Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: King Oberon on May 29, 2015, 03:19:09 PM
-
http://godisimaginary.com/video10.htm
-
http://godisimaginary.com/video10.htm
Hi King took a look at the site. The outfit seem very literalist at first sight. Did it bring about an epiphany in you or does it just broadly agree with what you thought already?
I think we've been through most of the arguments before:
It's an American site which deals with an American interpretation of Christianity burdened with it's own characature of Christianity.
It invited me to believe an interpretation of terms that I couldn't
quite subscribe to.
-
The first question alone begs the question of where the idea for and ability to create prosthetic limbs comes from. Is it any more logical to believe that it was a random idea from a randomised brain than to believe that it was an idea inspired by a loving God?
The concomitant comment - that 'God completely ignores amputees when they pray for miracles' - seems to ignore the fact that we have prosthetics. Why I as a Christian should have to create an 'excuse' for God - as the speaker calls it, seems illogical. So, question 1 considered and deemed undefinitive.
Question 2 - Starvation. It is generally agreed that the world produces enough food to feed every person currently alive. That may well not be at the level of consumption that we have here in the West - but probably also sets aside the level of waste that we have here in the West.
What are the causes of starvation/deprivation of this sort? Greed, corruption, natural disaster - ad that's just three.
So, within the space of two 'questions that every intelligent Christian must answer', the speaker posits explanations that are so far from the way that most Christians think as to make them somewhat pointless.
Question 3: Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people? Firstly, what does the speaker mean by 'innocent'? We may no longer sentence people who do wrong to death, but we still punish them - and in each example that the speaker gives the death penalty is for breaking the law. That punishment may extent to incarceration or may be limited to the grounding of an individual. In the context of a nomadic people - as the Jews were when such laws were set down, where would they have kept a wrong-doer? They wouldn't have had a place to incarcerate them and if the wrong-doing was such that it damaged the fabric of society, what else could they do? Incidentally, each of the 4 passages quoted - Exodus 35:2, Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 21:18-21 and 22:13-21 are taken out of context as far as the comments associated with them are concerned.
Each of the issues dealt with in these passages are wilful acts of disobedience that wouldm lead to damage of the society - the Exodus passage points to behaviour that would break the bonds of a society that was based on the worship of a deity that had saved them from slavery; the Leviticus passage comes in the middle of a longer passage that lists a number of sexual behaviours which could easily lead to the unravelling of that same society; the passage about the 'disobedient son' is clearly dealing with a child who has been persistently and wilfully disobedient and whose parents have tried on several occasions to discipline them and get them to toe the lines that society set out, whilst the passage about killing girls who are not virgins when they marry also comes in the middle of a longer passage about how to deal with sexual immorality. In fact the first example in the 'list' is how a man who accuses his wife of having not been a virgin - and accuses her wrongly, should be treated. Further on in the list, there is an example where a man who is already betrothed 'abducts' a young woman and rapes here. That man has to die; and nothing should be done to the girl as she is innocent of anything.
In fact, all the passages so conveniently picked so as to give a good sound-bite are actually parts of far more balanced passages.
Whilst I hadn't seen this particular clip before, I have seen several very similar ones - all of which raise the same concerns as to selective reading, twisting and misrepresentation of what is actually said and applying 20th century understandings (and, in some cases, lacks of understandings) to events that took place anything up to 3,500 years ago.
This smacks, in my mind, to a lack of intelligent argumentation, be that intentional or otherwise.
-
Excuses, excuses for the evil behaviour of the deity! :o
-
The deity that you don't believe exists.
How can starvation be caused by the evil behaviour of a non-existent deity?
-
The deity that you don't believe exists.
How can starvation be caused by the evil behaviour of a non-existent deity?
I am talking to people who really believe the deity exists, even if I don't, and make excuses for its nasty behaviour!
-
They don't believe its behaviour to be nasty though.
You do, but you also don't believe it exists.
-
The deity that you don't believe exists.
How can starvation be caused by the evil behaviour of a non-existent deity?
I am talking to people who really believe the deity exists, even if I don't, and make excuses for its nasty behaviour!
Exactly. Pitiful efforts by theists at trying to absolve their favoured brand of deity of responsibility for (a) evil actions or (b) inaction in the face of evil are exercises in the most woeful special pleading.
I don't think they quite realise what they do when they wheel out this tired old guff - in one breath they talk of a personal, personalistic, interested deity capable of magicking a universe out of nothingness, and in the next their god isn't capable of running a whelk stall. A god that can speak a cosmos out of nothingness would not break sweat either at the creation of prosthetic limbs for amputees or, even better still, the eradication of situations that call for prosthetic limbs in the first instance. A god with powers supposedly to conjure a universe ex nihilo and to perform miracles (conveniently tucked away in old documents from obscure parts of the ancient world in credulous and superstitious times) suddenly sees its powers evaporate when sceptics start asking pointed questions as to why those same powers are not in evidence in significantly more mundane matters today. The supposed responses to such arguments are the most desperate of barrel-scraping pseudo-rationalisations of the irrational.
-
They don't believe its behaviour to be nasty though.
Because the theistic mindset is shot through with a set of filters which screen out anything which suggests it.
You do, but you also don't believe it exists.
Floo has quite clearly explained that she's referring to people who do believe in a god and the inevitable double standards that this entails.
-
They don't believe its behaviour to be nasty though.
Because the theistic mindset is shot through with a set of filters which screen out anything which suggests it.
That has the ring of bollocks to it Shakes. I think in taking the Jewish canon along with it. Christianity was saying here is our spiritual history and library of ideas. Here it is, warts and all.
Modernist secular antitheism on the other hand is sentimental old bollocks. Which will whitewash it's own bleak view at the drop of a hat.
-
Well, there's nothing like a well-thought-out, well-constructed sound argument Vlad ... and that was nothing like one.
-
The deity that you don't believe exists.
How can starvation be caused by the evil behaviour of a non-existent deity?
I am talking to people who really believe the deity exists, even if I don't, and make excuses for its nasty behaviour!
I take hours attempting to disabuse people of this attitude. I do not excuse the behaviour of God in the OT, quite the contrary. I am not the only one. But of course, you never acknowledge such views. You are a bit selective in your condemnation: or should I say, biased!
-
http://beforeitsnews.com/christian-news/2013/12/dead-man-walks-blind-girl-sees-arm-grows-back-coincidence-or-real-miracle-caught-on-video-2488874.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ru6RmwBoXoQ
-
If you believe that garbage to be true, you will believe anything! :o
-
Given the potentially world-changing magnitude of what's being claimed I wouldn't say that beforeitsnews.com and YouTube strike me as the last word in reliable sources of information.
-
I am talking to people who really believe the deity exists, even if I don't, and make excuses for its nasty behaviour!
You have yet again thrown in this 'nasty behaviour' concept, floo, without actually explaining how the events you are describing relate to God's behaviour. Are you suggesting that, by creating the world on which you and I live, as a dynamic system which renews itself - and a process that sometimes results in humans suffering is a bad thing? I notice that you don't seem to have any qualms about the suffering that non-human life suffers alongside us when such things happen. Does human life have some special value in your view?
-
Are you suggesting that, by creating the world on which you and I live, as a dynamic system which renews itself - and a process that sometimes results in humans suffering is a bad thing?
Would a traditional omnimax god (a) want to create a "dynamic system which renews itself" but without causing suffering, (b) know how to create such a system without causing suffering and (c) actually be able to create such a system without causing suffering?
-
Would a traditional omnimax god (a) want to create a "dynamic system which renews itself" but without causing suffering, (b) know how to create such a system without causing suffering and (c) actually be able to create such a system without causing suffering?
I like the urban jargon, Shaker.
I think that the answer to the last question - since that is the nub of the other two anyway - is 'Yes, he would have been able to'. However, that would have necessitated robotic creations that would unquestioningly have obeyed his instructions - but that that wasn't what he wanted. He wanted humans who chose to have a relationship with their creator, not be forced into it by default..
-
I like the urban jargon, Shaker.
What's the "urban jargon"?
I think that the answer to the last question - since that is the nub of the other two anyway - is 'Yes, he would have been able to'. However, that would have necessitated robotic creations that would unquestioningly have obeyed his instructions - but that that wasn't what he wanted. He wanted humans who chose to have a relationship with their creator, not be forced into it by default..
Oh, humungous festering balls. We're not talking about the creatures within the system but the system itself, so there's no reason for any of the usual twaddle about "robots." You've neatly slipped from the "system" - I assume, given the lack of clear definition, you mean the way that the natural world on this planet operates: weather systems; plate tectonics, etc. - to creatures living in or on that system. Make up your mind which you mean. An omnimax god would want, would know, would be able to create a planet Earth which is "dynamic" but without causing suffering to sentient creatures. Yes or no? You believe in such a deity yet such a state of affairs patently does not exist, therefore it falls to you to explain why not.
Your post is an all-too-familiar exercise in somebody claiming to know the mind and the intentions of the Creator of All That Is ("that would have necessitated robotic creations that would unquestioningly have obeyed his instructions - but that that wasn't what he wanted. He wanted humans who chose to have a relationship with their creator ..."). Of course I don't believe in such a thing as that would obviously be silly and I'm not silly, but you do claim to. The highlighted passage not even merely implies but explicitly states that you know what such an entity wanted/wants.
As my hero, the late and phenomenally great Hitch once observed, I've been called arrogant in my time and hope to be so labelled again, but claiming to be privy to the thoughts, wishes, desires, aversions and intentions of the supposed Creator is beyond even my conceit.
-
I like the urban jargon, Shaker.
What's the "urban jargon"?
I think that the answer to the last question - since that is the nub of the other two anyway - is 'Yes, he would have been able to'. However, that would have necessitated robotic creations that would unquestioningly have obeyed his instructions - but that that wasn't what he wanted. He wanted humans who chose to have a relationship with their creator, not be forced into it by default..
Oh, humungous festering balls. We're not talking about the creatures within the system but the system itself, so there's no reason for any of the usual twaddle about "robots." You've neatly slipped from the "system" - I assume, given the lack of clear definition, you mean the way that the natural world on this planet operates: weather systems; plate tectonics, etc. - to creatures living in or on that system. Make up your mind which you mean. An omnimax god would want, would know, would be able to create a planet Earth which is "dynamic" but without causing suffering to sentient creatures. Yes or no?
Your post is an all-too-familiar exercise in somebody claiming to know the mind and the intentions of the Creator of All That Is ("that would have necessitated robotic creations that would unquestioningly have obeyed his instructions - but that that wasn't what he wanted"). I don't believe in such a thing as that would be silly and I'm not silly, but you do claim to. The highlighted passage not even merely implies but explicitly states that you know what such an entity wanted/wants.
As my hero, the late and phenomenally great Hitch once observed, I've been called arrogant in my time and hope to be so labelled again, but claiming to be privy to the thoughts, wishes, desires, aversions and intentions of the supposed Creator is beyond even my conceit.
You seem to think that you are privy to the thoughts of Quakers, and teachers. So maybe your conceit is even more encompassing than you realised!
-
You seem to think that you are privy to the thoughts of Quakers, and teachers. So maybe your conceit is even more encompassing than you realised!
Privy? No. That would imply some sort of arcane, spooky, esoteric gnosis, where nothing is stated clearly and explicitly from one human being to another or others but is arrived at by some sort of supernatural means. By contrast I'm capable of reading and comprehending what Quakers actually say, do and write for themselves.
I'm capable of using a computer such that I can search for information on the World Wide Web. I'm capable of cracking open a book and reading it. If - which is what you're implying - only valid and valuable knowledge comes entirely and purely from direct personal acquaintance, how impoverished must your knowledge of the universe be.
-
You seem to think that you are privy to the thoughts of Quakers, and teachers. So maybe your conceit is even more encompassing than you realised!
Privy? No. That would imply some sort of arcane, spooky, esoteric gnosis, where nothing is stated clearly and explicitly from one human being to another or others but is arrived at by some sort of supernatural means. By contrast I'm capable of reading and comprehending what Quakers actually say, do and write for themselves.
