Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Life began 25 years ago
brdean
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 52 (73876)
12-17-2003 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by nator
12-17-2003 7:29 PM


quote:
However, I do think that you do anthropomorphise god in a way that makes god have what many human males would consider a fantasy sex and party-hearty life.
Gee, as a woman, the idea of God as an oversexed drunken fratboy is particulary distasteful.
Actually, God can be male or female, being unlimited as he (for ease of language) is. And, in fact, if one equates any "bad" thing on this material platform, he should be able to translate it into a "good" one on the spiritual platform. The whole idea, in my perception, of the material world is that it is a place for us to have our independence from God. That is, we didn't fit well into Heaven so we were allowed to be "bad" down here. Meaning that in "Heaven" most everything is a pleasure which on Earth can be considered to be "bad behaviour". God's abode is transcendent of good and evil. And woman enjoy just as men, there is no taking advantage of one another for love and respect are central.
But that is straying a bit, though I did want to clear it up.
quote:
Actually, I would tend to say that it's the lazy person who ignores or rejects science in favor of belief in the supernatural. It's much easier to believe what feels good and reassuring than to, well, not believe that.
I would agree but add to that, it is the lazy person who just accepts anything they were fed, whether it be scientific or religious. 99.9% of the fanatic Christians in North America, were they born in Iran or Pakistan, would being shouting "Jihad! Jihad! Kill the Christians!"
quote:
So, do you then agree that the Theory of Evolution is valid?
Yes I agree the Theory of Evolution is indeed a valid one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by nator, posted 12-17-2003 7:29 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by nator, posted 12-17-2003 8:43 PM brdean has replied

  
brdean
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 52 (73879)
12-17-2003 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by NosyNed
12-17-2003 3:26 PM


Re: Faith
Glad we got that cleared up. Funny how the syntax of a sentence being readable in two ways can really create trouble: I was thinking "arguing with" as "arguing against" while you meant it as "arguing on your side". But I still don't get the whole non-believer thing... Maybe another day..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 12-17-2003 3:26 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 48 of 52 (73880)
12-17-2003 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by brdean
12-17-2003 10:19 AM


brdean responds to me:
quote:
quote:
In science, if you overturn the dominant paradigm, you win the Nobel Prize.
If that is in fact the way it works, I am happy to hear it. It is truly the way which each individual should conduct his own life, and the direction which society in general would do well to aim.
Well, take a look at what happened regarding Pons and Fleischmann and cold fusion. When they first announced their claim, everybody sat up and took notice. Everybody wanted them to be right. This was such an exciting thing, such wondrous possibilities lay before us if it could be shown to be true, that everybody was hoping that it could be verified.
But, they all held back until verification came along, and that's where the trouble started. P&F refused to be forthcoming with their data. When others tried to replicate their work, they failed miserably. It became increasingly obvious that P&F were terribly misguided at best if not outright frauds. The work was rejected.
But don't forget the excitement that came along with the announcement. Scientists like it when new things are shown to them.
quote:
quote:
Except for the one that says your god had nothing to do with it.
No, I am open to all possibilities. I accept God as you accept scientific fact.
Then you're not open to the possibility that your god has nothing to do with it. You have pre-determined that there must have been an action of god involved, that it must be taken into account, etc., etc., even though we have no way of testing for it, no way of detecting, and no agreement as to what this "god" thing is in the first place.
quote:
I have had repeatable proofs
It isn't repeatable if you're the only one who can do it.
Nobody else seems to be able to duplicate your results.
quote:
Since you can obviously see how less understanding I am in the matter, even though it didn't seem to me that I was, I'll have to admit it.
While my comments could be applied to you, specifically, I was referring to the general person, including myself. If a person does not know the fundamental aspects of a subject, is unfamiliar with the way in which it is derived and justified, how on earth can that person claim to have any sort of valid opinion on it?
quote:
quote:
"Woman chasing" is not honorable. It's being a jerk.
That is, unless the woman being chased is laughing and smiling, and being simply unable to wait until she is caught.
Ad hoc rationalization.
You've gone from "woman chasing" to "flirting." "Woman chasing" is not simply making a person feel good. It is making them feel good only so far as you need them to feel good in order to get what you want out of them and them dumping them as soon as the allure is gone without regard to the devastation left in your wake.
Flirting is a part of woman chasing, but it is not all of it. You have forgotten to follow through to the end.
Ask women if they find "women chasers" appealing.
quote:
If you don't ever chase your girlfriend around the house, you should start, it's lots of fun.
Logical error: Equivocation.
You have changed the meaning of the word "chasing" from "using women, plural, for one's personal gratification without regard for their feelings" to "physical pursuit."
A man who plays tag with a woman is not "woman chasing."
quote:
quote:
If god wants to be honorable to more than one woman, then he has to stop chasing them and treat them honorably.
He does more than be honorable, he loves them greater than comprehension, and they reciprocate.
...until they get dumped.
If god is a woman-chaser, then he is not honorable.
Woman chasing is not honorable by definition. It is the use of women for one's personal gratification without regard for their feelings or desires. A synonym would be "womanizer."
Ergo, if god is a womanizer, then he is by definition dishonorable.
quote:
open yourself to this new idea that he is not sometimes nice and sometimes a bastard, that everything he does is for good and out of love which will come to benefit anyone bestowed this honor of knowing such a great person.
Do you not see that your first statement is completely contradicted by the second?
A person who is behaving like a bastard is not doing something for good or out of love. That's the definition of what "being a bastard" is. It is behaving selfishly, out of concern only for oneself and one's own personal satisfaction, without regard or care for the consequences as it affects others.
Those two qualities cannot exist together.
quote:
quote:
Please answer my question:
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
Gladly.
[verbiage deleted for space]
You didn't answer my question. You went on and on about karma, but I didn't ask about that. Try again:
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
As an example of what I'm getting at: If I take a handful of coins and throw them on the ground, do they land in their final positions all on their own or does god come down and personally, consciously, and deliberately make them land the way they do?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by brdean, posted 12-17-2003 10:19 AM brdean has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by brdean, posted 12-18-2003 4:10 PM Rrhain has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 49 of 52 (73891)
12-17-2003 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by brdean
12-17-2003 7:52 PM


