- This topic is empty.
- Posts
terraricca
Quote you read me wrong;what i try to tell you that this world of yours is the law of the jungle ,the strongest and the smartest will survive, the rest are dispensable,the have not will lose against the ones that have,
I have no problem explaining altruism through natural selection, although according to you I should not even believe it exists. In humans it is those who can cooperate in groups that have survived. The expression “survival of the fittest” does not mean survival of those with the biggest clubs and most violent attitude. It means there is a bias towards the survival of those who are fittest for living and reproducing in their current environment. If that environment changes then it will be a different set of attributes that is now fitter, and different individuals will pass on their genes to the following generation causing a permanent change in the patterns of heredity.What does that have to do with jungles, or being smart or strong? There might be more advantage in being small and green. Religion has very probably been a beneficial adaptation that has brought people together in groups in the past and suppressed individuality to the common good. Atheists are on average several IQ points higher than religious believers and so actually there could be an advantage in humans being not so smart!
Quote and Stu ,i will not try to convince you of any philosophy you have yours and i have mine, i believe in God a creator,and you believe in men ,humanity,
those are both religious philosophies,if you like it or not
and it comes back to what i said before number 1 and number 2,
there is nothing else ,one or two we pick what fits with us.
There is plenty else. There is Hinduism for a start. But more than that there is the common things we share. I make little distinction as far as we are concerned. You are a human being first, then a member of your community or ethnic group second maybe, or perhaps we share a hobby in which case that might come second. Low down on the list is that you are a mormon / JW / baptist / catholic / muslim / Jedi / whatever. We both need oxygen, water, food, shelter, love and friendship and satisfaction of human curiosity. We do not need god. You might claim to need it but I am fine without it at the moment thanks, especially given how obscene the christian version of god belief actually is.I am not convinced by your claims that I will not be OK in the future. We both have death in common too, but your divine conspiracy theory of books of works leading up to judgement is not something you have shown to actually be true. Would you call yourself a christian first, or a human being?
I agree that humanists call what they believe a kind of religion but while I am sympathetic to their philosophy I do not claim to be a humanist in that sense. I have no religion, actually. Atheism says just one thing: there are no gods of any kind. It is a conclusion based on the lack of evidence for gods, but even if I just assert that there are no gods it is no different to you asserting that there are.
When it comes to bald assertion, it looks like 1=2, or at least 1 is equivalent to 2.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 25 2010,22:55) terraricca Quote you read me wrong;what i try to tell you that this world of yours is the law of the jungle ,the strongest and the smartest will survive, the rest are dispensable,the have not will lose against the ones that have,
I have no problem explaining altruism through natural selection, although according to you I should not even believe it exists. In humans it is those who can cooperate in groups that have survived. The expression “survival of the fittest” does not mean survival of those with the biggest clubs and most violent attitude. It means there is a bias towards the survival of those who are fittest for living and reproducing in their current environment. If that environment changes then it will be a different set of attributes that is now fitter, and different individuals will pass on their genes to the following generation causing a permanent change in the patterns of heredity.What does that have to do with jungles, or being smart or strong? There might be more advantage in being small and green. Religion has very probably been a beneficial adaptation that has brought people together in groups in the past and suppressed individuality to the common good. Atheists are on average several IQ points higher than religious believers and so actually there could be an advantage in humans being not so smart!
Quote and Stu ,i will not try to convince you of any philosophy you have yours and i have mine, i believe in God a creator,and you believe in men ,humanity,
those are both religious philosophies,if you like it or not
and it comes back to what i said before number 1 and number 2,
there is nothing else ,one or two we pick what fits with us.
There is plenty else. There is Hinduism for a start. But more than that there is the common things we share. I make little distinction as far as we are concerned. You are a human being first, then a member of your community or ethnic group second maybe, or perhaps we share a hobby in which case that might come second. Low down on the list is that you are a mormon / JW / baptist / catholic / muslim / Jedi / whatever. We both need oxygen, water, food, shelter, love and friendship and satisfaction of human curiosity. We do not need god. You might claim to need it but I am fine without it at the moment thanks, especially given how obscene the christian version of god belief actually is.I am not convinced by your claims that I will not be OK in the future. We both have death in common too, but your divine conspiracy theory of books of works leading up to judgement is not something you have shown to actually be true. Would you call yourself a christian first, or a human being?
