- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Colter @ Aug. 15 2012,22:01) Quote What is a “true scientist”? To me a true scientist has an open mind in the assessment facts and is willing to go where the truth may take them.
Right, so not you then.Quote
I don't see any difference. There are claims that are consistent with observation, and claims that are not based in evidence. If you can't observe evidence for something, what are you doing claiming it? Are you trying it on with people?Quote But as you know, some of the statements made by the UB in 55' that were not proven have in fact been found to be true.
So what? Cherry-picking is no use to anyone. The best you could say was that some crackpot made one right guess in the middle of a hundred misses, and still claims that the misses are right but can't provide evidence and attributes it to some superior knowledge of space beings who, for some reason do not seem to have furnished us with evidence, just platitudes.But in any case I think our previous discourse on this has shown that overwhelmingly the UB represents the state of science and science fiction both, in 1955. Maybe the science fiction is original. The science was stolen. That is a prima facie fact when the attribution is anonymous but we know who the real scientists were.
Quote Stuu, you focus on half of reality and insist it's ALL possible reality. You are self limiting in your intolerant attitude.
As I explained to you earlier, you are expecting me to take your word, your statement of “what you reckon”. I don't, and I never would expect you to do the same. I am indeed focusing on reality, and you have not demonstrated the existence of anything more than what I am focusing on. You are adding fantasy. No one should find that believable, and I think the deserved obscurity of the Book of Plagiarism highlights that.Quote I think it's accurate to say that you are FIRST a philosophical Atheist who uses science to validate your preconceived notions.
That would be true if you could demonstrate that I do not change my mind in the face of unambiguous evidence that contradicts my view. Can you? Actually I have often. On TOL that mainly happens when I have misinterpreted someone's beliefs.The scientist, as such, is limited to the discovery of the relatedness of material facts. Technically, he has no right to assert that he is either materialist or idealist, for in so doing he has assumed to forsake the attitude of a true scientist since any and all such assertions of attitude are the very essence of philosophy.[/color]
Sure. You have not established that I have asserted materialism or any ideology. Actually the one thing I am opposed to is ideology, in this case the ideology that involves stealing from real humans and attributing their intellectual property to space beings. I am quite happy to accept your space beings if you can be convincing, and you insult me to suggest I would be inflexible and have a preconception that was resistant to your production of evidence, or some presentation that any reasonable person should find convincing.But you haven't done that; you haven't accepted the burden of proof, all you have done is make strawmen of my opinions and asserted the existence of your Imaginary Friends.
You insult me to even imagine I should find any of that believable.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 15 2012,22:47) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 15 2012,20:23) Hi Stuart, How much of the UB did you read 3 years ago?
God bless
Ed J
About 60% of it.Stuart
Hi Stuart,Me – about ¾ths of it, about 8 yrs ago.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Stu @ Aug. 14 2012,20:17) Quote (Colter @ Aug. 13 2012,23:40) Yes, there is another kind of God other then the mechanistic God of Atheistic scientist. You will need to find him on your own, if you desire. Colter
I explained to you that natural selection says nothing about gods, but you appear to be insisting it does.Perhaps you could explain how you think the word “god” is relevant here, or anywhere. Otherwise you appear to be asking us to take your word for it.
And meantime, evolution by natural selection forms the central principle of the daily working lives of professional scientists across the globe. Whether or not those people are believers, the word god does not appear in their work, and science functions perfectly well without the concept.
Even if one or more gods do exist, they seem to be irrelevant.
Stuart[/quote]
My point stuu was that, If you are unhappy with the brutality of the inconsistent God concept among Judeo-Christian's, unguided evolution is far more brutal then anything God was said to have done.Colter[/quote]
Absolutely. Nature is uncompromising in its brutality. The key point is that it is unguided: there is no intent behind that brutality, it just is. On the other hand, you attribute intent to the brutality of the Judeo-christian god, which makes it a question of morality, or rather immorality.Quote Some day science may be brave enough or even wise enough to consider the influence of the seven adjutant mind-spirits that “conditions the course of organic evolution.”
I've absolutely no idea what you are banging on about here, and I'm confident that you don't know either.Stuart
STU,If you believe that the brutality is natural then you should have no complaint whatsoever against religion for it is your claim that whatever is occurring is the natural course.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 20 2012,12:43) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 14 2012,20:17) Quote (Colter @ Aug. 13 2012,23:40) Yes, there is another kind of God other then the mechanistic God of Atheistic scientist. You will need to find him on your own, if you desire. Colter
I explained to you that natural selection says nothing about gods, but you appear to be insisting it does.Perhaps you could explain how you think the word “god” is relevant here, or anywhere. Otherwise you appear to be asking us to take your word for it.
