. As to the scientific method and trial and error. Have you heard of any discoveries that did not include trial and error. I have not and you are quite short sighted if you think our scientific method was that much different in principle from what the ancients were using. Regards DL A Tripolation. Quote We attest to the reality of an experience, not that we or I can replicate it at will. Then what use is the whole thing? FMPOV, it is our vehicle, so to speak, to our next evolutionary step. What use is it FYPOV, the same as your earlobes or remnants of your tail bone. Quote In fact, since I consider it an assault, and think there may be shields against it if I can use that term, then replication is likely impossible. ...what? My wife tells me that it felt like an assault. After much discussion and thought, I speculate that we may be able to shield ourselves from such communication. It is quite invasive and we may have developed a mental block along with the ability. Regards DL The way that I use the quote function is that I reply to someone, and then push add post, and then reply to the next person and push add reply. Then the system automatically combines your post as long as nobody else has posted.
Greatest I am Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 I question that you have no agenda or dogma to sell, at least metaphorically. You seem to be doing exactly that I absolutely call you on that one, evidently you have no idea what the scientific method is, one thing it is not is trial and error, I have a difficult time believing you even asserted that one. I suggest you watch this short video and then get back to me on trail and error and the scientific method. http://www.youtube.c.../50/zcavPAFiG14 Your link speaks of observation and experiment as the rule for science. In the beginning, man had to experiment with various foods and observe if he lived through it or not. That is science as described today. As to my agenda, it is to try to convert theists away from their silly beliefs. Theists are the one's causing damage. I am more appreciated where atheists are actually trying to do the same thing. If those here are not doing the same elsewhere, then to my mind, they are not doing their duty to society. We are all our brothers keeper. Self defense demands it. Regards DL Yes, I'm game. I don't know how much time I'll have to discuss it though. I mean a nation based on conservative Christian Principles, that promotes Christianity, but that elects leaders and does not force people to be Christian. The way that I use the quote function is that I reply to someone, and then push add post, and then reply to the next person and push add reply. Then the system automatically combines your post as long as nobody else has posted. Like so? I have done this before and someone told me there was a better way. Regards DL
zapatos Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Like so? I have done this before and someone told me there was a better way. Regards DL If you want to respond to multiple people, you can also click on the "MultiQuote" button found in the right hand corner of each of their respective posts. When you have finished clicking MultiQuote in each of the posts you want to respond to, you click on the "Add Reply" button at the bottom right of the thread. (Not the reply button that is part of any individual post.) 1
Moontanman Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Your link speaks of observation and experiment as the rule for science. In the beginning, man had to experiment with various foods and observe if he lived through it or not. That is science as described today. This is so totally false i have to think you have no idea how science works nor do you understand evolution, and either you didn't watch the entire video or you didn't pay attention, no human ever popped into existence and thought, wow lets see what I can or cannot eat, that is just false and science doesn't 't simply use trail and error to find things out, as I said before that would make astrology or alchemy science, they were not. BTW, in the beginning of what? As to my agenda, it is to try to convert theists away from their silly beliefs. Then why do you argue against rational thought and science? Theists are the one's causing damage. I am more appreciated where atheists are actually trying to do the same thing. While i agree that theists or for that matter any superstion is dangerous I totally challenge that as well, no rationalist worth his salt would ever accept or even consider your evidence as proof of any god like deity or even telepathy. If those here are not doing the same elsewhere, then to my mind, they are not doing their duty to society. So asserting unverifiable anecdotal evidence is going to convince a theist he is wrong, even I have more respect for theists than that. We are all our brothers keeper. Self defense demands it. I happen to agree with that but you are simply using the idea to assert an agenda that is no better than the ones you are supposedly trying to challenge.