I agree that humanists call what they believe a kind of religion but while I am sympathetic to their philosophy I do not claim to be a humanist in that sense. I have no religion, actually. Atheism says just one thing: there are no gods of any kind. It is a conclusion based on the lack of evidence for gods, but even if I just assert that there are no gods it is no different to you asserting that there are.
When it comes to bald assertion, it looks like 1=2, or at least 1 is equivalent to 2.
Stuart
stui am not what you say i am ;
but it does not matter what you may believe ,and what you may call it it always end up in my two selection
either ;God or men
you cannot escape. wen i say “men” this mean all what comes out of your brain to explain what you believe .
wen i say God it is always scriptures ,
hinduism and all the others not related to the scriptures are MEN MADE,
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 25 2010,17:14) stu i am not what you say i am ;
but it does not matter what you may believe ,and what you may call it it always end up in my two selection
either ;God or men
you cannot escape. wen i say “men” this mean all what comes out of your brain to explain what you believe .
wen i say God it is always scriptures ,
hinduism and all the others not related to the scriptures are MEN MADE,
Pierre
Your scriptures are the most man-made writings of all. While other writings have some tendency to try and link humans to the universe they inhabit, your scriptures (like all Abrahamic writing) are about petty squabbles and angry gods that punish arbitrarily.I believe that there is a god inside your head, so yes gods, AND I think it is completely reasonable to conclude that actually there is no such thing as gods in reality (that which we can reasonably assume to be true) given that there is no evidence for gods, and not even any circumstantial evidence for your god specifically, so NO gods. I do have it both ways.
It is not me who feels the need to escape. After all what would I be escaping from?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 26 2010,00:24) Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 25 2010,17:14) stu i am not what you say i am ;
but it does not matter what you may believe ,and what you may call it it always end up in my two selection
either ;God or men
you cannot escape. wen i say “men” this mean all what comes out of your brain to explain what you believe .
wen i say God it is always scriptures ,
hinduism and all the others not related to the scriptures are MEN MADE,
Pierre
Your scriptures are the most man-made writings of all. While other writings have some tendency to try and link humans to the universe they inhabit, your scriptures (like all Abrahamic writing) are about petty squabbles and angry gods that punish arbitrarily.I believe that there is a god inside your head, so yes gods, AND I think it is completely reasonable to conclude that actually there is no such thing as gods in reality (that which we can reasonably assume to be true) given that there is no evidence for gods, and not even any circumstantial evidence for your god specifically, so NO gods. I do have it both ways.
It is not me who feels the need to escape. After all what would I be escaping from?
Stuart
stuwhy would you escape from you muddy environment ,it so common to you ,you do not even feel that you are in 6 ft deep of mud, the only thing you can see are the others who are not in the mud like you.
that is the difference between you and me ,you looking at me being out side of the mud and you in 6 ft thick deep mud ,but it is the feeling that you show to have, to be comfortable in it, that is amazing,
and remember what you believe is only in your head ,just has mine is.
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 25 2010,18:45) stu why would you escape from you muddy environment ,it so common to you ,you do not even feel that you are in 6 ft deep of mud, the only thing you can see are the others who are not in the mud like you.
that is the difference between you and me ,you looking at me being out side of the mud and you in 6 ft thick deep mud ,but it is the feeling that you show to have, to be comfortable in it, that is amazing,
and remember what you believe is only in your head ,just has mine is.
Pierre
What I believe is what others have independently come to believe because it is based in common observation. Models of the world are unique to the individual but the observations they explain are common.I have no idea what your mud metaphor is supposed to mean. I do not feel I am in mud but I suspect you are spinning a religious platitude. Does your metaphor actually have any real meaning or is it just woo for the gullible?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 26 2010,02:33) Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 25 2010,18:45) stu why would you escape from you muddy environment ,it so common to you ,you do not even feel that you are in 6 ft deep of mud, the only thing you can see are the others who are not in the mud like you.
that is the difference between you and me ,you looking at me being out side of the mud and you in 6 ft thick deep mud ,but it is the feeling that you show to have, to be comfortable in it, that is amazing,
and remember what you believe is only in your head ,just has mine is.
Pierre
What I believe is what others have independently come to believe because it is based in common observation. Models of the world are unique to the individual but the observations they explain are common.I have no idea what your mud metaphor is supposed to mean. I do not feel I am in mud but I suspect you are spinning a religious platitude. Does your metaphor actually have any real meaning or is it just woo for the gullible?