And meantime, evolution by natural selection forms the central principle of the daily working lives of professional scientists across the globe. Whether or not those people are believers, the word god does not appear in their work, and science functions perfectly well without the concept.
Even if one or more gods do exist, they seem to be irrelevant.
Stuart
My point stuu was that, If you are unhappy with the brutality of the inconsistent God concept among Judeo-Christian's, unguided evolution is far more brutal then anything God was said to have done.Colter[/quote]
Absolutely. Nature is uncompromising in its brutality. The key point is that it is unguided: there is no intent behind that brutality, it just is. On the other hand, you attribute intent to the brutality of the Judeo-christian god, which makes it a question of morality, or rather immorality.Quote Some day science may be brave enough or even wise enough to consider the influence of the seven adjutant mind-spirits that “conditions the course of organic evolution.”
I've absolutely no idea what you are banging on about here, and I'm confident that you don't know either.Stuart[/quote]
STU,If you believe that the brutality is natural then you should have no complaint whatsoever against religion for it is your claim that whatever is occurring is the natural course.
Well I agree with you that religion is a product of “the natural world”. Humans invented gods; gods are extended phenotypes.Religions are brutal, and this falls right into line with the nature of natural selection.
The current religions are the result of a kind of selection (artificial, but ultimately natural) working on ancient religions. Islam derived from Judaism. Judaism had assimilated then ultimately defeated polytheism, and by the time we get to islam, muslims are positively obsessed with decrying any suggestion of polytheistic roots.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 25 2012,14:07) Quote (seekingtruth @ July 25 2012,04:03) Quote Stu: What do you mean by dominion? Quote Wm: dominion – complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the [tame] beasts, and over all of the earth Quote You start with “dominion” then you shift to “authority”.
How do you define words but with other words Yet you try to make it sound as if I did not answer your question so… once again can you not win on points but resort to misdirection to make it look like you've won.Wm
My questions are very clear, there is no misdirection on my part. I am more than happy to be very clear about what I mean, and I will clarify without complaint.But you are equivocating by sliding from one platitude to another.
Tell us what you mean by authority.
“I have authority over pigs”.
This is what you are claiming. Please explain what the heck it means to have authority over a pig.
Stuart
Stu,
Sorry stu but I cannot draw you a picture, no “platitudes” were used all I did was post the Amplified Bible's translation (where it expanded on what “dominion” involved).To me, it means God created man capable of governing the world then placed it in his control, and we handed it off to satan. But Jesus will show us how this dominion was to have been applied when He returns to rule & reign for 1000 years.
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 20 2012,16:57) Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 20 2012,12:43) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 14 2012,20:17) Quote (Colter @ Aug. 13 2012,23:40) Yes, there is another kind of God other then the mechanistic God of Atheistic scientist. You will need to find him on your own, if you desire. Colter
I explained to you that natural selection says nothing about gods, but you appear to be insisting it does.Perhaps you could explain how you think the word “god” is relevant here, or anywhere. Otherwise you appear to be asking us to take your word for it.
And meantime, evolution by natural selection forms the central principle of the daily working lives of professional scientists across the globe. Whether or not those people are believers, the word god does not appear in their work, and science functions perfectly well without the concept.
Even if one or more gods do exist, they seem to be irrelevant.
Stuart
My point stuu was that, If you are unhappy with the brutality of the inconsistent God concept among Judeo-Christian's, unguided evolution is far more brutal then anything God was said to have done.Colter
Absolutely. Nature is uncompromising in its brutality. The key point is that it is unguided: there is no intent behind that brutality, it just is. On the other hand, you attribute intent to the brutality of the Judeo-christian god, which makes it a question of morality, or rather immorality.Quote Some day science may be brave enough or even wise enough to consider the influence of the seven adjutant mind-spirits that “conditions the course of organic evolution.”
I've absolutely no idea what you are banging on about here, and I'm confident that you don't know either.Stuart[/quote]
STU,If you believe that the brutality is natural then you should have no complaint whatsoever against religion for it is your claim that whatever is occurring is the natural course.[/quote]
Well I agree with you that religion is a product of “the natural world”. Humans invented gods; gods are extended phenotypes.Religions are brutal, and this falls right into line with the nature of natural selection.