The Salvation Army, along with other Christian Denominations, make it their daily work to help the poorest and most needy in society, the homeless, etc. Since there are well over one and a half million Salvationists in the UK, I reckon their accumulated acts of giving and helping vastly outweigh anything you might claim for Quakers(!), or the Quakers might claim for themselves. I expect, though, that you would deny this, since you probably know many, many, many of them and can prove what I say is not so.
-
The Salvation Army, along with other Christian Denominations, make it their daily work to help the poorest and most needy in society, the homeless, etc. Since there are well over one and a half million Salvationists in the UK, I reckon their accumulated acts of giving and helping vastly outweigh anything you might claim for Quakers(!), or the Quakers might claim for themselves.
I wasn't aware that Quakers tended to "claim" anything - as far as I'm aware they come across as a very quiet, humble bunch to whom the notion of "claiming" good deeds is anathema. In fact they would probably say, as I had cause to say just yesterday, that making great show, ostentatious display of doing good would fall foul of Matthew 6:2-4.
-
The Salvation Army, along with other Christian Denominations, make it their daily work to help the poorest and most needy in society, the homeless, etc. Since there are well over one and a half million Salvationists in the UK, I reckon their accumulated acts of giving and helping vastly outweigh anything you might claim for Quakers(!), or the Quakers might claim for themselves.
I wasn't aware that Quakers tended to "claim" anything - as far as I'm aware they come across as a very quiet, humble bunch to whom the notion of "claiming" good deeds is anathema. In fact they would probably say, as I had cause to say just yesterday, that making great show, ostentatious display of doing good would fall foul of Matthew 6:2-4.
How do you know what they might contribute to society, then, if they say nothing about it. Perhaps they do nothing much! How do you know they are humble? They are human, and so susceptible the failings of us all: "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity!"
-
How do you know what they might contribute to society, then, if they say nothing about it. Perhaps they do nothing much! How do you know they are humble?
Quaker philanthropists, Quaker humanitarians, Quaker humanists (in the broadest sense, i.e. not necessarily and intrinsically identified with strictly secular non-religious humanists) tend on the whole not to draw attention to themselves. Their Quakerism or Quakerdom (so to speak) tends to have attention drawn to it by others, not themselves.
They are human, and so susceptible the failings of us all: "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity!"
Isn't that a direct quotation from the Old Testament which you regularly claim to reject, Bashers? Ecclesiastes, if I recall rightly.
-
How do you know what they might contribute to society, then, if they say nothing about it. Perhaps they do nothing much! How do you know they are humble?
Quaker philanthropists, Quaker humanitarians, Quaker humanists (in the broadest sense, i.e. not necessarily and intrinsically identified with strictly secular non-religious humanists) tend on the whole not to draw attention to themselves. Their Quakerism or Quakerdom (so to speak) tends to have attention drawn to it by others, not themselves.
I can see how you are keen to try to get their aura of sanctity to rub off onto you, Shaker. However you are a virulent antitheist and they are a world away from the Quakers.
-
How do you know what they might contribute to society, then, if they say nothing about it. Perhaps they do nothing much! How do you know they are humble?
Quaker philanthropists, Quaker humanitarians, Quaker humanists (in the broadest sense, i.e. not necessarily and intrinsically identified with strictly secular non-religious humanists) tend on the whole not to draw attention to themselves. Their Quakerism or Quakerdom (so to speak) tends to have attention drawn to it by others, not themselves.
They are human, and so susceptible the failings of us all: "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity!"
Isn't that a direct quotation from the Old Testament which you regularly claim to reject, Bashers? Ecclesiastes, if I recall rightly.
Of course it is. I reject the OT depiction of God; and such things as the history of the Hebrew and their Judaic beliefs, that is all. My quote does not come under those criteria. Do try and keep up.
-
I can see how you are keen to try to get their aura of sanctity to rub off onto you, Shaker.
No idea what this "aura of sanctity" business is.
However you are a virulent antitheist and they are a world away from the Quakers.
Yes. I'm not a Quaker - not even a non-theist Quaker - and don't consider myself as such. Good ideas are good ideas wherever they come from. I'm an ideas slag rather than an ideas snob in that sense; if something accords with my reason, common sense and prior moral system I'll agree with it wherever it comes from.
-
If you believe that garbage to be true, you will believe anything! :o
The point was not what I believe. The point is that there are claims amputees are getting new limbs and the REAL argument is not about whether to believe it or not BUT CAN IT BE PROVED.
If TRUE then what kind of idiot denies it before checking? ::)
-
Given the potentially world-changing magnitude of what's being claimed I wouldn't say that beforeitsnews.com and YouTube strike me as the last word in reliable sources of information.
FFS Why not just check it out instead of making excuses about where it was posted. Oh and FF is for flippin-hecks sake... Don't want you getting confused with all the other definitions...
-
Are you suggesting that, by creating the world on which you and I live, as a dynamic system which renews itself - and a process that sometimes results in humans suffering is a bad thing?
Would a traditional omnimax god (a) want to create a "dynamic system which renews itself" but without causing suffering, (b) know how to create such a system without causing suffering and (c) actually be able to create such a system without causing suffering?
He obviously has a sense of humour after all he created you and Floo. ;D ::)
-
If you believe that garbage to be true, you will believe anything! :o
The point was not what I believe. The point is that there are claims amputees are getting new limbs and the REAL argument is not about whether to believe it or not BUT CAN IT BE PROVED.
Well, can it be proved?
If yes....
What form do you think that proof would take?
-
Would a traditional omnimax god (a) want to create a "dynamic system which renews itself" but without causing suffering, (b) know how to create such a system without causing suffering and (c) actually be able to create such a system without causing suffering?
He obviously has a sense of humour after all he created you and Floo. ;D ::)
As usual, a non-answer to questions you don't like.
-
If you believe that garbage to be true, you will believe anything! :o
The point was not what I believe. The point is that there are claims amputees are getting new limbs and the REAL argument is not about whether to believe it or not BUT CAN IT BE PROVED.
If TRUE then what kind of idiot denies it before checking? ::)
What kind of an idiot makes untrue claims in the first place. It CAN'T be proved by you or anybody on this earth.
-
http://godisimaginary.com/video10.htm
Finally got to listen to it... If you think you need a college education or degree to understand what he is saying then he seriously deluded.
In history there has been cases and we posted them some time back on threads probably now cut of a limb growing back.
He talks about children starving... Get a life that is mans downfall and mans fault not God.
Enough food and charities why not give the raise to charities..
What a load of rubbish if the guy was intelligent even by worldly scholarly wisdom he would know Christ fed the hungry and use 5 loaves and three fishes leaving baskets of left overs.
If he had a brain he would know those who believe in Christ can do as CHRIST did.
So instead of complaining use his brain become a believer and use the power as Christ did for the good of others... But that is too simple isn't it . Nah he would rather waste his money and time making such stupid videos. The world has suffering because Man has NEVER listened to God. Because everything is as it is because NO ONE believes God and those who make a mockery of him have even less ability to use the brain and understanding God gave them.
Sickness is NOT Gods will. But this man clearly cannot see the answer is to believe.
-
Sass, how do you know sickness isn't the will of the deity?
-
Oh, humungous festering balls. We're not talking about the creatures within the system but the system itself, so there's no reason for any of the usual twaddle about "robots." You've neatly slipped from the "system" - I assume, given the lack of clear definition, you mean the way that the natural world on this planet operates: weather systems; plate tectonics, etc. - to creatures living in or on that system. Make up your mind which you mean. An omnimax god would want, would know, would be able to create a planet Earth which is "dynamic" but without causing suffering to sentient creatures. Yes or no? You believe in such a deity yet such a state of affairs patently does not exist, therefore it falls to you to explain why not.
Hold your horses, Shaker. This particular element of this thread started out from Floo's reference to 'the deity's ... 'nasty behaviour' (see Reply #15, iirc). I understood her to be referring to things like suffering, natural disasters, etc. I believe that all that has to do with the 'system', but that human intervention exacerbates it.
In response to you question "An omnimax god would want, would know, would be able to create a planet Earth which is "dynamic" but without causing suffering to sentient creatures. Yes or No?" I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'sentient'. Do you mean beings that are able to 'perceive or feel things' (www.oxforddictionaries.com), or do you mean beings that are able to understand and respond/react to what is happening around them (a definition I have seen used on some forums and in some written material)?
The latter definition implies a degree of freedom of thought and action (freewill?) which the other doesn't. No doubt God could produce the former situation, but I believe he chose to create the latter. Remember that the 'sentient being' is part and parcel of the system, not an external observer.
Your post is an all-too-familiar exercise in somebody claiming to know the mind and the intentions of the Creator of All That Is ("that would have necessitated robotic creations that would unquestioningly have obeyed his instructions - but that that wasn't what he wanted. He wanted humans who chose to have a relationship with their creator ...")
Yes, in a way I am claiming to know the mind of the Creator. After all, he tells us his intentions often enough within the pages of the Bible. One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist, or even a linguist, to understand that. I wouldn't want to claim that I understand the finer details of God's thinking, but large brushstroke pictures often tell the main story whilst the finer brushstrokes tell the details.
Of course I don't believe in such a thing as that would obviously be silly and I'm not silly, but you do claim to. The highlighted passage not even merely implies but explicitly states that you know what such an entity wanted/wants.
Do you know what the Government intend to do over the next 4 to 5 years? Of course you do. It was laid out in their manifesto. You may not know exactly, detail for detail, but you have a general picture. How does that differ from my having an 'outline' understanding of God's purposes and plans?
As my hero, the late and phenomenally great Hitch once observed, I've been called arrogant in my time and hope to be so labelled again, but claiming to be privy to the thoughts, wishes, desires, aversions and intentions of the supposed Creator is beyond even my conceit.
I wouldn't call you arrogant if you paid me. However, I would expect that you would be able to understand the difference between knowing an outline plan that is laid out in the euivalent of a manifesto and a detailed one that comes together over time and circumstance.
-
Sass, how do you know sickness isn't the will of the deity?
Did sickness exist in the earliest days of human life, floo? According to Genesis, at what point did sickness enter the system? Whether Genesis is a theological or a historical document, that question needs to be answered.
-
Sass, how do you know sickness isn't the will of the deity?
Did sickness exist in the earliest days of human life, floo? According to Genesis, at what point did sickness enter the system? Whether Genesis is a theological or a historical document, that question needs to be answered.
Well, surely if "God" created all firms of life and then Adam and Eve, he must have created malignant viruses and germs, before them ... which answers your question.
-
Sass, how do you know sickness isn't the will of the deity?
Did sickness exist in the earliest days of human life, floo? According to Genesis, at what point did sickness enter the system? Whether Genesis is a theological or a historical document, that question needs to be answered.
Most likely. If the deity created everything, it created the wherewithal for sickness to flourish, so the buck stops with it!
-
If you believe that garbage to be true, you will believe anything! :o
The point was not what I believe. The point is that there are claims amputees are getting new limbs and the REAL argument is not about whether to believe it or not BUT CAN IT BE PROVED.
No. That's all - just no.
-
The first question alone begs the question of where the idea for and ability to create prosthetic limbs comes from. Is it any more logical to believe that it was a random idea from a randomised brain than to believe that it was an idea inspired by a loving God?
Yes it could have aliens or Santa Claus, maybe the tooth fairy got an upgrade and Tooth Fairy 2.0 does this sort of stuff. The use of the words like random doesn't really apply either.
The concomitant comment - that 'God completely ignores amputees when they pray for miracles' - seems to ignore the fact that we have prosthetics. Why I as a Christian should have to create an 'excuse' for God - as the speaker calls it, seems illogical. So, question 1 considered and deemed undefinitive.
Seriosuly are you going tell an amputee that his/her prosthetic is as good?