Stuart
stucommon observation ? it changes as per who perceived it
if he is educated or not,if he is politicians,sales man ,or a philosopher,
or a no body; you see the mud
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 25 2010,20:16) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 26 2010,02:33) Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 25 2010,18:45) stu why would you escape from you muddy environment ,it so common to you ,you do not even feel that you are in 6 ft deep of mud, the only thing you can see are the others who are not in the mud like you.
that is the difference between you and me ,you looking at me being out side of the mud and you in 6 ft thick deep mud ,but it is the feeling that you show to have, to be comfortable in it, that is amazing,
and remember what you believe is only in your head ,just has mine is.
Pierre
What I believe is what others have independently come to believe because it is based in common observation. Models of the world are unique to the individual but the observations they explain are common.I have no idea what your mud metaphor is supposed to mean. I do not feel I am in mud but I suspect you are spinning a religious platitude. Does your metaphor actually have any real meaning or is it just woo for the gullible?
Stuart
stucommon observation ? it changes as per who perceived it
if he is educated or not,if he is politicians,sales man ,or a philosopher,
or a no body; you see the mud
Pierre
We both see a blue sky on a cloudless day. How each of us explains that might vary but that is one thing we certainly have in common based on common observation. We do not have your god in common: the idea exists in your head not mine, but there is no common observation of your god to be had.Still no idea what you mean by mud. It must be some religious platitude that you think is deep and meaningful. It is not.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 26 2010,05:28) Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 25 2010,20:16) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 26 2010,02:33) Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 25 2010,18:45) stu why would you escape from you muddy environment ,it so common to you ,you do not even feel that you are in 6 ft deep of mud, the only thing you can see are the others who are not in the mud like you.
that is the difference between you and me ,you looking at me being out side of the mud and you in 6 ft thick deep mud ,but it is the feeling that you show to have, to be comfortable in it, that is amazing,
and remember what you believe is only in your head ,just has mine is.
Pierre
What I believe is what others have independently come to believe because it is based in common observation. Models of the world are unique to the individual but the observations they explain are common.I have no idea what your mud metaphor is supposed to mean. I do not feel I am in mud but I suspect you are spinning a religious platitude. Does your metaphor actually have any real meaning or is it just woo for the gullible?
Stuart
stucommon observation ? it changes as per who perceived it
if he is educated or not,if he is politicians,sales man ,or a philosopher,
or a no body; you see the mud
Pierre
We both see a blue sky on a cloudless day. How each of us explains that might vary but that is one thing we certainly have in common based on common observation. We do not have your god in common: the idea exists in your head not mine, but there is no common observation of your god to be had.Still no idea what you mean by mud. It must be some religious platitude that you think is deep and meaningful. It is not.
Stuart
stuyou say;; We do not have your god in common: the idea exists in your head not mine, but there is no common observation of your god to be had.
i was not saying that neither but you and i have both there own God ,yours men made in your mind and mine in my head the heavenly God,
this is not common observation,this is facts.
as for the mud;what i try to tell you is that your common observation is as much bull than most of what going on in this world ,everything is for a buck, politicians for a buck, banks for a buck,you work for a buck,you marry for a buck,you eat for a buck,all things for a buck $
that's what is common observation is,your common world as to go it is so divided it can not stand,take your hand off your face and you will see the mud.
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 25 2010,23:16) stu you say;; We do not have your god in common: the idea exists in your head not mine, but there is no common observation of your god to be had.
i was not saying that neither but you and i have both there own God ,yours men made in your mind and mine in my head the heavenly God,
this is not common observation,this is facts.
as for the mud;what i try to tell you is that your common observation is as much bull than most of what going on in this world ,everything is for a buck, politicians for a buck, banks for a buck,you work for a buck,you marry for a buck,you eat for a buck,all things for a buck $
that's what is common observation is,your common world as to go it is so divided it can not stand,take your hand off your face and you will see the mud.
Pierre
It is not a fact that I have a god. What could that possibly mean? Perhaps it is that you consider your god is a metaphor for something but is not actually a real being. In that case I would adopt the god of Einstein and Spinoza which is the metaphor for the universe. Do you mean for your god to be metaphorical only? If you don't then you probably shouldn't be implying that I have one.I suppose if you pay attention to mud then you are going to see mud. Why are you so focussed on the negative? Can you not see the good in humanity? What kind of nasty blindness would that affliction be? I suspect that, once again, there are scriptures that inspire such a negative outlook. This is a matter of choice for you. Why take the miserable one?