The current religions are the result of a kind of selection (artificial, but ultimately natural) working on ancient religions. Islam derived from Judaism. Judaism had assimilated then ultimately defeated polytheism, and by the time we get to islam, muslims are positively obsessed with decrying any suggestion of polytheistic roots.
Stuart
But regardless of your dissection Islam is Natural and blossoming while your view is heading in a less successful direction although atheism has had a boon for a bit, the truth is Islam is naturally out growing Atheism so according to you
there is no need to criticize realityHi BD,
The quranic god is going bye bye.
“YHVH is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath
the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.
Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods (like 'al-Lah') that have not made the heavens
and the earth, even they SHALL PERISH FROM THE EARTH, and from under these heavens.” (Jeremiah 10:10-11)יהוה חאלהים (JEHOVAH GOD)
עד (Joshua 22:34) Ed (Witness)Quote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 21 2012,04:51) Quote (Stu @ July 25 2012,14:07) Quote (seekingtruth @ July 25 2012,04:03) Quote Stu: What do you mean by dominion? Quote Wm: dominion – complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the [tame] beasts, and over all of the earth Quote You start with “dominion” then you shift to “authority”.
How do you define words but with other words Yet you try to make it sound as if I did not answer your question so… once again can you not win on points but resort to misdirection to make it look like you've won.Wm
My questions are very clear, there is no misdirection on my part. I am more than happy to be very clear about what I mean, and I will clarify without complaint.But you are equivocating by sliding from one platitude to another.
Tell us what you mean by authority.
“I have authority over pigs”.
This is what you are claiming. Please explain what the heck it means to have authority over a pig.
Stuart
Stu,
Sorry stu but I cannot draw you a picture, no “platitudes” were used all I did was post the Amplified Bible's translation (where it expanded on what “dominion” involved).To me, it means God created man capable of governing the world then placed it in his control, and we handed it off to satan. But Jesus will show us how this dominion was to have been applied when He returns to rule & reign for 1000 years.
I see you paused to consider the accusation of platitude use, then carried on adding to the list of platitudes.For example, to wit, “governing” what exactly?
Pigs?
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 21 2012,15:31) But regardless of your dissection Islam is Natural and blossoming while your view is heading in a less successful direction although atheism has had a boon for a bit, the truth is Islam is naturally out growing Atheism so according to you
there is no need to criticize reality
Islam is natural in the same way that guinea worms are natural. Both are parasites, the worms on the body and islam on the brain.The growth or one or other worldview says nothing about the morality of them. Islam has bloody borders. The kind of secular democracy based on Enlightenment ideals and tolerance of diversity that New Zealand is, for example, does not lead to bloody borders.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 21 2012,17:52) Islam is natural in the same way that guinea worms are natural.
Both are parasites, the worms on the body and islam on the brain.Stuart
semicolon “capital” D exclamation pointQuote (Stu @ Aug. 21 2012,22:08) (1)Don't be too enthusiastic there Ed. (2)You know it's basically true of christianity too.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,1) Why not?
2) No, it isn't.
Ed J
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 21 2012,14:48) Quote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 21 2012,04:51) Quote (Stu @ July 25 2012,14:07) Quote (seekingtruth @ July 25 2012,04:03) Quote Stu: What do you mean by dominion? Quote Wm: dominion – complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the [tame] beasts, and over all of the earth Quote You start with “dominion” then you shift to “authority”.
How do you define words but with other words Yet you try to make it sound as if I did not answer your question so… once again can you not win on points but resort to misdirection to make it look like you've won.Wm
My questions are very clear, there is no misdirection on my part. I am more than happy to be very clear about what I mean, and I will clarify without complaint.But you are equivocating by sliding from one platitude to another.
Tell us what you mean by authority.
“I have authority over pigs”.
This is what you are claiming. Please explain what the heck it means to have authority over a pig.
Stuart
Stu,
Sorry stu but I cannot draw you a picture, no “platitudes” were used all I did was post the Amplified Bible's translation (where it expanded on what “dominion” involved).To me, it means God created man capable of governing the world then placed it in his control, and we handed it off to satan. But Jesus will show us how this dominion was to have been applied when He returns to rule & reign for 1000 years.
I see you paused to consider the accusation of platitude use, then carried on adding to the list of platitudes.For example, to wit, “governing” what exactly?
