Total posts: 3,179
-->
@Athias
Even though I cannot confirm nything without my existing, you can while you exist.How am I capable of confirming "nothing?"
Pardon the misspelling (anything). (^8
What I am saying is that even if I did not exist (thus, I would not be capable of confirming anything) you in your existence would still confirm things. Thus, I am not necessary for the physical universe existing.
Either that, or one of us is having a conversation with ourselves. Does my non-existence mean that nothing of the physical universe exists? I thought you would agree the physical still exists since you would still exist, would you not? Or does you existing depend on me existence? That seems to be what you are saying. If I die would you still exist? Am I the necessary being that grants you your existence? If so, your argument from before that you are that necessary being is void.Where are you getting this from? This is the reason I always mention "seem" is not an argument. Quote me verbatim and demonstrate how your recent "reference" compares with mine.
"Seem" is a way of giving you a chance to explain any misconceptions on my part, if you feel I am misrepresenting you.
Our conversation starts with Post 45 (page 2).
Post 56: "How are these principles intelligible independent of our minds when our minds are used to rationalize?"
They are independent of your existence in that they existed before you existed, thus your mind is not necessary for their existence. Thus, a necessary mind is required since your mind is not that mind.
Post 69: "You assert that they are independent of the mind; how does one know this?"
Again, you misrepresent what I said, "They exist without you thinking them. They are (or do you deny this?), and they are independent of your and my mind but still need mindfulness to know." I never contended they are independent of a mind (your misrepresentation - one of many as you create a whole paragraph of misrepresentation), just not your mind or mine. You did not pt these principles into being. Neither did I. I don't have to think them for them to be true. Thus, my mind is not necessary for their truth. Neither is yours.
What I am establishing is that your mind is not necessary for their existence. I contend that God's mind is for His mind is the necessary mind. Then I go on to explain why and how your mind cannot be the necessary mind for such truths. You continually argue that your mind is necessary, thus I question whether your mind is the only mind because I contend that my mind is not necessary for these things to exist or be true. They exist with or without your mind thinking them yet you continue to argue that your mind is necessary for their existence.
Either you or I are wrong.
Post 69: I contend, "Even if your mind was not, there would still be these four physical objects (2+2) I keep bumping into or knocking over or feeling..."
Again, you immediately misrepresent me:
You: "Without the mind, physicality would be irrational."
I'm not arguing for without the mind, I'm arguing for without your mind or my mind as the necessary mind. for the existence of these concepts and truths.
Post 76: Me, "I assert they are independent of our human minds. Can you show me a mind that is necessary for them to exist, a necessary mind? You insist mind is necessary for the existence of the physical. Which mind? Is your mind necessary for such existence? I say they will exist if you do not. "
"Your limited, subjective mind does not have what is necessary. I will argue that you are not having this conversation with yourself.
If only you exist you will address yourself. Here you go, "I am delusional!" There, you have stated this since only you exist.
Why are you having a conversation with yourself? Are you lonely? Just create a fictitious being to converse with. Oh, you are, or should you say, "I have!"
Since I have created this conversation with myself, I win! My ultra-ego, who I am talking to, is wrong! That ultra-ego is insane, therefore...(fill in the rest)"
"What I am saying is that your mind is not necessary for physicality."
Post 102: Me, "I assert they are independent of our human minds. Can you show me a mind that is necessary for them to exist, a necessary mind?"
You: "Yes, your mind."
Again, I argue my mind is not the necessary mind, that they would exist apart from my mind existing.
Me: "You insist mind is necessary for the existence of the physical. Which mind? Is your mind necessary for such existence?"
You: "All minds. And yes, my mind is necessary."
Again, I show all minds are not necessary for their existence and your mind is not necessary either. I do this by establishing that if your mind did not exist these physical things would still be here. Thus, your mind is not necessary, only necessary for you thinking and perceiving them.
Me: "I say they will exist if you do not."
You: "I do and will always exist. Existence is not the same as survival."
Another smoke-screen. There was a time when you did not exist. Did they exist before you? Again, your statement brings to mind if you think that these things would not be so if you did not exist, if you were never conceived of and born. That is the question. I'm not questioning the difference between existence and survival. I'm questioning whether you believe they exist apart from you and if they do then you are not necessary for their existence. If they do not exist apart from you then I question whether you are the only mind in existence because I understand that they existed before other minds existed and they will still exist after they die. I cite my parents as an example.
That is why I question what you believe, whether you believe whether you are the only one in existence. You confirm later that you are not yet you still suggest that your mind is necessary for their existence. If your mind did not exist as the necessary mind how could they exist, which brings into question whether I exist to your mind or are you having a conversation with yourself. I point out that such thinking would be lunacy.
Me: "If I did not exist, you would still be aware of the physical, so my mind is not necessary for its existence."
You: "Yes, because my mind in my own experience is operative and necessary, just as yours is. This does not inform and independent existence outside of our minds' rationalization."