quote:
I would agree but add to that, it is the lazy person who just accepts anything they were fed, whether it be scientific or religious. 99.9% of the fanatic Christians in North America, were they born in Iran or Pakistan, would being shouting "Jihad! Jihad! Kill the Christians!"
Of course, the majority of Muslims in Iran and Pakistan are likely not Islamic fundamentalists wanting to kill Americans.
Christian extremists have been murdering people in the US for much longer than Islamic extremists.
However, you are correct that religious training is just that; training. Where you live is the single greatest determinant of what religion you will follow.
quote:
Yes I agree the Theory of Evolution is indeed a valid one.
Well, then I really don't have much to argue with you about. Thanks for the debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by brdean, posted 12-17-2003 7:52 PM brdean has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by brdean, posted 12-18-2003 4:18 PM nator has not replied

  
brdean
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 52 (74143)
12-18-2003 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Rrhain
12-17-2003 8:09 PM


quote:
Then you're not open to the possibility that your god has nothing to do with it. You have pre-determined that there must have been an action of god involved, that it must be taken into account, etc., etc., even though we have no way of testing for it, no way of detecting, and no agreement as to what this "god" thing is in the first place.
I would go so far as saying that yes indeed, it is a possibility that all of my experiences proving God are just coincidences. But I find this a very very low probability considering the circumstances.
No two people should ever have the exact same idea as to what God is. Some people cannot accept, for whatever reasons, certain aspects of God which are fact. Maybe, for _example_, God were an elephant. A very infinite elephant at that. Miss Rogers doesn't like the idea of God's trunk, so God-elephant lets her touch his ear. Mister Johnson doesn't like the way God-elephant's ears are, so God-elephant lets him touch his tail, cause that's all he can accept. Now how could all of these people, having blindfolds on and only having been given one part to touch, identify the same elephant? One thinks God's a warm, hairy skin-like thingamajigger, and one thinks its a snake with a soft furry head. No agreement there, because different aspects were sensed. No agreement here on Earth, yet perhaps each idea a part of the reality of God. No agreement is necessary, if you want to experience God, God can most likely arrange it.
quote:
You've gone from "woman chasing" to "flirting." "Woman chasing" is not simply making a person feel good. It is making them feel good only so far as you need them to feel good in order to get what you want out of them and them dumping them as soon as the allure is gone without regard to the devastation left in your wake.
Flirting is a part of woman chasing, but it is not all of it. You have forgotten to follow through to the end.
Ask women if they find "women chasers" appealing.
If that really is the commonly accepted definition, then it was misworded on my part. I think, though, you understand quite well despite the "wrong words", my point to be that God can have fun with all of his friends without ever mistreating them, period. I get the feeling you like to be very technical, if you understand what I'm getting at, don't push and push until you get me to use the exact word you were thinking of, understand my point and make the assumption that the description is much more important than the word. Unless my wording is completely out of context, and I think you are able to see that it wasn't. My description was enough for anyone to get my point. Besides, did you really find "woman chaser" in your dictionary?
quote:
quote:
open yourself to this new idea that he is not sometimes nice and sometimes a bastard, that everything he does is for good and out of love which will come to benefit anyone bestowed this honor of knowing such a great person.
Do you not see that your first statement is completely contradicted by the second?
A person who is behaving like a bastard is not doing something for good or out of love. That's the definition of what "being a bastard" is. It is behaving selfishly, out of concern only for oneself and one's own personal satisfaction, without regard or care for the consequences as it affects others.