Pigs?
Stuart
It's hilarious stu, you've made a platitude out of accusing others of using platitudes.
Quote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 23 2012,11:25) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 21 2012,14:48) Quote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 21 2012,04:51) Quote (Stu @ July 25 2012,14:07) Quote (seekingtruth @ July 25 2012,04:03) Quote Stu: What do you mean by dominion? Quote Wm: dominion – complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the [tame] beasts, and over all of the earth Quote You start with “dominion” then you shift to “authority”.
How do you define words but with other words Yet you try to make it sound as if I did not answer your question so… once again can you not win on points but resort to misdirection to make it look like you've won.Wm
My questions are very clear, there is no misdirection on my part. I am more than happy to be very clear about what I mean, and I will clarify without complaint.But you are equivocating by sliding from one platitude to another.
Tell us what you mean by authority.
“I have authority over pigs”.
This is what you are claiming. Please explain what the heck it means to have authority over a pig.
Stuart
Stu,
Sorry stu but I cannot draw you a picture, no “platitudes” were used all I did was post the Amplified Bible's translation (where it expanded on what “dominion” involved).To me, it means God created man capable of governing the world then placed it in his control, and we handed it off to satan. But Jesus will show us how this dominion was to have been applied when He returns to rule & reign for 1000 years.
I see you paused to consider the accusation of platitude use, then carried on adding to the list of platitudes.For example, to wit, “governing” what exactly?
Pigs?
Stuart
It's hilarious stu, you've made a platitude out of accusing others of using platitudes.
No, you've lost me there. Please state my supposed platitude.Stuart
Its all very Sad really!, The understanding of each one is based within their foundation, there is one that is more truth full an one that is more sincerely hopeful. It terrible to Judge every beautiful heart!
Hopeful in past times has been ordained very politically correct! An of corse truthful has always been the struggler, surly that reveals a truth n its self??
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 23 2012,17:07) Quote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 23 2012,11:25) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 21 2012,14:48) Quote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 21 2012,04:51) Quote (Stu @ July 25 2012,14:07) Quote (seekingtruth @ July 25 2012,04:03) Quote Stu: What do you mean by dominion? Quote Wm: dominion – complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the [tame] beasts, and over all of the earth Quote You start with “dominion” then you shift to “authority”.
How do you define words but with other words Yet you try to make it sound as if I did not answer your question so… once again can you not win on points but resort to misdirection to make it look like you've won.Wm
My questions are very clear, there is no misdirection on my part. I am more than happy to be very clear about what I mean, and I will clarify without complaint.But you are equivocating by sliding from one platitude to another.
Tell us what you mean by authority.
“I have authority over pigs”.
This is what you are claiming. Please explain what the heck it means to have authority over a pig.
Stuart
Stu,
Sorry stu but I cannot draw you a picture, no “platitudes” were used all I did was post the Amplified Bible's translation (where it expanded on what “dominion” involved).To me, it means God created man capable of governing the world then placed it in his control, and we handed it off to satan. But Jesus will show us how this dominion was to have been applied when He returns to rule & reign for 1000 years.
I see you paused to consider the accusation of platitude use, then carried on adding to the list of platitudes.For example, to wit, “governing” what exactly?
Pigs?
Stuart
It's hilarious stu, you've made a platitude out of accusing others of using platitudes.
No, you've lost me there. Please state my supposed platitude.Stuart
platitude – a banal, trite, or stale remark (a flat, dull, or trite remark, especially one uttered as if it were fresh or profound.)How many times have you remarked “platitude” to others over the last year, it is as stale and meaningless as it gets.
That is just silly seekingtruth.
Pointing out that someone is continually lying does not make the person pointing it out a liar. Pointing out that someone continuallly uses platitudes is not a platitude in itself.
Tim
Quote (TimothyVI @ Aug. 24 2012,21:55) That is just silly seekingtruth. Pointing out that someone is continually lying does not make the person pointing it out a liar. Pointing out that someone continuallly uses platitudes is not a platitude in itself.
Tim
Hi Tim,Are you suggesting a platitude is a lie?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (TimothyVI @ Aug. 24 2012,18:55) That is just silly seekingtruth. Pointing out that someone is continually lying does not make the person pointing it out a liar.
I agree but did you read the definition of platitude?
Quote Pointing out that someone continuallly uses platitudes is not a platitude in itself. It can be if it becomes an expected (tired, stale) response.
Wm
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