Yes, what? Are you admitting that if I did not exist the physical universe would not exist because my mind is necessary for its existence?
I have argued my mind is not the necessary mind, but you continually insist your mind is. Thus, I ask, is your mind necessary for the existence of the physical universe? (I.e., would it exist or not if you did not?) I argue that one of us is wrong because I question that your mind is the necessary mind. You can't have it both ways. Either the physical existence existed before you did or your mind is necessary for its existence.
Me: "Yet, there was a time when you did not (exist)."
You: "Can you confirm this?"
Can you confirm you have always existed? I believe I have a better and more logical argument. But, again, I do not believe I always existed, so we are in conflict to what is the truth. You already admitted that there was a time when you were not.
You: "My sentience had a beginning."
Me: "Did the universe exist before that time (just not to you)?"
You: "Yes, it was just as much of an expression of the perceptions and mental faculties of those who preceded me."
Again, your thoughts are in conflict. There is an inconsistency in them that speaks of faulty thinking.
Again, this shows that your mind is not necessary for the existence of the physical universe, what I have argued all along. I have argued my mind is not necessary also. What mind is necessary? You say all??? But you just showed otherwise. Can you prove that you were here when the physical universe originated if all minds are necessary for its existence? Or do you believe the universe is eternal? Do you believe the universe is physical, that there is something outside our minds?
You continue to dismiss much of what I say with a non-sequitur (it does not follow) or change what I have said to fit your narrative. It is just another way for, IMO, a relativist, to avoid accountability. IMO, you want to control the narrative and direct it where you want it to go.
This questioning of the word "seems" or "factory = house" suggests as much to me. You are constructing a narrative that favours your interpretation while ignoring many of my questions. Thus, I request that when you charge me with a fallacy that you prove your charge specifically, not just assert it.
Created:
Posted in:
Yea for lying Nadler, Schumer, shifty Shiff, crazy Nancy, antisemitic Omar, luny Sanders and Cortez! Yea for Commrade DeBlaso, Ted Wheeler, Jenny Durkin, Lori Lightfoot! Yea for BLM, Antifa! Yea for Marxism! Yea for socialism! Yea for the radical leftist racism and bigotry!
Created:
Posted in:
You can't prove someone wrong who does not want to listen.
The thing that should concern Democrats, Independents and the voting public is the lies the Democrats have accumulated in the past four years - manufactured crisis after crisis. Who in their right mind would vote for those who have ignored the people for four years in their continuous lust for power above all else? Who is their right mind would want to be governed by extreme liars? Who in their right mind would want mobs, riots, violence, and destruction, to go unaddressed in cities and states run by Democrats? Who in their right mind would want open borders to gain political clout while funding these illegal immigrants by the taxpayers, granting them all kinds of rights not even given to citizens? Who would want to open borders where crime such as human trafficking, gangs, drugs and who knows what else flow freely into your country? Who would want to give into socialism and big government and give away your freedom? Who would in their right mind give the presidency to a person who shows signs of dementia, is a plagiarist, who can't think for himself but will be guided by the most radical arm of the Democrat Party who will collapse the economy by their mass free for all policies, most of which they will never put in place but watch out for those that are. Who in their right mind would vote for massively higher taxes and regulations that will stifle your country? Who would vote for Dems who have ignored and proven they do not respect your constitution or rule of law? Who would want to vote for Dems who want to add to their power by fixing the election process so that Republicans will never win another election by changing the electoral process and opening the borders to promises of those coming into your country that cannot be fulfilled without tremendous cost to every citizen? Who in their right mind would give into foreign nations and fund those that have ill-will towards America? Who wants the propaganda and indoctrination to continue that aids the Democrat Party? How much better would the Dems do in curtailing the pandemic? They would shut down your country to the point that it will never recover, never again be prosperous to the extent it was in the past. Eight more years of ObamaCare, under Biden, millions more on food stamps and unemployment! What insanity.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think tax increases should be targeted towards the wealthy.That's doubling down on an already existing problem. A system where the ultra rich purchase exemptions through lobbies while the middle class pays more with the largest ratio of poor paying no taxes in the world. Not to mention confiscating the wealth of the rich might have been a feasable plan 50 years ago when assets were not internationally fungible. Nearly all of Europe gave up on that idea.
Funnily enough, the ultra rich you speak of that affect politics by buying influence are largely Democrats. The extremism is funded in part by such people as George Soros, Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, Warren Buffet, and others.
Yes, you have reason to be concerned.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Hardly fantasy when compared with biblical tales.
100% more plausible that the fantastic fairy-tale without God... "Once upon a time, a long l o n g time ago nothing caused something, without reason, intent, or agency, and continues to sustain this complexity that has no purpose, no meaning, no value."
Though I do not deny the validity of any hypothesis that attempts to resolve the unresolvable.But "him".....A misogynist god created in your own image...as ever.And what do I "replace him with".I replace him with with a vague hypothesis, a tenuous possibility of a GOD principle that affords everything purpose.....No more, no less.....No tablets of stone and unsubstantiated meetings up mountains or floods and impossibly big boats or wise men out of the east and blokes nailed to crosses and resurrection.