Stuart
Stu,
Is the Sky blue?
It is certainly a 'common observation' but is it a true observation.
And you know the answer to that.
Stu, do stars 'twinkle'? That is another 'common observation', but is it a true obseration?
I think you know the answer to that, too.
Stu, is there life other than that on tnis planet? Common observation says , 'No, not that we have found…yet…'
But Stu, there is life other than that found on the Earth. It is in the higher dimensions outside the stricture of four dimensional human 'common observation'.It's seen through 'Religion' and the 'True Life' is found in the 'True Religion'.
When Jesus healed people he always appealled to their 'sense of Faith'.
This 'Sense of Faith' means believing in something greater than 'Common obseration', 'common belief'…and lo and behold, they are healed if they did believe.
Stu, your counter argument….my point is easy to refute…but …did Jesus know that two thousand years later, one such as yourself would be in dispute over that same thing? yes, he did…
He knew that mankind would be seekin the secret of 'life', because Satan would put it into our minds to do so.
This is the challenge that Satan raised to God, hat mankind could live without the support of the one who created him, just as 'Avatar Man' will when you create him…
And when your 'child' denies that you gave birth to him…you, too, will feel the anguish of the 'birth pangs' come upon you.
When Avatar man starts going bad, and you try to fix him, say, 'AM, just believe in me, open your ether channels to me and i will heal you', and AM says, 'And Who are you? Go away…i have an AM doctor who will cure me…in time…after we learn the secret to 'ether life''. And you say, 'but AM, i am your creator, i am the Life that you seek, i know your Avatar pain, but you shut off the channels, the ether channels, the conscience lines, the belief lines, the sustanance lines that i used to maintain you….please open them up…believe, have faith, open up and you will be healed. Know my name, because it is one half of an idiot. therefore call me 'STU'.
AM, you will melt away, you and all your offspring unless i heal you. Believe in STU and as many as do will be healed. And I will build you a new ether world for the former is sullied, and as many as are saved, will be photon tranported to that new ether world'And AM says, 'Stu, Who?'
And Stu
JustAskin
Quote Is the Sky blue? It is certainly a 'common observation' but is it a true observation.
And you know the answer to that.
Stu, do stars 'twinkle'? That is another 'common observation', but is it a true obseration?
I think you know the answer to that, too.
Yes, they are both correct observations. What is your point?Quote Stu, is there life other than that on tnis planet? Common observation says , 'No, not that we have found…yet…'
But Stu, there is life other than that found on the Earth. It is in the higher dimensions outside the stricture of four dimensional human 'common observation'.
Who has observed that?Quote It's seen through 'Religion' and the 'True Life' is found in the 'True Religion'. When Jesus healed people he always appealled to their 'sense of Faith'.
This 'Sense of Faith' means believing in something greater than 'Common obseration', 'common belief'…and lo and behold, they are healed if they did believe.
Stu, your counter argument….my point is easy to refute…but …did Jesus know that two thousand years later, one such as yourself would be in dispute over that same thing? yes, he did…
So you believe Jesus actually existed then. So do I, I think it about 60% likely. That is because of the lies the gospel writers had to tell about history in order to make their man fit the prophecies as they saw them. Tell me how many people were actually reliably and unquestionably observed to have been cured by Jesus.They did not even have a germ theory of disease, let alone microscopes or other microbiological techniques that could actually determine whether a bacterial disease such as leprosy had been cured. Then there is the question of what Jesus actually said and did, which no one can honestly claim to know to the standard that would be required in a school history essay.
Quote He knew that mankind would be seekin the secret of 'life', because Satan would put it into our minds to do so.
Did he indeed.Quote This is the challenge that Satan raised to God, hat mankind could live without the support of the one who created him, just as 'Avatar Man' will when you create him…
Was that before or after god contracted satan to do his dirty work on Job for him?Quote And when your 'child' denies that you gave birth to him…you, too, will feel the anguish of the 'birth pangs' come upon you.
When Avatar man starts going bad, and you try to fix him, say, 'AM, just believe in me, open your ether channels to me and i will heal you', and AM says, 'And Who are you? Go away…i have an AM doctor who will cure me…in time…after we learn the secret to 'ether life''. And you say, 'but AM, i am your creator, i am the Life that you seek, i know your Avatar pain, but you shut off the channels, the ether channels, the conscience lines, the belief lines, the sustanance lines that i used to maintain you….please open them up…believe, have faith, open up and you will be healed. Know my name, because it is one half of an idiot. therefore call me 'STU'.