Question 2 - Starvation. It is generally agreed that the world produces enough food to feed every person currently alive. That may well not be at the level of consumption that we have here in the West - but probably also sets aside the level of waste that we have here in the West.
What are the causes of starvation/deprivation of this sort? Greed, corruption, natural disaster - ad that's just three.
If an all powerful god exists it is guilty for all three.
etc
-
Most likely. If the deity created everything, it created the wherewithal for sickness to flourish, so the buck stops with it!
Did God create the wherewithal for sickness to flourish, or did he create the potential for it to exist should things turn out in a given way? (Those are two very different things)
The next question is which way did he want things to turn out? Do you think he wanted humanity to turn their back on him? After all, that is what seems to have been the trigger for sickness to appear.
-
Seriosuly are you going tell an amputee that his/her prosthetic is as good?
It's not something I'd say, but I do know of people who have said that their artificial limb is at least as good as the natural one they used to have.
If an all powerful god exists it is guilty for all three.
Like Floo, you have made this comment before - yet never provided any evidence for it.
-
It's not something I'd say, but I do know of people who have said that their artificial limb is at least as good as the natural one they used to have
They may have said that if the limb was injured or damaged or non-fuctioning in some other way. They would not say it of a fully functioning anatomical limb.
Your post is disingenuous.
-
The first question alone begs the question of where the idea for and ability to create prosthetic limbs comes from. Is it any more logical to believe that it was a random idea from a randomised brain than to believe that it was an idea inspired by a loving God?
Why on earth would a loving "God" take such a roundabout route when he could just have given us the ability to regrow missing body parts, which incidentally "he" has given to other life forms.
-
It's not something I'd say, but I do know of people who have said that their artificial limb is at least as good as the natural one they used to have.
Citation required.
Like Floo, you have made this comment before - yet never provided any evidence for it.
If god is all powerful then it follows that this god is able to control greed, corruption, natural disaster, the causes of starvation.
-
Sass, how do you know sickness isn't the will of the deity?
Did sickness exist in the earliest days of human life, floo? According to Genesis, at what point did sickness enter the system? Whether Genesis is a theological or a historical document, that question needs to be answered.
We know it isn't historical, so what event was it that caused humanity to fall?
-
Sass, how do you know sickness isn't the will of the deity?
Did sickness exist in the earliest days of human life, floo? According to Genesis, at what point did sickness enter the system? Whether Genesis is a theological or a historical document, that question needs to be answered.
We know it isn't historical, so what event was it that caused humanity to fall?
It doesn't really matter what it was ... we are still left with the fact (?) that "God" created viruses/germs to plague us.
-
What I don't get is that Biblical literalists will claim the deity created everything, yet blame humans when things go wrong! ::)
-
What I don't get is that Biblical literalists will claim the deity created everything, yet blame humans when things go wrong! ::)
It's all part of the endless parade of excuses, dodges, ducks, dives, bobs and weaves that some theists put up when faced with sceptical challenge to their beliefs.
Theists of any more or less traditional sort are committed to a belief in a god with certain powers. People long ago worked out that the strict and literal meaning of the word omnipotent is 'capable of doing absolutely anything' and that leads very quickly to logical impossibilities (the ability to create square circles, etc.) so the word had to be dialled back to mean 'with great though not unlimited power; capable of doing everything logically possible.' Therefore for theists their god is able to create a universe out of nothing and create various miracles, and so forth.
What's immediately noticeable is that all these alleged events are buried way, way, way back in the dim and distant past, buried in arcane documents from obscure corners of the very ancient world in superstitious and credulous times. Never right here, right now, today. Alan Burns boldly alleges that miracles are happening here and now in the world of 2015 but, of course, never provides a scrap of evidence for a single one.
The point being made here is that a god powerful enough to speak a cosmos into being suddenly loses its powers even with something which to it (though not to us) would be vastly more mundane - preventing pain, misery, fear and suffering, for example. The god who could bring forth a universe 13.7 billion of our Earth years ago can't, it seems, prevent famine or earthquake or genocide. When this is pointed out, theists typically go into full-on special pleading mode with every kind of excuse: people are responsible for not feeding the hungry is the one wheeled out most often. Well, with a god of the omnimax sort this doesn't matter: such a deity wants to prevent suffering, knows how to prevent and could prevent it, but doesn't. I, for example, want to prevent suffering but don't always know how to, certainly not on a planet-wide scale ... which, incidentally, backs up Dan Barker's famous statement that most people in most ways in most places most of the time are nicer than Jesus and better than God.
It really is a highly distasteful display of special pleading, excuse rather than explanation, rationalisation rather than rationality, a woeful parade of ad hoccery, largely it would seem made up on the spot, intended to shore up god-belief at absolutely any price rather than face the obvious.
-
Sass, how do you know sickness isn't the will of the deity?
ffs,
Acts 10:38King James Version (KJV)
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
King James Bible
Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.]
It isn't Gods will for man to have sickness or suffer...
-
If you believe that garbage to be true, you will believe anything! :o
The point was not what I believe. The point is that there are claims amputees are getting new limbs and the REAL argument is not about whether to believe it or not BUT CAN IT BE PROVED.
No. That's all - just no.
You haven't looked and you certainly won't take the time to research the truth. So you don't get to give that answer.. unless you want everyone to know how closed minded your ignorance has lead you to become?
-
You haven't looked
If amputees really were getting new limbs - real ones, I mean: flesh and blood and vein and sinew limbs, not prostheses - I wouldn't have to look, would I? None of us would. It would be splashed across every newspaper, every magazine, would take up every news bulletin and create umpteen documentaries the world over.
and you certainly won't take the time to research the truth.
Because it's nonsense. Utter humungous fulminating festering horseshit. Unless you can prove otherwise?
So you don't get to give that answer
Yes I do. I just did. Prove your claims. That would be the simplest method of showing me to be wrong - prove your claims.
That's all.
unless you want everyone to know how closed minded your ignorance has lead you to become?
My mind, thank goodness, is closed to horseshit.
-
Sass, how do you know sickness isn't the will of the deity?
ffs,
Acts 10:38King James Version (KJV)
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
King James Bible
Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.]
It isn't Gods will for man to have sickness or suffer...
Well the not so good book tells porkies! The deity seems to dine out on suffering humanity if the deeds attributed to it are factual! >:(
-
Sass, how do you know sickness isn't the will of the deity?
ffs,
Acts 10:38King James Version (KJV)
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
King James Bible
Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.]
It isn't Gods will for man to have sickness or suffer...
Well the not so good book tells porkies! The deity seems to dine out on suffering humanity if the deeds attributed to it are factual! >:(
Can't you come up with some original comment? All you do is trot out the same old, same old!
-
Can't you come up with some original comment? All you do is trot out the same old, same old!
At least Floo does her own writing - all Sass ever does is copy and paste vast swathes of the Bible and considers that a reply to anything and everything ::)
-
Can't you come up with some original comment? All you do is trot out the same old, same old!
At least Floo does her own writing - all Sass ever does is copy and paste vast swathes of the Bible and considers that a reply to anything and ev
Floo, writng? Pull the other one. It's a series of one-liners, and always the same old...
-
Can't you come up with some original comment? All you do is trot out the same old, same old!
At least Floo does her own writing - all Sass ever does is copy and paste vast swathes of the Bible and considers that a reply to anything and ev
Floo, writng? Pull the other one. It's a series of one-liners, and always the same old...
Well, quoting the Bible is always the same old, but it's just easier to copy whole lumps of it.
-
Can't you come up with some original comment? All you do is trot out the same old, same old!
At least Floo does her own writing - all Sass ever does is copy and paste vast swathes of the Bible and considers that a reply to anything and ev
Floo, writng? Pull the other one. It's a series of one-liners, and always the same old...
Well, quoting the Bible is always the same old, but it's just easier to copy whole lumps of it.
Are you saying that's what I do? Please quote some examples.. It is a necessary part of defending one's beliefs to quote parts of the Bible that is under scrutiny: but "whole lumps"? No.
-
Can't you come up with some original comment? All you do is trot out the same old, same old!
At least Floo does her own writing - all Sass ever does is copy and paste vast swathes of the Bible and considers that a reply to anything and ev
Floo, writng? Pull the other one. It's a series of one-liners, and always the same old...
Well, quoting the Bible is always the same old, but it's just easier to copy whole lumps of it.
Are you saying that's what I do? Please quote some examples.. It is a necessary part of defending one's beliefs to quote parts of the Bible that is under scrutiny: but "whole lumps"? No.
We are talking about Sass, BA. Sorry to disappoint you! :)
-
Can't you come up with some original comment? All you do is trot out the same old, same old!
At least Floo does her own writing - all Sass ever does is copy and paste vast swathes of the Bible and considers that a reply to anything and ev
Floo, writng? Pull the other one. It's a series of one-liners, and always the same old...
Well, quoting the Bible is always the same old, but it's just easier to copy whole lumps of it.
Are you saying that's what I do? Please quote some examples.. It is a necessary part of defending one's beliefs to quote parts of the Bible that is under scrutiny: but "whole lumps"? No.
We are talking about Sass, BA. Sorry to disappoint you! :)
Well, nobody's compelled to read them; so what's the problem?
-
Well, nobody's compelled to read them; so what's the problem?
No problem, dearie, just keeping the balance in our favour. :)
-
Well, nobody's compelled to read them; so what's the problem?
No problem, dearie, just keeping the balance in our favour. :)
"Balance" is not a word I usually associate with the atheists on here! :)
-
Well, nobody's compelled to read them; so what's the problem?
No problem, dearie, just keeping the balance in our favour. :)
"Balance" is not a word I usually associate with the atheists on here! :)
That's understandable, given your warped view of us. :D
-
Well, nobody's compelled to read them; so what's the problem?
No problem, dearie, just keeping the balance in our favour. :)
"Balance" is not a word I usually associate with the atheists on here! :)
That's understandable, given your warped view of us. :D
Oh dear: you find it hard to face the honest truth, don't you?
-
Well, nobody's compelled to read them; so what's the problem?
No problem, dearie, just keeping the balance in our favour. :)
"Balance" is not a word I usually associate with the atheists on here! :)
That's understandable, given your warped view of us. :D
Oh dear: you find it hard to face the honest truth, don't you?
No , I love it! When are you going to present some?
-
Well, nobody's compelled to read them; so what's the problem?
No problem, dearie, just keeping the balance in our favour. :)
"Balance" is not a word I usually associate with the atheists on here! :)
That's understandable, given your warped view of us. :D
Oh dear: you find it hard to face the honest truth, don't you?
No , I love it! When are you going to present some?
I have been, for a long time now. Sadly, you don't/won't recognise it.
-
Well, nobody's compelled to read them; so what's the problem?
No problem, dearie, just keeping the balance in our favour. :)
"Balance" is not a word I usually associate with the atheists on here! :)
That's understandable, given your warped view of us. :D
Oh dear: you find it hard to face the honest truth, don't you?
No , I love it! When are you going to present some?
I have been, for a long time now. Sadly, you don't/won't recognise it.
We'll have to stop this, Bashers, or we'll get another thread locked. Sleep well!
-
Well, nobody's compelled to read them; so what's the problem?
No problem, dearie, just keeping the balance in our favour. :)
"Balance" is not a word I usually associate with the atheists on here! :)
That's understandable, given your warped view of us. :D
Oh dear: you find it hard to face the honest truth, don't you?
No , I love it! When are you going to present some?
I have been, for a long time now. Sadly, you don't/won't recognise it.
We'll have to stop this, Bashers, or we'll get another thread locked. Sleep well!
I agree. It seems teacher is watching us. Have a good night.
-
What I don't get is that Biblical literalists will claim the deity created everything, yet blame humans when things go wrong! ::)
It's all part of the endless parade of excuses, dodges, ducks, dives, bobs and weaves that some theists put up when faced with sceptical challenge to their beliefs.
The biggest dodge of all on this forum is philosophical materialists denying that's what they are.
Sorry to piss on your bonfire.