Immediately you replace and discount the SUPERnatural with the natural.
Ha!....And you have the arrogance to say that I fantasise.
Just one big delusional fantasy. You're not doing that bad! Watch out for that dead-end!
Try examining your starting points, the thing everything else rests upon and what you build your worldview from, your core presuppositions - blind indifferent chance happenstance, if you discount a Creator. How does that do anything?
Created:
-->
@thett3
The Democrats have a huge hand in that. Your country needs an overwhelming win by Trump by gaining not only the House of Representatives but also the Senate. The Dems have tied Trump's hands. Give him four years without this continual obsticale around his neck and you might have a slim chance or altering the culture although I suspect not even that will help. When your academic institutions are controlled and indoctrinate the youth the hearts and minds will follow. The media is largely a spin-off of this instrument (academia) used by the gatekeepers of society.The GOP had two years of undivided control and nothing got done. I will be voting for Trump in November but I have little hope that he wins, and if he does even less hope that he accomplishes anything other than another SCOTUS justice
My personal opinion is that some are Republican in name only. Take McCain as a for instance who killed eliminating Obama-Care. Romney is another.
What I can't understand is anyone who does not vote Trump. In these big liberal run cities can they not understand what the Dems have done to their communities and continue to do while promising everything? Can they not understand the dangers threatening their country in Democrat hands? Are they not tired of liberal promises with no positive action taken. Everything the Dems do hurt your country. They are concerned with nothing but power at all costs. I've never seen the likes of their viciousness as has been exposed in the last four years. These people are corrupt and immoral. Anyone who votes them needs their head examined.
Trump has done so much more than just electing SCOTUS justices, and while under incredible odds. IMO, he has accomplished more than most other presidents in his first term of office while having his hands tied by these phony manufactured witch hunts.
The motto this election should be "What do you have to lose - Everything." From an outsider looking in, I think your American way of life is under attack by leftists. Look what they are doing to your cities and look what the Dems are doing to stop it - nothing. The is no law and order here. The Dems are the ones throwing fuel onto the fire to ignite this explosive situation further. They are aided by the liberal mainstream media who is creating an indoctrination and propaganda campaign against Trump and everything Republican. These people are insane.
I also think the Corona virus is an unprecedented situation that would have tied the hands of any president. Far more pressing is addressing the rising threat of the Chinese elitist government. It is a delicate situation that I thik Biden will bundle.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Once I've taken time to read through all the text, I'll respond.
Thank you for your consideration!
Created:
-->
@Athias
One of us is most definitely wrong since we understand God differently.It is of no consequence how one's sees God. I've argued that God exists. This has little to do with how you or I "understand" God's description. Either way, it wouldn't change that God exists.
You assert there is no consequence. Perhaps, if your god really existed there would be no consequence.
Yes, you argue God exists but you have not argued why your concept of God is true to the God who is real.
If God has described Himself in various ways it has everything to do with your or my understanding as to how we think of God.
At least that is a start, acknowledging His existence!
Confucius was a man. What makes him infallible or even correct about God?Non sequitur. Never stated that he was "infallible."
I know you never did. It is another way, a round-about way, of asking why we should trust his thinking about God.
Again, written by ONE man. Why should he be believed?The number of men is not significant. And I don't argue that Confucius should be believed.
It has a great deal to do with the consistency and unity, thus the trustworthiness. We have more than one person writing about God.
People believe all kinds of things that are not true. What are the internal pieces of evidence that what is said is true?Such as? As for "internal" pieces of evidence, Confucius' relays are sufficient.
Pink unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster.
How is his relay sufficient? Because you think so or because he says so, or because you like what he says?
There you have it. I can't ask Confucius.Obviously.You presume. I'm asking for your evidence that your particular belief is a reasonable belief.And I've given it to you. You reject it.
Sum it up other than "The Mandate of Heaven," or his writings. How is it verified as true?
The Bible has many verifiable proofs; one of the most reasonable is prophecy. Another is the unity of the Bible. Each of the 66 writings written by around forty different authors, presents a typology of the Lord Jesus Christ. What is spoken of God in the OT is spoken of Jesus in the NT! There are at least eight NT writers that claim 1st-hand knowledge of witnessing Jesus and His resurrection.And how does the number of authors or the number of "1st-hand witnesses" qualify or quantify its truth? You're imputing an ad numerum fallacy.
Another confirmation that Jesus existed and different accounts of His teaching and how they related to the OT and those prophecies.
How many 1st-hand witnesses were there that Confucius could cite regarding Tien?Doesn't matter. The number of 1st hand witnesses contrary to the popular belief cultivated by commonwealth legal systems doesn't necessarily inform truth.
In a court of law credible eyewitness accounts play a big part in verifying testimony.