Those two qualities cannot exist together.
Ok, that was just plain ole misread by you. I did say plainly that god does _not_ sometimes do one and sometimes the other, that everything he does is for good and out of love. In other words, I stated that God is never a bastard.
quote:
Ergo, if god is a womanizer, then he is by definition dishonorable.
And to put this to rest for once and for all, 1) he is not and 2) he is not.
quote:
You didn't answer my question. You went on and on about karma, but I didn't ask about that. Try again:
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
No, God does not care which side the pennies will land, up or down. I again stated very plainly that God does not interfere with our independence. He does not, period. His law of karma causes bad deeds to come upon bad people and good deeds to come upon good people, just as you are pulled to the ground by gravity (don't get technical here if I somehow breached the technical aspects of ToG, my comparison is clear). There is an attraction of one to the other, and it works so perfectly that God does not have to watch it and be sure everything is functioning. Our independence was given to us, period. No intervention on independence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Rrhain, posted 12-17-2003 8:09 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Rrhain, posted 12-19-2003 4:17 PM brdean has not replied

  
brdean
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 52 (74145)
12-18-2003 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by nator
12-17-2003 8:43 PM


quote:
Of course, the majority of Muslims in Iran and Pakistan are likely not Islamic fundamentalists wanting to kill Americans.
Christian extremists have been murdering people in the US for much longer than Islamic extremists.
I give you that.
And especially that..
quote:
Well, then I really don't have much to argue with you about. Thanks for the debate.
Thanks to you and the others for having cleared up some basic misconceptions I had.
It is a funny thing, human nature. When someone, like me, dislikes being wrong it seems his best chance of not being wrong is to show himself he was wrong, for then he can begin to be much more right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by nator, posted 12-17-2003 8:43 PM nator has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 52 of 52 (74336)
12-19-2003 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by brdean
12-18-2003 4:10 PM


brdean responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Then you're not open to the possibility that your god has nothing to do with it.
I would go so far as saying that yes indeed, it is a possibility that all of my experiences proving God are just coincidences. But I find this a very very low probability considering the circumstances.
You're just proving my point. You aren't open to everything. You are so certain that god has to be that you can't even conceive of the idea that god had nothing to do with it.
You are too obsessed with debating the physical form of god that you cannot step back and look at the more fundamental question: Is there even a god at all?
quote:
Besides, did you really find "woman chaser" in your dictionary?
Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive. I didn't have to look it up. I know what it means. And I wasn't the only one to question the idea that a "woman chaser" could be considered "moral."
quote:
quote:
You didn't answer my question. You went on and on about karma, but I didn't ask about that. Try again:
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
No, God does not care which side the pennies will land, up or down. I again stated very plainly that God does not interfere with our independence.
You're avoiding the question. This has nothing to do with humanity. I am not talking about free will. I'm talking about something physical. If I take coins and drop them, do they land all on their own or does god do it?
Stop with the poetry and pay attention.
This is about a physical process: Evolution.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by brdean, posted 12-18-2003 4:10 PM brdean has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024