Rather be half an idiot than a complete one.Quote AM, you will melt away, you and all your offspring unless i heal you. Believe in STU and as many as do will be healed. And I will build you a new ether world for the former is sullied, and as many as are saved, will be photon tranported to that new ether world' And AM says, 'Stu, Who?'
Your religious platitudes and threats of the sky falling in on my head are dull. Haven’t you got anything more interesting than mindless early Iron Age goatherder superstition? It seems not.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 27 2010,01:25) Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 25 2010,23:16) stu you say;; We do not have your god in common: the idea exists in your head not mine, but there is no common observation of your god to be had.
i was not saying that neither but you and i have both there own God ,yours men made in your mind and mine in my head the heavenly God,
this is not common observation,this is facts.
as for the mud;what i try to tell you is that your common observation is as much bull than most of what going on in this world ,everything is for a buck, politicians for a buck, banks for a buck,you work for a buck,you marry for a buck,you eat for a buck,all things for a buck $
that's what is common observation is,your common world as to go it is so divided it can not stand,take your hand off your face and you will see the mud.
Pierre
It is not a fact that I have a god. What could that possibly mean? Perhaps it is that you consider your god is a metaphor for something but is not actually a real being. In that case I would adopt the god of Einstein and Spinoza which is the metaphor for the universe. Do you mean for your god to be metaphorical only? If you don't then you probably shouldn't be implying that I have one.I suppose if you pay attention to mud then you are going to see mud. Why are you so focussed on the negative? Can you not see the good in humanity? What kind of nasty blindness would that affliction be? I suspect that, once again, there are scriptures that inspire such a negative outlook. This is a matter of choice for you. Why take the miserable one?
Stuart
stupositive/negative
optimism,negativism
hot /cold
half full /half empty
forward/backward
up/down
left/right
white/black
light/darkness
young /old
good/bad
hard/soft
yours/mine
is/is not
have/have not
god/no god
me/not me
ect;
is this were you pick your stupidity of logic??
and tell me to look on the bright side of thing ,those are not for me but for you the true reality is not in extremes
but in the balance between both.yes you have a god because you thinking you exist,but the thoughts that are your believe those are your god,because those cause you to be what you are.
you can call it what you want it would not change the principal in it.
just like if you would call white ,black and vise versa,it would not change the fact that they are two extrem colors.
yes i can see the nice blue sky on a sunny day,but we may not have the same common observation of it,
just like a farmer look at a sunny day to do work,while the city men look at it for time to be off work.
yea you are a funny men ,if you are a men??
Pierre
Stu,
The Sky is not blue…it is a delusion. The particles in the air that makes up the sky filter the blackness of space such that the only colour coming through is 'shades' of blue.Stu, was the rabbit in the hat before the magician brought it out. Yes. Even as he brought it out from under the table throught the trapdoor in the hat.
And we know that stars don't twinkle. It is delusion caused by atmostpheric objects regularly getting in the way of the light from the stars.
And Stu, better to be not Stupid at all, than to be half stupid.
Each time useful informative information is suggested to you, you find some silly way to refute it.
Even simple truth is refuted.
Stu, you are too deep.
It is as Terra says you are.
Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 26 2010,21:36) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 27 2010,01:25) Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 25 2010,23:16) stu you say;; We do not have your god in common: the idea exists in your head not mine, but there is no common observation of your god to be had.
i was not saying that neither but you and i have both there own God ,yours men made in your mind and mine in my head the heavenly God,
this is not common observation,this is facts.
as for the mud;what i try to tell you is that your common observation is as much bull than most of what going on in this world ,everything is for a buck, politicians for a buck, banks for a buck,you work for a buck,you marry for a buck,you eat for a buck,all things for a buck $
that's what is common observation is,your common world as to go it is so divided it can not stand,take your hand off your face and you will see the mud.
Pierre
It is not a fact that I have a god. What could that possibly mean? Perhaps it is that you consider your god is a metaphor for something but is not actually a real being. In that case I would adopt the god of Einstein and Spinoza which is the metaphor for the universe. Do you mean for your god to be metaphorical only? If you don't then you probably shouldn't be implying that I have one.I suppose if you pay attention to mud then you are going to see mud. Why are you so focussed on the negative? Can you not see the good in humanity? What kind of nasty blindness would that affliction be? I suspect that, once again, there are scriptures that inspire such a negative outlook. This is a matter of choice for you. Why take the miserable one?