The 66 writings I spoke of a few paragraphs ago.66 writings is evidence of 66 writings. The number, once again, is insignificant.
The internal consistency and themes recounted all relate, plus these authors all convey pieces in the puzzle of prophecy regarding the specific people - the Jews and their relationship and judgment by God, as well as God's plan for these people and us also.
What does that mean? Is Tien a person? If so, describe Tien's personality.We were contrasting and comparing Tien and God, and you're asking "Is Tien a person"? I would presume you know that which I mean when I state that Tien is deity especially since in another response, you demonstrated an understanding.
It has been about thirty to forty years since I familiarized myself with and read Confucius.
State what you believe about Tien as a personal being as opposed to a cosmic idea and consciousness (the all encompassing consciousness/mind, whatever that means).
Why? Because we are personal beings. How does personhood come from the impersonal? How does consciousness come from that which is devoid of it? How does agency come from something devoid of intent. You have to be mindful to have intent. If Tien is not personal, I want to know how personhood originates.That is for you to answer rather than shift the burden to satisfy your appeals to ignorance and incredulity. That is, you must substantiate how personhood does not come from the impersonal; that consciousness does not come from that which is devoid of it; that agency does not come from that which is devoid of intent. The floor is yours, again.
For one, personal experience and witness. For another, the means as to how something personal and mindful can come from that which is devoid of either. How do you get intent and purpose from something devoid of it? Do you have any answers?
Are you saying Tien is not a personal being? If so, your god difference from the biblical God. Thus, logically one of us is wrong in our perception of God and I say that it is you.Once again, "my" doesn't register. I do not possess Tien. And I already know that you're arguing that "I'm wrong." This is based on an irrational presumption of objectivity which would necessitate the acquisition and processing of information independent of your subjective proclivities. And you've insinuated that consensus somehow remedies this. Subjective + Subjective = Subjective.
"My" most certainly does. You are of the opinion that describing or encountering an elephant because someone touches a trunk and another a foot makes an elephant whatever you want to compare it too rather than what it is. It has a specific identity.
That means nothing. It is a tautology.If you know it's tautological, then why are you still asking questions about it?
Just pointing out that you have said nothing meaningful and I want you to (if you are capable) concerning what you identify as "God."
Created:
-->
@Athias
That is what we continually find when we examine the universe. Mindful processes are found to be in operation that we discover, not invent. They existed before we discovered them.What are these findings? And where can they be found?
A fine tuned universe, mathematical equations (mindfulness) that express the function and working of aspects of the universe, information in the physical universe, the anthropic principle. These things we did not invent, but discover. They operated and were present before we came on the scene.
Then why is your mind the necessary mind for the existence of the physical since you believe your mind is needed for there to be a physical reality?Non sequitur. You are projecting and misusing a context of "objectivity" while I'm not. My mind is necessary, once again, for my own subjective experience--including any conceptualization of physicality, just as your mind is necessary for your subjective experience. Communicating a standard "between minds"--as far as one can tell--does not necessarily constitute an "objective" physical reality. Even if I were dead, it would not make your experience, or that of any other less subjective.
I am reasoning, a useful tool in coming to decisions. I am not sure what exactly you mean by your underlined statement. I'll tackle it anyway. I'm convinced you are under the fallacy that just because we are subjective beings we can have no objectivity in our thinking. How would we know anything without some objectivity? Now, with origins we need an objective perspective since we are not doing repeatable and verifiable science.
Again, although my mind is necessary for MY experience it is not necessary for the existence of the physical universe in the sense that it would still exist without my mind. The difference is I would not be aware of it. The question is, would the physical universe exist without mindfulness? What say you? That is the fundamental issue at hand.
No, that is not true. Some mindful beings no longer exist or are non-functioning in this physical realm.The error in your reasoning here is that even we were to entertain "the veracity of your second statement, my argument would still hold. Because if the mindful being "no longer existed," his or her mind would no longer exist. Thus, it would not "count" as part of "all minds." But this indulgence is irrational because neither you nor I can perceive or appreciate nonexistence.
This concept you have of "all minds" is a concept related to your Confucius worldview, not mine. This Nirvana or cosmic consciousness is not what I consider a personal Being, like you and I. How you get a mind devoid of personhood is beyond my comprehension. Please explain such a concept if you believe it. By "no longer exist" I am speaking of no longer existing in this physical realm. Now, I could also argue from an atheistic perspective about whether a mind exists once a person is dead (they all too often do not have a mind body disctinction, but that is not something I believe. So, there are other possibilities, although I do not think they are as easily rationally defended. I say that because it involves explaining the intangible, abstract, non-physical solely by the physical (the is/ough fallacy). From the physical how do you get the intangibles and abstracts like twoness, logic, meaning?
Thus, not all minds are necessary for its physiology.Whose "physiology"?
The physiology of the physical universe (or other physical beings for that matter).
Yes, your ignorance of Him distorts who He is.How?
When you don't worship God as He is you create false ideas of Him. IOW's, you create an idol, something you manufacture that replaces the real God for your imaginary substitute.