-
What I don't get is that Biblical literalists will claim the deity created everything, yet blame humans when things go wrong! ::)
It's all part of the endless parade of excuses, dodges, ducks, dives, bobs and weaves that some theists put up when faced with sceptical challenge to their beliefs.
The biggest dodge of all on this forum is philosophical materialists denying that's what they are.
Sorry to piss on your bonfire.
Dang it!
My VB card doesn't have PM on it this week, I'm screwed!
-
You haven't looked
If amputees really were getting new limbs - real ones, I mean: flesh and blood and vein and sinew limbs, not prostheses - I wouldn't have to look, would I? None of us would. It would be splashed across every newspaper, every magazine, would take up every news bulletin and create umpteen documentaries the world over.
Of course you would have to look.
Cast not thy pearls before the swine...
and you certainly won't take the time to research the truth.
Because it's nonsense. Utter humungous fulminating festering horseshit. Unless you can prove otherwise?
AS I said... pearls and swine.
So you don't get to give that answer
Yes I do. I just did. Prove your claims. That would be the simplest method of showing me to be wrong - prove your claims.
Go look for it, instead of asking for evidence and expecting everyone else to do your work for you. Go look and stop making pathetic excuses. How old are you? Because right now you are worse than a rebellious teenager.
If you want proof look of it instead of wanting others to do it for you.
But your too lazy and far too closed minded to actually really want evidence enough to go seek it.,..
That's all.
unless you want everyone to know how closed minded your ignorance has lead you to become?
My mind, thank goodness, is closed to horseshit.
Your mind is so closed you wouldn't know horse shit if it walked up and introduced itself...
-
Sass, how do you know sickness isn't the will of the deity?
ffs,
Acts 10:38King James Version (KJV)
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
King James Bible
Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.]
It isn't Gods will for man to have sickness or suffer...
Well the not so good book tells porkies! The deity seems to dine out on suffering humanity if the deeds attributed to it are factual! >:(
That is the problem with your thinking... It lacks the ability to fathom authority. According to your thinking every judge who gave someone the death sentence is evil and murderer.
Grow up... God only punishes evil when necessary.
Has you understood ANYTHING about the bible or MANKIND you would know better than make stupid remarks...
-
Sass, how do you know sickness isn't the will of the deity?
ffs,
Acts 10:38King James Version (KJV)
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
King James Bible
Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.]
It isn't Gods will for man to have sickness or suffer...
Well the not so good book tells porkies! The deity seems to dine out on suffering humanity if the deeds attributed to it are factual! >:(
Can't you come up with some original comment? All you do is trot out the same old, same old!
She is stuck in a time warp of ground hog day when it comes to religion....
-
Can't you come up with some original comment? All you do is trot out the same old, same old!
At least Floo does her own writing - all Sass ever does is copy and paste vast swathes of the Bible and considers that a reply to anything and everything ::)
What a LIE... I quote the bible and I don't copy and paste. I know the verses hence I can quote. I copy from the online bible but the writings are my own.
What a weak and unimaginative answer... GOT NOTHING better than lies and sarcasm.
I guess I am more intelligent in my replies. At least I know the bible and Christianity,.
I have forgotten more about Christianity and the bible than you will ever know...
-
Can't you come up with some original comment? All you do is trot out the same old, same old!
At least Floo does her own writing - all Sass ever does is copy and paste vast swathes of the Bible and considers that a reply to anything and ev
Floo, writng? Pull the other one. It's a series of one-liners, and always the same old...
Well, quoting the Bible is always the same old, but it's just easier to copy whole lumps of it.
Are you saying that's what I do? Please quote some examples.. It is a necessary part of defending one's beliefs to quote parts of the Bible that is under scrutiny: but "whole lumps"? No.
We are talking about Sass, BA. Sorry to disappoint you! :)
You have to talk and insult me.. I am the one who shows you and others know absolutely NOTHING about God or the bible.
Must hate me for showing how much Bull you talk and how much is in ignorance with NO REAL FOUNDATION but what you have read from others...
So stop talking and making false allegations. Write something original and informative instead of the same old same old same old...
-
Well, nobody's compelled to read them; so what's the problem?
No problem, dearie, just keeping the balance in our favour. :)
The balance shows you have lost...
-
Well, nobody's compelled to read them; so what's the problem?
No problem, dearie, just keeping the balance in our favour. :)
"Balance" is not a word I usually associate with the atheists on here! :)
That's understandable, given your warped view of us. :D
Oh dear: you find it hard to face the honest truth, don't you?
Shhhhh they think no one has noticed.... ;D
-
What I don't get is that Biblical literalists will claim the deity created everything, yet blame humans when things go wrong! ::)
It's all part of the endless parade of excuses, dodges, ducks, dives, bobs and weaves that some theists put up when faced with sceptical challenge to their beliefs.
The biggest dodge of all on this forum is philosophical materialists denying that's what they are.
Sorry to piss on your bonfire.
Dang it!
My VB card doesn't have PM on it this week, I'm screwed!
Your all screwed, dead and just won't lie down....
-
Of course you would have to look.
Cast not thy pearls before the swine...
So a phenomenally implausible event which would rock the entire basis of science itself wouldn't make it into the papers?
AS I said... pearls and swine.
As I said, evasive horseshit designed to avoid the burden of proof for your ridiculous claims.
Go look for it, instead of asking for evidence and expecting everyone else to do your work for you. Go look and stop making pathetic excuses. How old are you? Because right now you are worse than a rebellious teenager.
If you want proof look of it instead of wanting others to do it for you.
But your too lazy and far too closed minded to actually really want evidence enough to go seek it.,..
It doesn't exist. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. It doesn't exist. Anywhere. If it did you would produce it. You don't because you can't, and your wince-inducingly moronic and typically unlettered attempts at evasion and deflection confirm it. You made a stupid claim, got called out on it and now are, as the colonials have it, butthurt because of it. There is no evidence for the absurd claims you make. None. Zero. I no more have to go looking for the nonexistent evidence of amputees regrowing limbs than I do for the Tooth Fairy leaving behind hard cash for lost teeth. You make the claim, you back it up. That's how it works. Prove me wrong. Here's your chance, right here and right now. Piss or get off the pot, as they say. It's that simple.
Or of course what you could do, and almost certainly will do, is come back sans evidence (of course) but with more of your usual functionally illiterate bullshit, either with or without another meaningless slab of biblical cut-and-pastery.
-
I guess I am more intelligent in my replies.
Fiendishly well hidden, I must say.
At least I know the bible and Christianity,.
I have forgotten more about Christianity and the bible than you will ever know...
Any chance you can forget some more?
-
Of course you would have to look.
Cast not thy pearls before the swine...
So a phenomenally implausible event which would rock the entire basis of science itself wouldn't make it into the papers?
AS I said... pearls and swine.
As I said, evasive horseshit designed to avoid the burden of proof for your ridiculous claims.
Go look for it, instead of asking for evidence and expecting everyone else to do your work for you. Go look and stop making pathetic excuses. How old are you? Because right now you are worse than a rebellious teenager.
If you want proof look of it instead of wanting others to do it for you.
But your too lazy and far too closed minded to actually really want evidence enough to go seek it.,..
It doesn't exist. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. It doesn't exist. Anywhere. If it did you would produce it. You don't because you can't, and your wince-inducingly moronic and typically unlettered attempts at evasion and deflection confirm it. You made a stupid claim, got called out on it and now are, as the colonials have it, butthurt because of it. There is no evidence for the absurd claims you make. None. Zero. I no more have to go looking for the nonexistent evidence of amputees regrowing limbs than I do for the Tooth Fairy leaving behind hard cash for lost teeth. You make the claim, you back it up. That's how it works. Prove me wrong. Here's your chance, right here and right now. Piss or get off the pot, as they say. It's that simple.
Or of course what you could do, and almost certainly will do, is come back sans evidence (of course) but with more of your usual functionally illiterate bullshit, either with or without another meaningless slab of biblical cut-and-pastery.
Shaker, old fruit, you and I (and many others here) know that you are trying to turn a sow's ear into a silken purse, as my old mum would have said! It can't be done.
But oh, what a joy it is to read your attempts to achieve the impossible! Rough diamonds presenting the glorious truth. They brighten my day. :)
-
Bless you Len :D
-
Bless you Len :D
Let's get Sassy time again! You people are bullying idiots. If it gives you some sort of satisfaction to pick on her daily, and so often in tandem, then you should consider how you appear to others, and it's not nice.
-
White knight to the rescue ... Sass brings everything she gets squarely on herself as far as I'm concerned. After all, she still keeps coming back again and again and again and again, still trotting out the same twaddle and making the same ludicrous claims that she refuses to provide any backing for (and continually dodging the responsibility to do so), and seems to be perfectly capable of standing up for herself, so what's it to you?
-
White knight to the rescue ... Sass brings everything she gets squarely on herself as far as I'm concerned. After all, she still keeps coming back again and again and again and again, still trotting out the same twaddle and making the same ludicrous claims that she refuses to provide any backing for (and continually dodging the responsibility to do so), and seems to be perfectly capable of standing up for herself, so what's it to you?
I repeat: you are a bully; and you and Leonard should be ashamed to deride someone, often in personal terms, questioning her intelligence, amongst other insults, to the extent that you do - that's what it is to me. You have made your point as to what you think of her beliefs, to continue your attacks over months is unsavoury and simply the archetypal playground bullying. I will stand up for someone under attack if I wish, just as you constantly do for Leonard and Floo, as you have only just now shown.
-
I guess I am more intelligent in my replies.
Well Sass has an interesting take on the concept of intelligence if she thinks her confused posts are intelligent. ;D ;D ;D
-
I guess I am more intelligent in my replies.
Well Sass has an interesting take on the concept of intelligence if she thinks her confused posts are intelligent. ;D ;D ;D
Thank you, Floo. for re-inforcing my point about attacks on her intelligence. It would be easy to adopt similar methods with you and the others, but I'll refrain.
-
White knight to the rescue ... Sass brings everything she gets squarely on herself as far as I'm concerned. After all, she still keeps coming back again and again and again and again, still trotting out the same twaddle and making the same ludicrous claims that she refuses to provide any backing for (and continually dodging the responsibility to do so), and seems to be perfectly capable of standing up for herself, so what's it to you?
Sass deserves all she gets in reply to her crazy, nonsense posts, I have no sympathy for the silly woman whatsoever! If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen!
-
White knight to the rescue ... Sass brings everything she gets squarely on herself as far as I'm concerned. After all, she still keeps coming back again and again and again and again, still trotting out the same twaddle and making the same ludicrous claims that she refuses to provide any backing for (and continually dodging the responsibility to do so), and seems to be perfectly capable of standing up for herself, so what's it to you?
Sass deserves all she gets in reply to her crazy, nonsense posts, I have no sympathy for the silly woman whatsoever! If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen!
It's easy to see at least one of your objections to Christianity: by rejecting it, you are free to do and say as you like, without the strictures of a religion.
-
Free speech/freedom of expression you mean? How dreadful ::)
-
Free speech/freedom of expression you mean? How dreadful ::)
Or licence to be a troll and bully. Some people simply use that freedom as an excuse to abuse. A certain amount of self-control and sympathy for the feelings of others needs to go hand in hand with freedom of speech, or should.
-
Or licence to be a troll and bully. Some people simply use that freedom as an excuse to abuse. A certain amount of self-control and sympathy for the feelings of others needs to go hand in hand with freedom of speech, or should.
... which to me seems indistinguishable from free speech/freedom of expression being only what you think it ought to be.
Hm. Very free ::)
-
Or licence to be a troll and bully. Some people simply use that freedom as an excuse to abuse. A certain amount of self-control and sympathy for the feelings of others needs to go hand in hand with freedom of speech, or should.
... which to me seems indisinguishable from free speech/freedom of expression being only what you think it ought to be.