Greatest I am Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 If you want to respond to multiple people, you can also click on the "MultiQuote" button found in the right hand corner of each of their respective posts. When you have finished clicking MultiQuote in each of the posts you want to respond to, you click on the "Add Reply" button at the bottom right of the thread. (Not the reply button that is part of any individual post.) Thanks for this. Let me try. Regards DL
Moontanman Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) Yes, I'm game. I don't know how much time I'll have to discuss it though. I mean a nation based on conservative Christian Principles, that promotes Christianity, but that elects leaders and does not force people to be Christian. Christian principles by definition would require everyone to be Christians wouldn't it? Let see what we would have to loose if the government was actively pro Christian. Freedom of speech would go immediately, no taking the lords name in vain for sure, criticizing the church would probably be out of the question as well, I'm sure there is much the Church would not allow anyone to say or assert. Reveling clothing of any kind pagans would be in trouble, would we roast em or just throw em in jail and make them listen to pat Robinson tapes over and over for years? What do we do with Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah wittinesses, is the government based on Catholicism or protestantism? Do we kill gays and adulterers and unruly children or do we just put them in jail? How about atheists? maybe we could just do like many other theocracies do and just tax the crap out of anyone who is not an active Christian? The taxes could be used to support the church, it's already been done before so it wouldn't be a big leap. Oh! Porn would have to go for sure, all those saucy half nekked women on the beach too. No more scientific method for sure, teach creationism in schools would we require people to go to church on Sunday? (it has been in a democracy before) Does everything shut down on Sunday (blue laws) it has been done before Do we have to take away the rights of women? It seems inevitable in a male orientated religion where woman must submit to their masters oh sorry I mean husbands, remember rule of thumb?... That might be fun till i went to sleep, then it would be rule of aluminum ball bat Racism, have to stop all that intermingling of blacks and whites, can't have that, some "Christian" universities already do this. Can you think of anything else we would have to change if the government was based in Christian principles and actively promoted Christianity? O O O! We could have slaves! Any non Christians could be slaves! BTW if a mod could make a separate thread about this it would be nice so GIA can concentrate on his own thread. Edited June 28, 2011 by Moontanman
Greatest I am Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 This is so totally false i have to think you have no idea how science works nor do you understand evolution, and either you didn't watch the entire video or you didn't pay attention, no human ever popped into existence and thought, wow lets see what I can or cannot eat, that is just false and science doesn't 't simply use trail and error to find things out, as I said before that would make astrology or alchemy science, they were not. BTW, in the beginning of what? I was referring to when our species actually became our species. If you cannot think of how a new troop of humans, moving into a new environment and finding out by trial and error what to eat and what not to eat then we will not get on the same page. Trial and error trained and taught us. The scientific method. I read a history at one time for the doctor who invented open heart surgery. It said that he knew that he was going to kill a few before perfecting the technique. Our ancestors did not plan to kill any of the troop but may have been bright enough to know they would. Without trial and error, a key component of science, we would only have unproven theories. If I am wrong about the ancients then you telll me how they learned what mushroom not to eat. Then why do you argue against rational thought and science? I do not. While i agree that theists or for that matter any superstion is dangerous I totally challenge that as well, no rationalist worth his salt would ever accept or even consider your evidence as proof of any god like deity or even telepathy. I do not care that much and do not push hard on what I cannot prove. If a mind is closed, it is closed BTW, It is not a deity. So asserting unverifiable anecdotal evidence is going to convince a theist he is wrong, even I have more respect for theists than that. I happen to agree with that but you are simply using the idea to assert an agenda that is no better than the ones you are supposedly trying to challenge. B S. I am pushing nature and natural. Not supernatural. Regards DL
Brainteaserfan Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 I do not. I do not care that much and do not push hard on what I cannot prove. If a mind is closed, it is closed BTW, It is not a deity. B S. I am pushing nature and natural. Not supernatural. Regards DL The scientific method definition is: A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. I suppose that you could put your humans eating food example a little into that, but I seriously doubt that they would have gone through and thought that out. However, the definition of science is: 1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Given that, you would use the results of the scientific method to explain the "physical and natural world" for something to be called science. So, IMO, IF, early humans did this (although I believe that God created A and E knowing what to eat), then they did use the scientific method, but they didn't do science. Moontanman, right now I don't have time to discuss this with you; but I'll be back later (and maybe in a different thread).