Instead of worshiping the Creator, you worship a graven image, what you suppose God to be, not what He is.I worship no one. I acknowledge and accept God's being; I do not worship it.
What do you mean by worship? Define your term?
Christians believe that honour, respect and awe are due our Creator who is wiser and more knowledgable than any being He has created and sustains through His power at work and understood (by some) in the universe.
You manufacture God based on another subjective beings (Confucius) feelings of God.I have not.
Then why do you label yourself a Confucist? You identify with his writings as representing God. You have an eastern concept of God. If you did not you may be a Christian. The two systems of thought are largely unrelatable.
Three reasons: The law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of excluded middles.Demonstrate how all three are applicable to the argument for God's existence at the exclusion of all other gods.
The Bible reveals God has said He is the only living and true God. Thus, for that to be true all other gods are false or imaginary gods.
Thus, the law of non-contradiction is at play that states that two opposing beliefs about the same thing (in this case God) cannot both be true at the same time. The law of identity states that X=X. X has a specific identity for it to be known. Thus, X =/= Y. X=X. The law of middle exclusion states that a thing is either true or it is false. It cannot be what both true and not true at the same time. These are self evidence principles. By denying them you do not have what is necessary to make sense of anything and in denying them you use them, thus denying them is self-refuting.
He has what is necessary, a personal God, an omniscient God, an unchanging God, an eternal God, an omnipotent God, a benevolent God, a revealed God. He gives us verification.Once again: what does that have to do with logical necessity?
God is unchanging. Thus, He is always logical, always good, always just. God is omniscient, thus, He has what is necessary to create and sustain all things. God is omnipresent, thus He sees all things. God is omnibenevolent, thus, He has a purpose for man choosing to do evil and He rightly judges wrong since He is the best, the final reference point for what goodness is. God is eternal, thus He has no beginning and no end, unlike us.
So, in all these things God is our highest reference point and final court of appeal. Either that or you have subjective human beings acting in that capacity. It is an important point. What is your highest authority and how do you know?
How does Confucius, other than his subjective writings and musings about God reveal God?Non sequitur. I never claimed Confucius wasn't subjective.
Then how can you trust his writings as true to God? Your "mandate of heaven" is something he wrote about. Why is Confucius right on this? Why is he right on his concept of God? Does Confucius claim that God revealed to him the truth? And what is there to verify Confucius' claims from his writings (the internal consistency) as compared to other writings and the way the world and universe, let alone our minds work (the external consistency)?
Yes, I argue against yours as found in Confucius, based on the biblical God's revelation. The biblical God who is knowable and has made Himself known is my reason.Still doesn't register. I have not once excluded God. I haven't disputed God's existence. Are you arguing against the belief that God is not the only "god"? That's your prerogative, I suppose.
Haven't you? Which god/God?
No, neither of us dispute God's existence! We have that in common. The question is who is God?
I am arguing against the belief that God is not your god. I am asking you to show me how the two are the same or that yours is the true God.
As I said before, each perception is different.Redundant.
No when you have the wrong God.
My understanding of God is different than yours.Redundant.
Only if my understanding or your understanding is not true to who/what God is.
Created:
-->
@Athias
You miss the point and are overthinking. I can demonstrate physicality without using YOUR mind, so your mind is not necessary for the existence of the physical. And you can explain and show physicality without the existence of my mind, so physicality is not dependent on my mind thinking it.Where did I mention that your demonstration necessitated the use of "my" mind. I challenged you to demonstrate and confirm physicality without the use of "your" mind. And while I can conceptualize notions of physicality independent of your mind, I cannot demonstrate physicality independent of my mind. Being able to communicate and rationalize a standard which, for lack of a better term, "unites" our subjective experiences doesn't inform an experience independent of our subjectivity--far from it. In other words, amassing subjective experiences and rationalizing a logical consistency doesn't create objectivity. [Consensus neither informs nor creates objectivity.] Because we are fundamentally subjects. One can never not be the subject of his or her experience.I'm not "overthinking" it. I'm demonstrating an understanding of concepts like physicality, the values we ascribe them, and the role the mind plays in all of it.
Missed this post. Sorry.
I never said that my demonstration necessitated the use of your mind. You are twisting my meaning, the intent of what I wrote and meant. Let me reword to clear up your misunderstanding. I said that for ME to demonstrate physicality to MYSELF your mind is not necessary. Thus, it is not the necessary mind for there to be physicality. It exists regardless of whether you do. I realize you cannot demonstrate it without the use of your mind but what I'm saying is that it would exist without your mind because it would exist for me, thus, your mind is not the necessary mind for its existence. And from your perspective, my mind is not the necessary mind for its existence. So, since neither your mind, nor my mind, are necessary for its existence, we are not the necessary mind as to why it exists.