Hm. Very free ::)
You clearly have no idea that being free to say more or less as you like, should still carry with it some suggestion of thought for the feelings of others, at least sometimes. Your lack of empathy with your fellows is so clear from your acerbic style of posting. Not nice.
-
You clearly have no idea that being free to say more or less as you like, should still carry with it some suggestion of thought for the feelings of others, at least sometimes.
I do have some thought for the feelings of others.
At least, sometimes.
-
You clearly have no idea that being free to say more or less as you like, should still carry with it some suggestion of thought for the feelings of others, at least sometimes.
I do have some thought for the feelings of others.
At least, sometimes.
It would be nice to see some sign of it on this forum.
-
You already do - since you're the one for ever accusing me of cosying up to Len and Floo and perhaps one or two others.
It's just that it's the wrong people as far as you're concerned, apparently.
-
You already do - since you're the one for ever accusing me of cosying up to Len and Floo and perhaps one or two others.
It's just that it's the wrong people as far as you're concerned, apparently.
I have not suggested you "cosy up" to Leonard and Floo. You can't resist answering for them, because, I think, you have little faith in their ability to answer meaningfully. That is not cosying: it is arrogance.
-
I have not suggested you "cosy up" to Leonard and Floo. You can't resist answering for them, because, I think, you have little faith in their ability to answer meaningfully. That is not cosying: it is arrogance.
Then you think wrongly. Len for sure can hold his own (at his age, the dirty boy!) in any discussion - I don't answer for him; I sometimes answer alongside him. Floo doesn't really develop short ideas into longer posts, I concede, but she hardly seems to be in need of anybody to defend her either. We've all been doing this for long enough and we're all still here in the playpen.
-
I have not suggested you "cosy up" to Leonard and Floo. You can't resist answering for them, because, I think, you have little faith in their ability to answer meaningfully. That is not cosying: it is arrogance.
Then you think wrongly. Len for sure can hold his own (at his age, the dirty boy!) in any discussion - I don't answer for him; I sometimes answer alongside him. Floo doesn't really develop short ideas into longer posts, I concede, but she hardly seems to be in need of anybody to defend her either. We've all been doing this for long enough and we're all still here in the playpen.
I think you overestimate the abilities in debate of both Leonard and Floo; and they don't hesitate to applaud you in your interventions in debate. Perhaps you simply crave recognition for your debating skills, such as they are, and those two are always ready to oblige.
Maybe it's time for you to get out of the playpen!
-
Bash
That's not very nice.
Asking people to leave.
-
Bash
That's not very nice.
Asking people to leave.
BR,
You misunderstand: I was not suggesting he leave the forum: I was referring to his attitude, as you will have appreciated if you had followed this exchange from the beginning.
-
I'd have to say, BA, that you are being a tad disrespectful to Floo and Len in making these comments. It seems to me that the variety of posting styles we have here, in both active debate and general chit-chat, is worth having.
I'd also say that the different approaches we seen on specific issues are what keeps subjects interesting, and that there is space for both the one liners and the more detailed posts: and which of these approaches any of us find to be best or worst is, of course, a matter of personal taste as much as anything else.
-
I'd have to say, BA, that you are being a tad disrespectful to Floo and Len in making these comments. It seems to me that the variety of posting styles we have here, in both active debate and general chit-chat, is worth having.
I'd also say that the different approaches we seen on specific issues are what keeps subjects interesting, and that there is space for both the one liners and the more detailed posts: and which of these approaches any of us find to be best or worst is, of course, a matter of personal taste as much as anything else.
It is not my intention to be disrespectful, though I am often tempted by what they say to me. I think I am making valid points, and they are free to refute them, preferably without Shaker doing it for them.
-
Of course you would have to look.
Cast not thy pearls before the swine...
So a phenomenally implausible event which would rock the entire basis of science itself wouldn't make it into the papers?
AS I said... pearls and swine.
As I said, evasive horseshit designed to avoid the burden of proof for your ridiculous claims.
Go look for it, instead of asking for evidence and expecting everyone else to do your work for you. Go look and stop making pathetic excuses. How old are you? Because right now you are worse than a rebellious teenager.
If you want proof look of it instead of wanting others to do it for you.
But your too lazy and far too closed minded to actually really want evidence enough to go seek it.,..
It doesn't exist. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. It doesn't exist. Anywhere. If it did you would produce it. You don't because you can't, and your wince-inducingly moronic and typically unlettered attempts at evasion and deflection confirm it. You made a stupid claim, got called out on it and now are, as the colonials have it, butthurt because of it. There is no evidence for the absurd claims you make. None. Zero. I no more have to go looking for the nonexistent evidence of amputees regrowing limbs than I do for the Tooth Fairy leaving behind hard cash for lost teeth. You make the claim, you back it up. That's how it works. Prove me wrong. Here's your chance, right here and right now. Piss or get off the pot, as they say. It's that simple.
Or of course what you could do, and almost certainly will do, is come back sans evidence (of course) but with more of your usual functionally illiterate bullshit, either with or without another meaningless slab of biblical cut-and-pastery.
You just cannot handle the truth... What a load of ham shank...
Your words are as pointless as your argument... You haven't got any. Just a lot of hot wind and whitewash.... You see Jesus Christ told you the way. Either you are too thick or then too ignorant to understand that way. Don't mock it, till you have tried it. But put your whitewash brush away because it is as useful as a snowball in hell or a chocolate fire guard.
Get use to it, Shaker, your past arguments are really history.
You don't have a point and you don't have an argument because you are too lazy to even look for evidence..
Take a load off your mind and sit down... Give your feet and your brain a rest...
-
Right on cue:
Or of course what you could do, and almost certainly will do, is come back sans evidence (of course) but with more of your usual functionally illiterate bullshit, either with or without another meaningless slab of biblical cut-and-pastery.
I could have predicted that.
Oh, I did.
-
Bless you Len :D
Let's get Sassy time again! You people are bullying idiots. If it gives you some sort of satisfaction to pick on her daily, and so often in tandem, then you should consider how you appear to others, and it's not nice.
Hi Bash,
There days are over as far as arguments for atheism concerning Christ.
They are realising they have NOTHING to support the words they speak.
When faced with the truth from the bible and the way that Christ shows... they haven't tried it or let us be honest... cannot gleam the simplest of truth.
It proves the point that atheists when all else fails and cannot answer = attack...
They really have no weapon and eventually we all see that.. There arguments as so ancient even the Dinosaurs would have died out from boredom if they weren't already dead...
They have to try and save face somehow... but as you notice it makes them seen for what they really are... Nasty and deceiving people using atheism as an excuse to project that nastiness against others...
-
Right on cue:
Or of course what you could do, and almost certainly will do, is come back sans evidence (of course) but with more of your usual functionally illiterate bullshit, either with or without another meaningless slab of biblical cut-and-pastery.
I could have predicted that.
Oh, I did.
Nah! I proved you were an ignorant and uneducated asshole when it comes to having knowledge of the bible and God.
You put your whitewash brush away and exchanged it for an apologetic brush... Basically you were saying... " I tell you if you make apple pies you will have to come back with a recipe including Apples... see I told you so." But as the apple pie has nothing to do with the argument neither does you reply.
Well you are scraping the bottom of the bullsh*t barrel now.
We all know you are ignorant and uneducated when it comes to the bible and any real knowledge of Christ. As your constant inability to maintain arguments against Christ or the bible in your replies show.
If you are the example of modern day atheism arguments then you might as well stop posting... You have more chance of bashing a mans brain out with a feather than ever winning a debate or producing real points to argue with.
You see you LOST before you posted because the truth you tried to hide is fully visible now... You have NO real valid points of argument against Christ or the Bible because you know nothing about them.. Not even the basics and no understanding of whom Christ really is...
-
Your bullshitometer is really turned up to 11 today, Sass.
-
Sass is really surpassing herself with the complete garbage she is churning out! ::)
-
http://godisimaginary.com/video10.htm
Just watched it too, makes far too many simple errors to be taken too seriously. A valid attempt to persuade but it falls down on its understanding of the bible and Christian
-
http://godisimaginary.com/video10.htm
Just watched it too, makes far too many simple errors to be taken too seriously. A valid attempt to persuade but it falls down on its understanding of the bible and Christian
The understanding of the Bible is as long as a piece of string, and so is the term 'Christian. They mean whatever you want them to mean, imo.
-
http://godisimaginary.com/video10.htm
Just watched it too, makes far too many simple errors to be taken too seriously. A valid attempt to persuade but it falls down on its understanding of the bible and Christian
The understanding of the Bible is as long as a piece of string, and so is the term 'Christian. They mean whatever you want them to mean, imo.
Actually, imo, the essential meaning of the Gospels is quite clear, and immovable; it is only the "incidentals" that may be interpreted in differing ways.
-
Isn't that in itself just one interpretation among many?
-
Isn't that in itself just one interpretation among many?
I don't think so. What interpretations had you in mind?
-
Isn't that in itself just one interpretation among many?
I don't think so. What interpretations had you in mind?
Any interpretation which doesnt agree with "... the essential meaning of the Gospels is quite clear, and immovable; it is only the "incidentals" that may be interpreted in differing ways."
-
Isn't that in itself just one interpretation among many?
I don't think so. What interpretations had you in mind?
Any interpretation which doesnt agree with "... the essential meaning of the Gospels is quite clear, and immovable; it is only the "incidentals" that may be interpreted in differing ways."
Any Christian would agree on the basic meaning: Jesus taught of love, forgiveness and Redemption. I wouldn't expect you to have known, though I, alone, have said it often over time.
-
The understanding of the Bible is as long as a piece of string, and so is the term 'Christian. They mean whatever you want them to mean, imo.
I suspect that, if God does exist, he would disagree - but he might also disagree with some of the ideas that Christians have historically had - in the way that he disagreed with some of the ways that the \Jewish religious leaders thought.
-
The understanding of the Bible is as long as a piece of string, and so is the term 'Christian. They mean whatever you want them to mean, imo.
I suspect that, if God does exist, he would disagree - but he might also disagree with some of the ideas that Christians have historically had - in the way that he disagreed with some of the ways that the \Jewish religious leaders thought.
So Christians and Jews should ask you where they are going wrong?
-
The understanding of the Bible is as long as a piece of string, and so is the term 'Christian. They mean whatever you want them to mean, imo.
I suspect that, if God does exist, he would disagree - but he might also disagree with some of the ideas that Christians have historically had - in the way that he disagreed with some of the ways that the \Jewish religious leaders thought.
So Christians and Jews should ask you where they are going wrong?
Jews and Christians would do well to take sensible advice on their mistakes from anybody.
-
The understanding of the Bible is as long as a piece of string, and so is the term 'Christian. They mean whatever you want them to mean, imo.
I suspect that, if God does exist, he would disagree - but he might also disagree with some of the ideas that Christians have historically had - in the way that he disagreed with some of the ways that the \Jewish religious leaders thought.
So Christians and Jews should ask you where they are going wrong?
Jews and Christians would do well to take sensible advice on their mistakes from anybody.
How about atheists doing the same? Do you think that would be a good idea, Len?
-
Your bullshitometer is really turned up to 11 today, Sass.
See what I mean! The perfect example of desperation to try and save face by yourself... It is a sad look on a man whose whole replies smack of insults and ignorance trying to cover his own lack of knowledge,
Never mind: Write 100 lines...
" Must try to do better.!
-
Sass is really surpassing herself with the complete garbage she is churning out! ::)
I am so glad you don't agree with me... You supporting Shaker just proves how far he has fallen and how desperate he has become.
One thing no one would want is you supporting them when it comes to biblical matters etc....
-
http://godisimaginary.com/video10.htm
Just watched it too, makes far too many simple errors to be taken too seriously. A valid attempt to persuade but it falls down on its understanding of the bible and Christian
The understanding of the Bible is as long as a piece of string, and so is the term 'Christian. They mean whatever you want them to mean, imo.
See what I mean! Not even a voice of reasoning or understanding to be seen in your replies...
You are not helping shaker other than to bury him...