Stuart
stupositive/negative
optimism,negativism
hot /cold
half full /half empty
forward/backward
up/down
left/right
white/black
light/darkness
young /old
good/bad
hard/soft
yours/mine
is/is not
have/have not
god/no god
me/not me
ect;
is this were you pick your stupidity of logic??
and tell me to look on the bright side of thing ,those are not for me but for you the true reality is not in extremes
but in the balance between both.yes you have a god because you thinking you exist,but the thoughts that are your believe those are your god,because those cause you to be what you are.
you can call it what you want it would not change the principal in it.
just like if you would call white ,black and vise versa,it would not change the fact that they are two extrem colors.
yes i can see the nice blue sky on a sunny day,but we may not have the same common observation of it,
just like a farmer look at a sunny day to do work,while the city men look at it for time to be off work.
yea you are a funny men ,if you are a men??
Pierre
Regarding extremes, perhaps you should be addressing this list to terraricca. I don't see the world in black and white. I find that to be a habit of fundamentalist christians more than anyone else.Regarding the allegation that I have a “god”, I do not. but if you insist I do then what does it say about your own god concept?
Stuart
Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 27 2010,00:08) Stu,
The Sky is not blue…it is a delusion. The particles in the air that makes up the sky filter the blackness of space such that the only colour coming through is 'shades' of blue.Stu, was the rabbit in the hat before the magician brought it out. Yes. Even as he brought it out from under the table throught the trapdoor in the hat.
And we know that stars don't twinkle. It is delusion caused by atmostpheric objects regularly getting in the way of the light from the stars.
And Stu, better to be not Stupid at all, than to be half stupid.
Each time useful informative information is suggested to you, you find some silly way to refute it.
Even simple truth is refuted.
Stu, you are too deep.
It is as Terra says you are.
You said observation, and they were indeed observations. You are making conclusions, not observations. It remains true that the sky is observed to be blue by both of us, and that stars twinkle. The explanation does not invalidate the observation.Stuart
Quote was the rabbit in the hat before the magician brought it out. Yes. Even as he brought it out from under the table throught the trapdoor in the hat.
There is a strong likelihood that the rabbit was in his jacket. (But the real question is, how did it get there? Bum bum, buuum!)David, please don't muddy the waters.
Stu is very devious and we just getting him straightened out.The point is: a Rabbit, a hat, a table, a magician, an audience.
The audience is 'Us and Science'.
The rabbit is 'life…'
The hat is '…the universe and everything'
The table is 'The Spirit realm'We and Science observe the rabbit, 'life' being brought out of the hat…from the universe.
Stu is mesmerised in how the rabbit, life, came out of, what seemed like, an empty hat, lifeless universe.
We, however, know that Stu has ignored the third and forth elements, the Table and the Magician, The hidden source of life, the holy spirit, and the magician, God Almighty.
Stu thinks that the rabbit appears out of the hat without any cause. He sees the chemical elements of the rabbit appearing bit by bit creating a living creature as it is removed…?how?…fully from the hat.
We, however, know that the rabbit is under the table. That the magician opens a trapdoor in the hat and the table and 'brings forth' the rabbit. God brought forth life by means of his Holy Spirit into and out from the universe.But, in a childlike way, Stu is held to the illusion of the magicians 'trick', and even when the magician writes a testimony and publishes it through his 'assistant', even though he says in the book, broadly speaking, what he did, how the 'ACT' was performed without toooo much detail (reserving magician's major secrets), Stu still doesn't believe, preferring to believe in the wonder of the illusion, the delusion of confusion.
Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 27 2010,18:38) David, please don't muddy the waters.
Stu is very devious and we just getting him straightened out.The point is: a Rabbit, a hat, a table, a magician, an audience.
The audience is 'Us and Science'.
The rabbit is 'life…'
The hat is '…the universe and everything'
The table is 'The Spirit realm'We and Science observe the rabbit, 'life' being brought out of the hat…from the universe.
Stu is mesmerised in how the rabbit, life, came out of, what seemed like, an empty hat, lifeless universe.
We, however, know that Stu has ignored the third and forth elements, the Table and the Magician, The hidden source of life, the holy spirit, and the magician, God Almighty.