Although our experience is from a subjective viewpoint, that does not necessarily equate to there being no objectivity available to us. God is the necessary mind for us to rightly think about origins from an objective standpoint. Without Him, I would agree with your thinking. Thus, if a personal, revealing God did not exist I would be in the same boat without a paddle that you find yourself in.
When you say,
"Because we are fundamentally subjects. One can never not be the subject of his or her experience."
To an extent we can, granting the existence of the biblical God. In Him we get an objective perspective. We have to correctly think His thoughts after Him, or rightly interpret His written revelation to us. Just as I can understand you and get your intended meaning so can I His. Thus your words, when well written and correctly interpreted, do convey objective meaning, an intended meaning so that I can understand you. If everything was subjective I would just take your word conveyance and make it mean whatever I wanted it to mean. Thus, the chance of understanding what you said would be virtually nil. If every exchange of ideas was then a subjective communication between two people it would be very challenging, if not impossible. I could just construct my meaning out of everything you said as a relativist does with the Bible way too often. Instead of looking for the authors meaning I could say that "this is what the author meant" when in fact it was nothing like what He meant.
If you did not exist, I could still show other mindful beings that it still hurts to get run over by a speeding bus or for me to hit another mindful being with a hammer, causing a contusion as a minimal consequence.Once again, my nonexistence is irrational, just like that of any other. You're confusing death with nonexistence. And what is pain? What is a contusion or laceration even without your mind? What value do you ascribe the image of either? And how do you differentiate without the concept of differentiation, which is informed by your mind? How does one control for the difference between observation and conception?
Your non-existence is irrational to you, but if you were never conceived you could not proceed to death and the afterlife. If you were never conceived and I was I would still perceive the physical world from my mind and I would still feel my body (which is physical) bumping into it.
Are you separating the mind from the body in the sense that you deny physicality? Do you recognize there is a difference between your mind and your body or other physical items/things? I know my mind is necessary in perceiving them but I also know that they exist apart from me, just like you exist apart from me, or are we back to either you or I do not exist, one of us is nothing more that a projection that the real one is creating. Is that what you believe, or will you give the other (me) acknowledgement as also existing. Actually, you did in a previous post. Thus, it boils down to more than just your own mind in being the necessary mind for the physical and other minds existing. They exist apart from yours and they too are not the necessary mind for the physical reality.
You seem to be suggesting that nothing exists if your mind does not exist since your mind is the necessary mind for it to exist.Seem is not an argument; I'm suggesting that any ontological analysis outside of the mind's information is epistemolgically insignificant.
While this is true, your mind it not necessary for others to have this analysis. Thus, your mind is not the necessary mind for such an analysis to take place. I would still be analyzing without you, and you without me, and others without us. So, neither of us are that necessary mind.
Now, if no mind existed, there would be no one to know it existed, thus would it exist? If so, how did the physical make it possible for us thinking, conscious beings who are aware of its existence unless the physical universe is created in itself by a necessary mind who in turn creates other limited mindful beings?The answer to this question is one which you must substantiate without appealing to your own incredulity and ignorance. You're creating a false dichotomy while skipping the steps on how it's necessary--as you allege--that a necessary mind creates other limited mindful beings. The floor is yours: substantiate.
I have already explained how. Others before me, before my conception and beginning, have contemplated their own existence and have acknowledged others existed before them. My parents have told me of their life before I was born. I have seen others before they had a child. Not only this, but I have witnessed others dying. They are no longer here, in the physical.
Sometimes when I sleep I am aware of nothing. It is like I did not exist, yet I awaken and am again aware. Once I lost consciousness in a car accident. It was like I never existed during that time. Somehow I got from the African bush to an African hospital where I was revived. It seemed to me that others still existed and cared for me while I was out cold. My life was not in my hands during that time to my knowledge. It was as if I had never existed in between the bush accident and the hospital (except for a brief period of time in which I was revived and felt the pain during the drive then went unconscious again).
I also see beings that have had a beginning create other beings that have had a beginning. Personal beings derive their existence from other personal beings. But how did the first personal being come to be? It was either from a necessary Being (eternal and unchanging) or blind chance happenstance; from a logical, intelligent, reasoning Mind, or blind indifferent chance; from an intentional, purposeful, mindful Being or by pure chance. So, what is the more likely scenario? What is the more logical and rational explanation? There is no reason, no rational explanation from pure chance happenstance. There is no purpose, no meaning, no value from blind indifferent chance. Thus, God is the reasonable and logical explanation. Then, on top of that I have the biblical revelation that makes sense. I have what is necessary for my existence and for the existence of the physical universe, a Creator who stands apart from His creation, a personal Being just like I am, a thinking and intelligent Being, just like I am, a Being with purpose, meaning and love just like I have who has revealed so I can know!
Now, even though I use my mind to fathom this complexity of "being" I know the most reasonable and logical explanation lies outside myself for I do not understand all the complexities of the universe and don't know how I would be able to create it all by my self. If I created everything I would expect to know how everything works and how I put it together, but I don't. I'm ignorant of so, so much. Thus, I look to a necessary Mind, a mind that is greater than mine for the explanation. That mind is another personal Being, just like I am personal, but to an infinitely greater extent than me and my limited awareness.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
So wherein lies my fantasy?