-
Isn't that in itself just one interpretation among many?
I don't think so. What interpretations had you in mind?
Any interpretation which doesnt agree with "... the essential meaning of the Gospels is quite clear, and immovable; it is only the "incidentals" that may be interpreted in differing ways."
Any Christian would agree on the basic meaning: Jesus taught of love, forgiveness and Redemption. I wouldn't expect you to have known, though I, alone, have said it often over time.
#Between Shaker and Floo,
They have done a pretty good job of burying each other and themselves. Just a thought... When both buried whose left to put the gravestone on? ;D ::)
-
The understanding of the Bible is as long as a piece of string, and so is the term 'Christian. They mean whatever you want them to mean, imo.
I suspect that, if God does exist, he would disagree - but he might also disagree with some of the ideas that Christians have historically had - in the way that he disagreed with some of the ways that the \Jewish religious leaders thought.
So Christians and Jews should ask you where they are going wrong?
Don't you read the bible? The diversity of teachings like the Pharisee and Sadducee was to be settled by the Messiah.
Hence Christ did just that...So the bible tells us where they went wrong and why. The builders rejected the most important stone. Hence the Gentiles added and then in time the Jews will see the TRUTH about their Messiah...
-
How about atheists doing the same? Do you think that would be a good idea, Len?
Yes, of course. I will always take sensible advice from anybody.
-
Don't you read the bible?
I've read it but I don't understand it the same way as you.
Have you read the Koran? That claims to be the unaltered word of god!
-
How about atheists doing the same? Do you think that would be a good idea, Len?
Yes, of course. I will always take sensible advice from anybody.
Excellent. That makes two of you who never let bias affect you, i.e. you and BeRational.
The rest of us are human.
-
How about atheists doing the same? Do you think that would be a good idea, Len?
Yes, of course. I will always take sensible advice from anybody.
Excellent. That makes two of you who never let bias affect you, i.e. you and BeRational.
The rest of us are human.
I am aware of my biases and take steps to counter them.
As I have explained before, i expect life to exist on other planets. BUT when faced with some exciting new possibility of say life on Mars, I ALWAYS suspect that there is another explanation, and these will ALL have to be ruled out first.
I DO NOT assume my preferred answer is most likely. I put my preferred answer to the back of the queue.
Unlike you for example, that thinks the BEST explanation about ancient reports of a dead man coming back to life, is that it actually happened. Yet, when Sai baba does similar things, you conclude that these are not real events.
As I say, I am aware of my biases, and work AGAINST them, not with them!
-
How does one know that one is aware of one's biases?!
-
Sass is really surpassing herself with the complete garbage she is churning out! ::)
I am so glad you don't agree with me... You supporting Shaker just proves how far he has fallen and how desperate he has become.
One thing no one would want is you supporting them when it comes to biblical matters etc....
Sass if I agreed with your total nonsense, I would be so concerned I would need to check myself into a psychiatric facility!
-
How does one know that one is aware of one's biases?!
How do you know anything?
-
(
How does one know that one is aware of one's biases?!
How do you know anything?
you made a positive claim. Your attempt to evade answering about it is obvious.
-
How about atheists doing the same? Do you think that would be a good idea, Len?
Yes, of course. I will always take sensible advice from anybody.
Excellent. That makes two of you who never let bias affect you, i.e. you and BeRational.
The rest of us are human.
I fail to see how taking sensible advice has anything to do with bias.
-
(How does one know that one is aware of one's biases?!
How do you know anything?
you made a positive claim. Your attempt to evade answering about it is obvious.
Is it?
I know my biases.
Are you saying you do not know yours?
-
(How does one know that one is aware of one's biases?!
How do you know anything?
you made a positive claim. Your attempt to evade answering about it is obvious.
Is it?
I know my biases.
Are you saying you do not know yours?
After evasion, now a repetition of assertion and then an irrelevant question.
-
How about atheists doing the same? Do you think that would be a good idea, Len?
Yes, of course. I will always take sensible advice from anybody.
Excellent. That makes two of you who never let bias affect you, i.e. you and BeRational.
The rest of us are human.
I fail to see how taking sensible advice has anything to do with bias.
How do you stop your biases from stopping you realise what is sensible advice?
-
(How does one know that one is aware of one's biases?!
How do you know anything?
you made a positive claim. Your attempt to evade answering about it is obvious.
Is it?
I know my biases.
Are you saying you do not know yours?
After evasion, now a repetition of assertion and then an irrelevant question.
I think you argue for the sake of it.
It is you that is avoiding answering the questions.
Do you know your biases?
-
(How does one know that one is aware of one's biases?!
How do you know anything?
you made a positive claim. Your attempt to evade answering about it is obvious.
Is it?
I know my biases.
Are you saying you do not know yours?
After evasion, now a repetition of assertion and then an irrelevant question.
I think you argue for the sake of it.
It is you that is avoiding answering the questions.
Do you know your biases?
So I ask a direct question, you avoid answering it and then accuse me of not answering questions. Hmmm
I think you make statements that you are unwilling to back up.
As to your irrelevant question. I think I am aware of some things I might be biased about but I may well be biased in ways I am unaware of. I don't see how I could know all such. But then I am not making a claim,you are - care to back it up and not indulge in this rather sad evasion you are indulging in?
-
(How does one know that one is aware of one's biases?!
How do you know anything?
you made a positive claim. Your attempt to evade answering about it is obvious.
Is it?
I know my biases.
Are you saying you do not know yours?
After evasion, now a repetition of assertion and then an irrelevant question.
I think you argue for the sake of it.
It is you that is avoiding answering the questions.
Do you know your biases?
So I ask a direct question, you avoid answering it and then accuse me of not answering questions. Hmmm
I think you make statements that you are unwilling to back up.
As to your irrelevant question. I think I am aware of some things I might be biased about but I may well be biased in ways I am unaware of. I don't see how I could know all such. But then I am not making a claim,you are - care to back it up and not indulge in this rather sad evasion you are indulging in?
I said I was aware of my biases, perhaps not all, but I am aware of some of my biases. This is clear as I gave an example. I have many other biases in every area of my life. I am FULL of biases too many to list.
Could there be some I am not aware of, possibly, but this does not matter, as my method for getting the best approximation of truth is to not use my biases, and if known actively work against them.
Why is this such a big deal.
I assume you do much the same sort of thing.
-
You didn't make any qualification. You said you were aware of your biases. Nothing about some
Perhaps you need to he more careful of your writing.
-
You didn't make any qualification. You said you were aware of your biases. Nothing about some
Perhaps you need to he more careful of your writing.
Agreed.
But do are you aware of SOME of your biases?
If so what steps do you take when faces with some new information that seems to agree or confirm your bias?
I bet you play devils advocate with yourself and argue the other way and everything you reasonably can to not just accept this new information just because you like it?
-
I don't think anyone can be aware of all the biases there is well trodden path of confirmation bias. Ask a moon landing conspiracy theorist and they will accept willingly evidence that confirms their bias, if you offer evidence that refutes their position they will reject it.
Not many will accept they have confirmation bias since it would, if they wanted to believe what is true, seriously undermine the position they hold to.
-
I don't think anyone can be aware of all the biases there is well trodden path of confirmation bias. Ask a moon landing conspiracy theorist and they will accept willingly evidence that confirms their bias, if you offer evidence that refutes their position they will reject it.
Not many will accept they have confirmation bias since it would, if they wanted to believe what is true, seriously undermine the position they hold to.
Exactly, and the scientific method is in place to remove bias.
-
How do you stop your biases from stopping you realise what is sensible advice?
Give me an example and I will be able to answer you.
-
Don't you read the bible?
I've read it but I don't understand it the same way as you.
Have you read the Koran? That claims to be the unaltered word of god!
But Christianity states that the word of God is in the form of a human being.
I can think of why that is more comprehensive than just words in a book Jak....can you?
-
Don't you read the bible?
I've read it but I don't understand it the same way as you.
Have you read the Koran? That claims to be the unaltered word of god!
But Christianity states that the word of God is in the form of a human being.
I can think of why that is more comprehensive than just words in a book Jak....can you?
A dead one that is no longer available to question.
So no.
-
Don't you read the bible?
I've read it but I don't understand it the same way as you.
Have you read the Koran? That claims to be the unaltered word of god!
But Christianity states that the word of God is in the form of a human being.
I can think of why that is more comprehensive than just words in a book Jak....can you?
No the word of god (Koran) states the Bible was corrupted by man, which it was, e.g. ending of Mark.
Its all mumbo jumbo to me but if you go for this sort of thing...
-
No the word of god (Koran) states the Bible was corrupted by man, which it was, e.g. ending of Mark.
Much more likely :- 'The word of god (Koran) was created by man, which it was."
-
How about atheists doing the same? Do you think that would be a good idea, Len?
Just to correct that: "Yes, of course. I will always take sensible advice from anybody, as long as it's Shaker."
Pretty sad place to be!
-
How do you stop your biases from stopping you realise what is sensible advice?
Give me an example and I will be able to answer you.
Actually, no I won't. You have said you will always accept sensible advice so that means you would need to have some method of determining what sensible advice is no matter what the circumstances.
It seems to me that you have just overstated your openness, Len. I don't think you are any better or any worse than other people, me included. It just worries me when you (and BeRational) make claims for your own impartiality.
-
Don't you read the bible?
I've read it but I don't understand it the same way as you.
Have you read the Koran? That claims to be the unaltered word of god!
But Christianity states that the word of God is in the form of a human being.
I can think of why that is more comprehensive than just words in a book Jak....can you?
No the word of god (Koran) states the Bible was corrupted by man, which it was, e.g. ending of Mark.
Its all mumbo jumbo to me but if you go for this sort of thing...
Actually, the bible, as originally given, has not been corrupted in any way at all. Certain copies of parts of it have been though, but so what? As Ehrman says no essential Christian doctrine is affected.
-
How about atheists doing the same? Do you think that would be a good idea, Len?
Just to correct that: "Yes, of course. I will always take sensible advice from anybody, as long as it's Shaker."
That would be an absolute lie, and I try never to lie.
Pretty sad place to be!
You should know! You're the one that lives his life according to somebody else's
advice.
-
How about atheists doing the same? Do you think that would be a good idea, Len?
Just to correct that: "Yes, of course. I will always take sensible advice from anybody, as long as it's Shaker."
That would be an absolute lie, and I try never to lie.
Pretty sad place to be!
You should know! You're the one that lives his life according to somebody else's
advice.
No, Len, wrong again. I try to live my life by somebody else's example.
-
It just worries me when you (and BeRational) make claims for your own impartiality.
It shouldn't. I'm sure most people try to be impartial in our judgements.
-
It just worries me when you (and BeRational) make claims for your own impartiality.
It shouldn't. I'm sure most people try to be impartial in our judgements.
Agreed, but you claimed more than that when you wrote, "Yes, of course. I will always take sensible advice from anybody."
-
No, Len, wrong again. I try to live my life by somebody else's example.
It that's what rocks your boat and you are happy with it, fine.
I am confident enough in my own judgement to use it as a guide to living.
It works very well!
-
No, Len, wrong again. I try to live my life by somebody else's example.
It that's what rocks your boat and you are happy with it, fine.
I am confident enough in my own judgement to use it as a guide to living.
It works very well!
Wow! Some arrogance there!
So, " Yes, of course. I will always take sensible advice from anybody," was wrong, since your judgement is enough. Which is it?
-
It just worries me when you (and BeRational) make claims for your own impartiality.
It shouldn't. I'm sure most people try to be impartial in our judgements.
Agreed, but you claimed more than that when you wrote, "Yes, of course. I will always take sensible advice from anybody."
Naturally! Sensible advice should always be acceptable, and incorporated into our values.
-
No, Len, wrong again. I try to live my life by somebody else's example.
It that's what rocks your boat and you are happy with it, fine.
I am confident enough in my own judgement to use it as a guide to living.
It works very well!
Wow! Some arrogance there!