Moontanman Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 I was referring to when our species actually became our species. That is so false i hesitate to even continue our debate, there is no point in time where you can point and show that humans became humans, none. If you cannot think of how a new troop of humans, moving into a new environment and finding out by trial and error what to eat and what not to eat then we will not get on the same page. Trial and error trained and taught us. The scientific method. It i s also doubtful that this ever happened as well, all human migrations were gradual not sudden and the animals and plants a fungi from area pretty much gradually grade inot the next as well. I read a history at one time for the doctor who invented open heart surgery. It said that he knew that he was going to kill a few before perfecting the technique. Our ancestors did not plan to kill any of the troop but may have been bright enough to know they would. Again this is based on a totally false idea. Without trial and error, a key component of science, we would only have unproven theories. Again, a totally false assumption If I am wrong about the ancients then you telll me how they learned what mushroom not to eat. Because as they evolved they already knew which mushrooms to eat to get high and which one would kill, it was knowledge passed down from each generation to the next, this information was obtained way before humans became "humans" do you think an ape suddenly gave birth to a human and he had to go out into the world totally ignorant? Then why do you argue against rational thought and science? I do not. yes you do, your idea of god is totally unfalsifiable, it is totally untestable. While i agree that theists or for that matter any superstion is dangerous I totally challenge that as well, no rationalist worth his salt would ever accept or even consider your evidence as proof of any god like deity or even telepathy. I do not care that much and do not push hard on what I cannot prove. Then why do you assert something you cannot prove? If a mind is closed, it is closed BTW, It is not a deity. Then what is it? How can we measue it? How is it any different than any other concept of god? So asserting unverifiable anecdotal evidence is going to convince a theist he is wrong, even I have more respect for theists than that. I happen to agree with that but you are simply using the idea to assert an agenda that is no better than the ones you are supposedly trying to challenge. B S. I am pushing nature and natural. Not supernatural. BS back to you, how can we measure what you assert, again how is it any different than Thor or Aphrodite or Zeus or Yahweh or Jesus? 1
Greatest I am Posted June 29, 2011 Author Posted June 29, 2011 That is so false i hesitate to even continue our debate, there is no point in time where you can point and show that humans became humans, none. LOL. Yet anthropologists have done just that. Roughly. Ok though. In some ways I agree that at no point in the past did we become human. We must therefore conclude, FYPOV, that we are not human today. It i s also doubtful that this ever happened as well, all human migrations were gradual not sudden and the animals and plants a fungi from area pretty much gradually grade inot the next as well. Sure but they still had to do the testing. Gradually. Again this is based on a totally false idea. To you perhaps. Then again I made your idea above of humans not becoming humans look as silly as it was. Again, a totally false assumption Then how would we know our theories are sound if we had not tested them. I E. Einstein's theory on time. Remember his two plane and clocks experiment. Because as they evolved they already knew which mushrooms to eat to get high and which one would kill, it was knowledge passed down from each generation to the next, this information was obtained way before humans became "humans" do you think an ape suddenly gave birth to a human and he had to go out into the world totally ignorant? Oh my. Instincts include a dietary list. How droll. yes you do, your idea of god is totally unfalsifiable, it is totally untestable. True. For the moment. That is why I do not push it. While i agree that theists or for that matter any superstion is dangerous I totally challenge that as well, no rationalist worth his salt would ever accept or even consider your evidence as proof of any god like deity or even telepathy. I agree and that is why I just offer it only as an anecdotal rendering. I myself would take it with a grain of salt if I had not lived it. Then why do you assert something you cannot prove? Because it is true. Then what is it? How can we measue it? How is it any different than any other concept of god? As mentioned, it is a cosmic consciousness. A consolidation of many minds or consciousness'. I would not know how to measure it. The usual definition says that it spans the whole universe but from inside it, I could not perceive any shape or size. Thinking it spans the universe, to me , is rather stupid. Knowing of the speed of light, communication within it would likely be impossible if that were so. As pointed out, it is a different concept of God in the sense that it has no dogma to sell, considers man as the supreme being in the universe and is quite natural where most other Gods are supernatural. So asserting unverifiable anecdotal evidence is going to convince a theist he is wrong, even I have more respect for theists than that. I happen to agree with that but you are simply using the idea to assert an agenda that is no better than the ones you are supposedly trying to challenge. We have yet to debate that bit so thanks for your assumption. Let you head shrink to normal size friend. My agenda? What is my agenda. You speak of what you do not know. BS back to you, how can we measure what you assert, again how is it any different than Thor or Aphrodite or Zeus or Yahweh or Jesus? Who is claiming apotheosis to these and what theology or dogma is being pushed? Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. These are all supernatural entities. Regards DL
A Tripolation Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Oh my. Instincts include a dietary list. How droll. Um. Yes. This is largely true in the animal kindom. As pointed out, it is a different concept of God in the sense that it has no dogma to sell, It is still a wholly illogical, irrational, unobservable, untestable, unquantifiable being as any god(s) observed today. It is just as silly. considers man as the supreme being in the universe But according to evolutionary standards, we aren't even the supreme being on Earth. and is quite natural where most other Gods are supernatural. Telepathy and cosmic awareness is not natural. In any way. Sorry. What is my agenda. As you have stated multiple times, it is to convince theists to leave their "superstitious" beliefs for your "godhead" who is somehow supposed to be more logical and more natural than the Judeo-Christian God, but, as everyone is trying to tell you, isn't. These are all supernatural entities. So is your cosmic conscious. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now