Your denial of the biblical God and what you replace Him with.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Also most people in this thread have no idea where this economy is going. Andrew Yang was probably right about a high degree of automation resulting in tons of unemployment.At the same time, the inheritance from the 1/3rd or so of boomers who saved and invested diligently their entire lives is set to be the biggest wealth transfer in history. America is going to become economically stratified like never before. If paying somewhat higher taxes prevents the communist mob— which is likely have full control of this country for most of the next few decades so—from killing me and taking my stuff, sign me up.
The Democrats have a huge hand in that. Your country needs an overwhelming win by Trump by gaining not only the House of Representatives but also the Senate. The Dems have tied Trump's hands. Give him four years without this continual obsticale around his neck and you might have a slim chance or altering the culture although I suspect not even that will help. When your academic institutions are controlled and indoctrinate the youth the hearts and minds will follow. The media is largely a spin-off of this instrument (academia) used by the gatekeepers of society.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
That is not true.It is true and there is no real proof.....And you also, shouldn't be ashamed to admit it.
Sure, there is. History verifies the biblical writings through prophecy as one example. Prophecy is a reasonable proof. The internal consistency of these 66 writings is another. Names, places, events is another when compared to external writings of the time.
I would not wish to deny you or any other denomination of theist the right to believe in fantastical hypotheses....I'm simply not prepared to run with them myself.
Suggsting the hypothetical or fanciful is just a ploy/game played by atheists and non-believers to control the narrative. I can do the same by assertion also --> It is the non-believers worldview that is fanciful. Back up your claims (not with copy and paste).
Though, based upon your level of evidence requirements, I would expect you to accept that every other religious concept is also absolutely correct.....Is this not a reasonable expectation?
No, you don't find the same level of evidence with other ancient manuscripts.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
And no one as yet has ever proven that an actual god, actually exists.
That is not true. Proof is evidence. What would it take for you to believe the evidence. That is the real question. People make up all kinds of excuses to dismiss the evidence. And the evidence is reasonable. In fact, I would say that it is your worldview in denial that is unreasonable. Try examining it some time.
Therefore the debate is for the debates sake and the subject has become irrelevant.
I have learned a long time ago that you can't convince someone against their will. All I can do is show a person how unreasonable their own worldview is. What they do with that is their business.
But maybe that's what makes it a favourite.......Who can best elucidate the unexplainable.....Because there's no chance of resolving the unresolveable.
What make you think it is the Christian worldview that is unreasonable and unexplainable? It is yours. You probably just don't realize it or do not want to accept it.
As I was always told.........It's not the god that matters, it's the taking part.......Or something along those lines.
No idea what that means.
Stay with it boys. (Gender assumed).
Yes, I'm male and married. I'm not ashamed of Christianity or being a man either, or love between a man and woman. Nor am I ashamed of being caucasian.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Then God is a personal being and separate from creation. Is God then monotheistic or pluralistic?Explain your conclusion. And monotheism and pluralism are not attributes of God; they're descriptions of religion and philosophy.
The biblical God has revealed He is the one true and living God. There are no gods besides Him, only those who are "called" god/s. Therefore, since He is the one God we speak of God in monotheistic terms. Not only this, but the biblical God speaks of Himself with the pronoun "He." He thinks, acts, loves, judges, has compassion, gets angry, is merciful, requires obedience and soforth, which are all ways of describing a personal being.
I mean God is something outside of yourself who exists without you inventing Him/God, or existing just because you accept another subjective person's invention. He is real, not invented but actual, not a figment of your mind or a projection from another person's mind but actual regardless of your mind.How do you know what exists outside of yourself if it is in fact outside of yourself? What is the difference between "actual" and "invented"?
One way is that I bump into things that are not me. (^8 I can deny them but at the risk of bodily harm. I interact with others that speak of themselves as "I" or "me."
The actual is what is. When I speak of the invented in this instance I speak of something that is a mindful fancy. That mental projection does not really exist as anything but an idea, like a pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster.
So "dog" is the definition of a horse!!!It can be should the description change. Descriptions aren't immutable.
They are symbols we associate with things. They have a definite identity. If you associate the animal we call a horse with the animal we associate with a dog you have a misconception of what is being spoken of. When enough people use a term or symbol of representation in a way in which it becomes acceptable to think of that way, then yes, it gives the term an additional meaning. But that term is still understood in its context. Context gives it the meaning.
Vocabulary gives the word meaning in a context, a combination of alphabetic symbols to describe something specific. Depending on how you use that word in context gives it specific meaning.Then words don't have specific meanings. Only context does. And that was not your argument. Don't backpedal.
No, they do have specific meaning. The same word can have a number of meanings and we understand which use or specific meaning by the context.
Dog
- a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, non-retractable claws, and a barking, howling, or whining voice.