It's not my fault that you are lacking in self-confidence.
-
No, Len, wrong again. I try to live my life by somebody else's example.
It that's what rocks your boat and you are happy with it, fine.
I am confident enough in my own judgement to use it as a guide to living.
It works very well!
Wow! Some arrogance there!
It's not my fault that you are lacking in self-confidence.
Wrong again! You just don't like to admit when you are wrong; so you throw up (!) a red herring.
-
Wrong again! You just don't like to admit when you are wrong; so you throw up (!) a red herring.
Don't start resorting to nonsense again.
It is a fact that a self-confident person will usually act according to his own criteria. A person who lacks self-confidence will either do nothing or follow somebody else's example.
-
Wrong again! You just don't like to admit when you are wrong; so you throw up (!) a red herring.
Don't start resorting to nonsense again.
It is a fact that a self-confident person will usually act according to his own criteria. A person who lacks self-confidence will either do nothing or follow somebody else's example.
Is that why you are so besotted with following Shaker's advice?
-
I didn't know I'd been giving anyone, Len included, "advice."
How's it working out, Len?
-
Wrong again! You just don't like to admit when you are wrong; so you throw up (!) a red herring.
Don't start resorting to nonsense again.
It is a fact that a self-confident person will usually act according to his own criteria. A person who lacks self-confidence will either do nothing or follow somebody else's example.
Is that why you are so besotted with following Shaker's advice?
It has obviously escaped your limited notice, that I simply agree with most of what Shaker says ... in the same way that I disagree with most of what you say. That is a far cry from being besotted with following Shaker's advice
Try to keep up.
-
I didn't know I'd been giving anyone, Len included, "advice."
How's it working out, Len?
The guy is confused, Steve ... it seems a permanent condition with him.
-
Wrong again! You just don't like to admit when you are wrong; so you throw up (!) a red herring.
Don't start resorting to nonsense again.
It is a fact that a self-confident person will usually act according to his own criteria. A person who lacks self-confidence will either do nothing or follow somebody else's example.
Is that why you are so besotted with following Shaker's advice?
It has obviously escaped your limited notice, that I simply agree with most of what Shaker says ... in the same way that I disagree with most of what you say. That is a far cry from being besotted with following Shaker's advice
Try to keep up.
In cricket terms: caught on the back-foot there. Anybody who agrees with most of what Shaker says, ought to stop and do a bit of thinking for himself.
-
Never mind! It's a glorious day here and I've got some gardening to do :)
-
Never mind! It's a glorious day here and I've got some gardening to do :)
Excellent! Have a good day; go and dig a few more holes for yourself. :)
-
Anybody who agrees with most of what Shaker says, ought to stop and do a bit of thinking for himself.
How would you know? ... your "thinking" consists of nothing more than following somebody else's instructions.
-
Wrong again! You just don't like to admit when you are wrong; so you throw up (!) a red herring.
Don't start resorting to nonsense again.
It is a fact that a self-confident person will usually act according to his own criteria. A person who lacks self-confidence will either do nothing or follow somebody else's example.
Is that why you are so besotted with following Shaker's advice?
It has obviously escaped your limited notice, that I simply agree with most of what Shaker says ... in the same way that I disagree with most of what you say. That is a far cry from being besotted with following Shaker's advice
Try to keep up.
In cricket terms: caught on the back-foot there. Anybody who agrees with most of what Shaker says, ought to stop and do a bit of thinking for himself.
I know it's difficult to believe that I have any bias, but where I do have a bias is that I loathe and detest cricket, I have no respect of its mainly gamesmanship tendencies to what should sport, I am very well aware of my bias and have to laugh at myself when I keep finding another one of the many reasons there are to dislike this relatively minor sport compered to plenty of other real sports.
I get laughed at by family and friends for this relatively minor fault of mine, I have to laugh with them and enjoy it, B A, I'm sure you can add to the unwarranted derision I 'm made to suffer.
Recognition of bias it's not that difficult.
ippy
-
...
Recognition of bias it's not that difficult.
ippy
If your bias keeps you from recognising your bias, how do you get to recognise your bias?
-
...
Recognition of bias it's not that difficult.
ippy
If your bias keeps you from recognising your bias, how do you get to recognise your bias?
You notion and picture of the world HAS to match to reality.
If it does not, then you are WRONG!.
Change you notions and pictures until they match.
Reality (as much as we are able to determine it) is the only arbiter.
-
...
Recognition of bias it's not that difficult.
ippy
If your bias keeps you from recognising your bias, how do you get to recognise your bias?
You notion and picture of the world HAS to match to reality.
If it does not, then you are WRONG!.
Change you notions and pictures until they match.
Reality (as much as we are able to determine it) is the only arbiter.
So if your bias keeps you from recognising your bias, how do you get to recognise your bias?
-
...
Recognition of bias it's not that difficult.
ippy
If your bias keeps you from recognising your bias, how do you get to recognise your bias?
Check against reality.
Reality has no bias
You notion and picture of the world HAS to match to reality.
If it does not, then you are WRONG!.
Change you notions and pictures until they match.
Reality (as much as we are able to determine it) is the only arbiter.
So if your bias keeps you from recognising your bias, how do you get to recognise your bias?
-
...
Recognition of bias it's not that difficult.
ippy
If your bias keeps you from recognising your bias, how do you get to recognise your bias?
You notion and picture of the world HAS to match to reality.
If it does not, then you are WRONG!.
Change you notions and pictures until they match.
Reality (as much as we are able to determine it) is the only arbiter.
Quite; can't help not liking cricket though and laugh with others when criticized about my dislike of the game.
Watching paint dry or watching a board warp, are far more interesting.
ippy
-
...
Recognition of bias it's not that difficult.
ippy
If your bias keeps you from recognising your bias, how do you get to recognise your bias?
You notion and picture of the world HAS to match to reality.
If it does not, then you are WRONG!.
Change you notions and pictures until they match.
Reality (as much as we are able to determine it) is the only arbiter.
Quite; can't help not liking cricket though and laugh with others when criticized about my dislike of the game.
Watching paint dry or watching a board warp, are far more interesting.
ippy
Interesting to know what you do in your spare time. :)
-
...
Recognition of bias it's not that difficult.
ippy
If your bias keeps you from recognising your bias, how do you get to recognise your bias?
You notion and picture of the world HAS to match to reality.
If it does not, then you are WRONG!.
Change you notions and pictures until they match.
Reality (as much as we are able to determine it) is the only arbiter.
Quite; can't help not liking cricket though and laugh with others when criticized about my dislike of the game.
Watching paint dry or watching a board warp, are far more interesting.
ippy
I am with you all the way on that. Watching paint dry is so much more exciting than the MEGA BOREDOM of watching cricket!
-
...
Recognition of bias it's not that difficult.
ippy
If your bias keeps you from recognising your bias, how do you get to recognise your bias?
You notion and picture of the world HAS to match to reality.
If it does not, then you are WRONG!.
Change you notions and pictures until they match.
Reality (as much as we are able to determine it) is the only arbiter.
Quite; can't help not liking cricket though and laugh with others when criticized about my dislike of the game.
Watching paint dry or watching a board warp, are far more interesting.
ippy
I am with you all the way on that. Watching paint dry is so much more exciting than the MEGA BOREDOM of watching cricket!
I love the game of cricket; so I watch a great deal. As far as I know, there are no laws forcing everyone to watch. So , if you don't like it; don't watch. But why knock it because you don't like it?
-
...
Recognition of bias it's not that difficult.
ippy
If your bias keeps you from recognising your bias, how do you get to recognise your bias?
You notion and picture of the world HAS to match to reality.
If it does not, then you are WRONG!.
Change you notions and pictures until they match.
Reality (as much as we are able to determine it) is the only arbiter.
Quite; can't help not liking cricket though and laugh with others when criticized about my dislike of the game.
Watching paint dry or watching a board warp, are far more interesting.
ippy
I am with you all the way on that. Watching paint dry is so much more exciting than the MEGA BOREDOM of watching cricket!
I love the game of cricket; so I watch a great deal. As far as I know, there are no laws forcing everyone to watch. So , if you don't like it; don't watch. But why knock it because you don't like it?
Because while I admire sportsmanship in any sport even when it's a sport I'm not particularly interested in but cricket is presented as a sporting event and likes to think of and describe its self as an honorable sport with sayings like, "that's not cricket old man", where as it has a lot more to do with the underhand art of gamesmanship rather than sport.
So you admire successful, underhanded boring displays of gamesmanship.
ippy
-
...
Recognition of bias it's not that difficult.
ippy
If your bias keeps you from recognising your bias, how do you get to recognise your bias?
You notion and picture of the world HAS to match to reality.
If it does not, then you are WRONG!.
Change you notions and pictures until they match.
Reality (as much as we are able to determine it) is the only arbiter.
Quite; can't help not liking cricket though and laugh with others when criticized about my dislike of the game.
Watching paint dry or watching a board warp, are far more interesting.
ippy
I am with you all the way on that. Watching paint dry is so much more exciting than the MEGA BOREDOM of watching cricket!
I love the game of cricket; so I watch a great deal. As far as I know, there are no laws forcing everyone to watch. So , if you don't like it; don't watch. But why knock it because you don't like it?
Because while I admire sportsmanship in any sport even when it's a sport I'm not particularly interested in but cricket is presented as a sporting event with saying like, "that's not cricket old man", and likes to think of and describe its self as an honorable sport with sayings like, "that's not cricket old man", where as it has a lot more to do with the underhand art of gamesmanship rather than sport.
So you admire successful, underhanded boring displays of gamesmanship.
ippy
There are some who abuse the spirit of the game; that's so in most sports, cricket a good deal less than others - see, the news. But on the whole, it is still a game with principles and played by decent sportsmen - I exclude the Aussies from that comment! :D
-
...
Recognition of bias it's not that difficult.
ippy
If your bias keeps you from recognising your bias, how do you get to recognise your bias?
You notion and picture of the world HAS to match to reality.
If it does not, then you are WRONG!.
Change you notions and pictures until they match.
Reality (as much as we are able to determine it) is the only arbiter.
Quite; can't help not liking cricket though and laugh with others when criticized about my dislike of the game.
Watching paint dry or watching a board warp, are far more interesting.
ippy
I am with you all the way on that. Watching paint dry is so much more exciting than the MEGA BOREDOM of watching cricket!
I love the game of cricket; so I watch a great deal. As far as I know, there are no laws forcing everyone to watch. So , if you don't like it; don't watch. But why knock it because you don't like it?
Because while I admire sportsmanship in any sport even when it's a sport I'm not particularly interested in but cricket is presented as a sporting event with saying like, "that's not cricket old man", and likes to think of and describe its self as an honorable sport with sayings like, "that's not cricket old man", where as it has a lot more to do with the underhand art of gamesmanship rather than sport.
So you admire successful, underhanded boring displays of gamesmanship.
ippy
There are some who abuse the spirit of the game; that's so in most sports, cricket a good deal less than others - see, the news. But on the whole, it is still a game with principles and played by decent sportsmen - I exclude the Aussies from that comment! :D
I agree with you but cricket does lend its self, relies on, gamesmanship a lot more than most other sports,
The Aussies, yes this gamesmanship seems to be an antipodean complaint with any/all sport.
The NZ rugby team always worries me, where if they can win a game by ripping someone's head off; off comes some unfortunates head, Oz and SA are nearly as bad but lack the expertise of NZ they make it look as though the other player pulled off his own head.
ippy
-
...
Recognition of bias it's not that difficult.
ippy
If your bias keeps you from recognising your bias, how do you get to recognise your bias?
You notion and picture of the world HAS to match to reality.
If it does not, then you are WRONG!.
Change you notions and pictures until they match.
Reality (as much as we are able to determine it) is the only arbiter.
Quite; can't help not liking cricket though and laugh with others when criticized about my dislike of the game.
Watching paint dry or watching a board warp, are far more interesting.
ippy
I am with you all the way on that. Watching paint dry is so much more exciting than the MEGA BOREDOM of watching cricket!