Stu thinks that the rabbit appears out of the hat without any cause. He sees the chemical elements of the rabbit appearing bit by bit creating a living creature as it is removed…?how?…fully from the hat.
We, however, know that the rabbit is under the table. That the magician opens a trapdoor in the hat and the table and 'brings forth' the rabbit. God brought forth life by means of his Holy Spirit into and out from the universe.But, in a childlike way, Stu is held to the illusion of the magicians 'trick', and even when the magician writes a testimony and publishes it through his 'assistant', even though he says in the book, broadly speaking, what he did, how the 'ACT' was performed without toooo much detail (reserving magician's major secrets), Stu still doesn't believe, preferring to believe in the wonder of the illusion, the delusion of confusion.
“The elements”, if you mean the chemical elements, did not appear directly from the gravitational energy of the expansion of space-time. Hydrogen is derived from spontaneous combinations of smaller particles that had already formed, but the heavier elements needed stars for their manufacture.The rabbit, like you and me, is a product of natural selection. That is simply a fact, and while it may sound miraculous it requires no magic and no Imaginry Sky Friends.
On the other hand, talking snakes and walking on the surface of water – when you start with that talk then we ask when the rabbits will be popping out of hats.
Did I just hear the sound of an analogy backfiring?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 28 2010,00:22) Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 26 2010,21:36) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 27 2010,01:25) Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 25 2010,23:16) stu you say;; We do not have your god in common: the idea exists in your head not mine, but there is no common observation of your god to be had.
i was not saying that neither but you and i have both there own God ,yours men made in your mind and mine in my head the heavenly God,
this is not common observation,this is facts.
as for the mud;what i try to tell you is that your common observation is as much bull than most of what going on in this world ,everything is for a buck, politicians for a buck, banks for a buck,you work for a buck,you marry for a buck,you eat for a buck,all things for a buck $
that's what is common observation is,your common world as to go it is so divided it can not stand,take your hand off your face and you will see the mud.
Pierre
It is not a fact that I have a god. What could that possibly mean? Perhaps it is that you consider your god is a metaphor for something but is not actually a real being. In that case I would adopt the god of Einstein and Spinoza which is the metaphor for the universe. Do you mean for your god to be metaphorical only? If you don't then you probably shouldn't be implying that I have one.I suppose if you pay attention to mud then you are going to see mud. Why are you so focussed on the negative? Can you not see the good in humanity? What kind of nasty blindness would that affliction be? I suspect that, once again, there are scriptures that inspire such a negative outlook. This is a matter of choice for you. Why take the miserable one?
Stuart
stupositive/negative
optimism,negativism
hot /cold
half full /half empty
forward/backward
up/down
left/right
white/black
light/darkness
young /old
good/bad
hard/soft
yours/mine
is/is not
have/have not
god/no god
me/not me
ect;
is this were you pick your stupidity of logic??
and tell me to look on the bright side of thing ,those are not for me but for you the true reality is not in extremes
but in the balance between both.yes you have a god because you thinking you exist,but the thoughts that are your believe those are your god,because those cause you to be what you are.
you can call it what you want it would not change the principal in it.
just like if you would call white ,black and vise versa,it would not change the fact that they are two extrem colors.
yes i can see the nice blue sky on a sunny day,but we may not have the same common observation of it,
just like a farmer look at a sunny day to do work,while the city men look at it for time to be off work.
yea you are a funny men ,if you are a men??
Pierre
Regarding extremes, perhaps you should be addressing this list to terraricca. I don't see the world in black and white. I find that to be a habit of fundamentalist christians more than anyone else.Regarding the allegation that I have a “god”, I do not. but if you insist I do then what does it say about your own god concept?
Stuart
stuso we both have a god in which we believe ,that is my point,
like i say what is or who he is as no bearing on that we have one,
just like if we holding both a glass of beer,the kind of beer as no bearing on the fact that we have a beer,
so we are what we believe no??
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 28 2010,11:24) stu so we both have a god in which we believe ,that is my point,
like i say what is or who he is as no bearing on that we have one,
just like if we holding both a glass of beer,the kind of beer as no bearing on the fact that we have a beer,
so we are what we believe no??
Pierre
I don't have a god. It really is that simple. You wishing it to be true does not alter the fact.I could believe myself to be the principle ballerina with the Bolshoi but you would only need to take one look at me to realise that me believing it does not make it true.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