I love the game of cricket; so I watch a great deal. As far as I know, there are no laws forcing everyone to watch. So , if you don't like it; don't watch. But why knock it because you don't like it?
Because while I admire sportsmanship in any sport even when it's a sport I'm not particularly interested in but cricket is presented as a sporting event with saying like, "that's not cricket old man", and likes to think of and describe its self as an honorable sport with sayings like, "that's not cricket old man", where as it has a lot more to do with the underhand art of gamesmanship rather than sport.
So you admire successful, underhanded boring displays of gamesmanship.
ippy
There are some who abuse the spirit of the game; that's so in most sports, cricket a good deal less than others - see, the news. But on the whole, it is still a game with principles and played by decent sportsmen - I exclude the Aussies from that comment! :D
I agree with you but cricket does lend its self, relies on, gamesmanship a lot more than most other sports,
The Aussies, yes this gamesmanship seems to be an antipodean complaint with any/all sport.
The NZ rugby team always worries me, where if they can win a game by ripping someone's head off; off comes some unfortunates head, Oz and SA are nearly as bad but lack the expertise of NZ they make it look as though the other player pulled off his own head.
ippy
The recent two-match series between England and the very impressive New Zealand team, was an excellent example of how cricket, sport, should be played.
-
...
Recognition of bias it's not that difficult.
ippy
If your bias keeps you from recognising your bias, how do you get to recognise your bias?
You notion and picture of the world HAS to match to reality.
If it does not, then you are WRONG!.
Change you notions and pictures until they match.
Reality (as much as we are able to determine it) is the only arbiter.
Quite; can't help not liking cricket though and laugh with others when criticized about my dislike of the game.
Watching paint dry or watching a board warp, are far more interesting.
ippy
I am with you all the way on that. Watching paint dry is so much more exciting than the MEGA BOREDOM of watching cricket!
I love the game of cricket; so I watch a great deal. As far as I know, there are no laws forcing everyone to watch. So , if you don't like it; don't watch. But why knock it because you don't like it?
Because while I admire sportsmanship in any sport even when it's a sport I'm not particularly interested in but cricket is presented as a sporting event with saying like, "that's not cricket old man", and likes to think of and describe its self as an honorable sport with sayings like, "that's not cricket old man", where as it has a lot more to do with the underhand art of gamesmanship rather than sport.
So you admire successful, underhanded boring displays of gamesmanship.
ippy
There are some who abuse the spirit of the game; that's so in most sports, cricket a good deal less than others - see, the news. But on the whole, it is still a game with principles and played by decent sportsmen - I exclude the Aussies from that comment! :D
I agree with you but cricket does lend its self, relies on, gamesmanship a lot more than most other sports,
The Aussies, yes this gamesmanship seems to be an antipodean complaint with any/all sport.
The NZ rugby team always worries me, where if they can win a game by ripping someone's head off; off comes some unfortunates head, Oz and SA are nearly as bad but lack the expertise of NZ they make it look as though the other player pulled off his own head.
ippy
The recent two-match series between England and the vewry impressive New Zealand team, was an excellent example of how cricket, sport, should be played.
Couldn't watch any cricket without M D prescribed, extra strong, wakey wakey pills.
ippy
-
I love the game of cricket; so I watch a great deal.
Cricket on the radio though?
I just can't see the appeal.
:D
-
I love the game of cricket; so I watch a great deal.
Cricket on the radio though?
I just can't see the appeal.
:D
Or any sport on the radio! ???
-
I love the game of cricket; so I watch a great deal.
Cricket on the radio though?
I just can't see the appeal.
:D
Try golf on the radio????????
ippy
PS just a thought we must cater for people that have lost their sight.
ippy
-
I love the game of cricket; so I watch a great deal.
Cricket on the radio though?
I just can't see the appeal.
:D
Try golf on the radio????????
ippy
Or snooker: if you can call that a sport!
-
Don't you read the bible?
I've read it but I don't understand it the same way as you.
Have you read the Koran? That claims to be the unaltered word of god!
Yes, I have read the Koran... Claims like Christ born in the hollowed out trunk of a palm tree is so far fetched...
The thing is the unaltered word of God has come and only ever came by the Power of Gods HOLY Spirit...
Read the bible... it tells you that the power of Gods Spirit came upon his chosen... Wasn't delivered by angels and people told to write them down as with Mahoment and Joseph smith to mention just two.
God had always spoken to mankind through men empowered by his Spirit. It is right through from beginning to end of the OT and in the NT all men can receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
If you had read the bible and the Koran the sources are not the same...
-
Yes, I have read the Koran... Claims like Christ born in the hollowed out trunk of a palm tree is so far fetched...
When the Bible account is so much more likely ...
-
Yes, I have read the Koran... Claims like Christ born in the hollowed out trunk of a palm tree is so far fetched...
When the Bible account is so much more likely ...
If you have no intention of believing a thing, nothing will seem likely.
-
Yes, I have read the Koran... Claims like Christ born in the hollowed out trunk of a palm tree is so far fetched...
When the Bible account is so much more likely ...
I think the Harry Potter books are more credible than the Bible! ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes, I have read the Koran... Claims like Christ born in the hollowed out trunk of a palm tree is so far fetched...
When the Bible account is so much more likely ...
I think the Harry Potter books are more credible than the Bible! ;D ;D ;D
::)
-
Don't you read the bible?
I've read it but I don't understand it the same way as you.
Have you read the Koran? That claims to be the unaltered word of god!
Yes, I have read the Koran... Claims like Christ born in the hollowed out trunk of a palm tree is so far fetched...
The thing is the unaltered word of God has come and only ever came by the Power of Gods HOLY Spirit...
Read the bible... it tells you that the power of Gods Spirit came upon his chosen... Wasn't delivered by angels and people told to write them down as with Mahoment and Joseph smith to mention just two.
God had always spoken to mankind through men empowered by his Spirit. It is right through from beginning to end of the OT and in the NT all men can receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
If you had read the bible and the Koran the sources are not the same...
It's all nonsense but if it keeps you happy believing it as though it were true, good on you Sass.
ippy
-
Yes, I have read the Koran... Claims like Christ born in the hollowed out trunk of a palm tree is so far fetched...
Whereas born of a virgin, dead then alive again, are not?
The thing is the unaltered word of God has come and only ever came by the Power of Gods HOLY Spirit...
Assertion.
Read the bible... it tells you that the power of Gods Spirit came upon his chosen... Wasn't delivered by angels and people told to write them down as with Mahoment and Joseph smith to mention just two.
God had always spoken to mankind through men empowered by his Spirit. It is right through from beginning to end of the OT and in the NT all men can receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
If you had read the bible and the Koran the sources are not the same...
So the Bible is true because it claims to be true.
-
The fairies at the bottom of my garden are as real as much of the not so good book! ::)
-
So the Bible is true because it claims to be true.
Such is the circular thinking of the credulous.
-
The fairies at the bottom
Can you, just for once, forget the playground put-downs, and actually discuss something?
-
If you have no intention of believing a thing, nothing will seem likely.
I have no intention of believing anything on such ludicrous and feeble grounds as that.
-
If you have no intention of believing a thing, nothing will seem likely.
I have no intention of believing anything on such ludicrous and feeble grounds as that.
I have found much of what you say too feeble and ludicrous to consider.
-
If you have no intention of believing a thing, nothing will seem likely.
I have no intention of believing anything on such ludicrous and feeble grounds as that.
I have found much of what you say too feeble and ludicrous to consider.
Denis Healey's famous comment on Geoffrey Howe springs to mind.
-
Like being 'mauled by a philosophical materialist sheep called Dawkins'?
-
Like being 'mauled by a philosophical materialist sheep called Dawkins'?
... as Vlad would put it, in his eminently imitable way.
-
If you have no intention of believing a thing, nothing will seem likely.
I have no intention of believing anything on such ludicrous and feeble grounds as that.
I have found much of what you say too feeble and ludicrous to consider.
Denis Healey's famous comment on Geoffrey Howe springs to mind.
Anybody who quotes that lame comment can't have a vestige of originality in them.
-
QUESTION#1: Why won't God heal amputees?
God has healed an amputee. Record has been shown
QUESTION 2.Why are there so many starving people in our world?
Because man allows it to happen.
QUESTION 3.Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?
They are not innocent they broke the laws they agreed to keep in their covenant.
The reason for such laws is to teach that sin kills.
QUESTION 4.Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?
It doesn't.The creator sees things his way the way which is the truth. Scientist don't and won't argue with the bible because they know they could be wrong. Only those who are not scientist and without understanding use the information that scientist give us as some type of weapon. But it is as useful as a chocolate fire guard to those who are not scientist.
Question #5: Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?
He isn't but he knew in those times they slaughtered all people in war they had no use for,
Hence if the Israelites had slaves they had to treat them properly.
Humans have always had slaves.. The Romans were no different and they traded humans and made them slaves. At least with God his people had to treat them properly. We created the slave trade not God. He just made us treat them properly.
Question #6: Why do bad things happen to good people?
Read Job.
9 Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
12 And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord.
Sinners are not a problem for Satan... he likes to test good people. However, God says:
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge
Christ has now come and the accuser is no longer able to wield his power over the person whose sins are forgiven. Because Christ now intercedes. A lot of believers lack that knowledge.
And we know that faith sometimes needs refining... Good things and bad things happen to everyone. But faith and truth decide the outcome. As we see with Job God is always faithful.
The lack of knowledge of the writer of the questions is very clear...
Question #7: Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence? It's very strange, isn't it? You have created an excuse to rationalize it.
EVIDENCE??? Did they expect Lazarus to live forever or the Lepers and blind people to be around to give testimony? Isn't the millions of believers a witness? I guess we can only assume the word evidence needs to be explained for use in the question.
Question #8: How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you? Jesus is all-powerful and timeless, but if you pray for Jesus to appear, nothing happens. You have to create a weird rationalization to deal with this discrepancy.
I find this really weird... Because twice now in my life when at a low ebb and praying I have looked towards the heavens through my lounge window and when closed my eyes seen who I believe to be Christ in he reflection for that window in my home in my minds eye. Each time situated differently in the impression. I believe that somehow the Lord Jesus was literally letting me know he was in the midst of us...
Question #9 – Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood? It sounds totally grotesque, doesn't it? Why would al all-powerful God want you to do something that, in any other context, sounds like a disgusting, cannibalistic, satanic ritual?
Totally illogical to even suggest such a thing.
Bread and wine represent his body and blood of the new covenant.
As he died in the body and felt spiritual death for us we are reminded we have life through his body and blood. Hence they could not drink the blood of sacrificed animals just eat the flesh... I think that it is a poor excuse for an argument...
Question #10 – Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?
They also poo and pee and do all the same things that none Christians do.
They have babies, own pets and...oh is this question really going anywhere?
He spoke alot about intelligence just another way of buttering up and tickling ears.
There isn't a serious argument or question for any Christian to really HAVE to answer.
As for MUST... says who? Christianity is not part of the scholarly teachings of this world... So science plays no part in the words of God when it comes to truth.
Faith sees what science cannot know. Faith has the answers science will never know.
Is it really intelligent to say that Christians have to answer those questions? NO!
It is even less intelligent that an atheist thought he had an argument with them....
Christians do not need to answer them because the atheist would not have asked had the understood the bible. Christianity and what faith is..
-
Yes, I have read the Koran... Claims like Christ born in the hollowed out trunk of a palm tree is so far fetched...
When the Bible account is so much more likely ...
Had you read the bible and known the accounts you would have known for yourself that the bible accounts are more likely...
-
The fairies at the bottom
Can you, just for once, forget the playground put-downs, and actually discuss something?
Truth be known... would she know what to do without playground put-downs or have any answers at all...
She would be dumb... ::)
-
QUESTION#1: Why won't God heal amputees?
God has healed an amputee. Record has been shown
..........and the record...........?