- 2.an unpleasant, contemptible, or wicked man
The term dog has a specific meaning. It is usually the identity we give to a particular kind of animal. Now, in context we can use that term in a number of different ways such as a figure of speech to perhaps personify or satire someone or something.
In context words convey specific mean or else you would not be able to understand me. You know when I say I'm green with envy I am usually speaking figuratively, not speaking of my physical being as being green. You know when I say the grass at my house is green I am usually speaking of the physical lawn at my house.Don't backpedal. I presented you with a homonym, and you're now trying to revise your original argument to include for context. Context speaks more to my argument than it does to yours. You are arguing the sustenance of general descriptions based on a common understanding. And in doing so, you asserted that words have specific meanings. Now, you're stating that words have meanings specific to context? If that's the case, then this contradicts your previous citation of "Law of Identity," albeit fumbled, because words don't have specific meanings (i.e. "mine" being informed by a possessive, an explosive, or an excavation site for minerals.)
I'm not backpeddling. I'm explaining. You equated factory = house.
When I say green a particular colour comes to mind that is not blue or yellow but a shade in between the two.
One is a single unit of quantity. An individual is one person.
Now, how I use the word in a context distinguishes the use, if the word has more than one meaning.
Dog = dog. Dog =/= cat. The law of identity states that a dog is a dog, that it has a specific identity.
You are a relativist. You make up the meaning. You say, factory = house because I say it does. The problem with relativism is that sooner or later you can't live by the belief.
You are the one blurring the difference. You think that just because you can think it, then it makes it true. That is the message you convey throughout this dialogue. That, my friend, is the definition of a relativist. Relativism doesn't work successfully in the real world.No. That is the definition of idealism.
Factory = house is relativistic unless you qualify what you mean by that statement.
You are blurring the difference between a house and a factory without first qualifying it by context.You're projecting again. Your original argument renders context contradictory since words, as you put it, are subject to the law of identity. I don't have to qualify using a context because I'm not the one arguing any specific description. You are. The only necessary description to both a factory and a house is that they're buildings.
I'm just stating what you have said - factory = house. For you the terms are interchangeable. I'm going to the factory to sleep, take a shower, and relax, then I will go home and work. I go home to earn a living and I go to the factory to spend recreation time.
Sure. It is ONE of the distinctions that usually separate houses and factories. Some houses may qualify as a factory, and some factories qualify as a home (such as a factory ship in a whaling fleet), but it is not usual. People do not usually live or sleep at a factory with their families. Homes usually house families.Once again, this is not about what people usually do. This is about description. You concurred with Stronn that my argument imputed a logical contradiction, the likes of which neither of you have substantiated. Are you willing to withdraw this allegation?
No, unless you are willing to accept that the biblical definition of God is the same as your definition and that the two are the same, which I refute. If that is the case (the same), why do you identify with Confucist and not Christianity and making a distinction? Jesus never claimed to be just a mere man. He gave Himself the same attributes and qualities reserved only for the Hebrew God, and the Jews understood His meaning and took up stones to stone Him because they thought the comparison was blasphemy. Did Confucius claim to be God in the flesh and attribute to himself the same qualities as that of God? Does your religion belief that Confucius rose from the dead? Is his tomb empty?
Can you find one that includes both? Take a standard dictionary, whichever you like, and prove your case. Prove that the definition of a house is the same as that of a factory.A futile attempt at shifting the burden. Furthermore, my argument was never that the descriptions of a house and factory were the same.
I'm asking you to be accountable for your statement.
I have qualified my meaning.Irrelevant. It is still logically fallacious reasoning.
When you make a charge please give examples and explain why.
No, you have blurred the standard definitions found in dictionaries without qualification.What is it that you're arguing? That words have meaning specific to context? Or that words should be restricted to their standard definitions? You can't have it both ways.
I can compare a house to a factory in some ways. I can also include a factory in my house. The two are still separate. I don't sleep on the production line.
Your relativism say, "I call something what it is and that makes it what it is."That's not relativism; that's idealism (perhaps a bit of solipsism as well.)
It is when you deconstruct the narrative to suit your definition.
You just invent a god and say that god is the real God when that god does not comply to the real God if you do not believe it to be so.You're projecting... again. I do not presume objectivity, and thus qualify God with descriptions which fallaciously ascribe objectivity--i.e. your gratuitous use of the term "real." I merely argue that God exists.
Show me that your god is not just a projection of your mind but actual is. I'm asking for evidence. You claim you have given evidence. Did I miss that? Where is it?
That is why I ask you for evidence that God is who you say God is.What or who have I argued or said that God is?
YOU: "Why would one attribute consciousness and personhood to Tien or any other deity?"
You suggest consciousness and personality are not something you attribute to your god. That is in stark contrast to the biblical God.
Created:
-->
@Athias
You are playing gamesI do not play games in serious discussions.
That is good to hear, but I disagree. You are using semantics on two fronts. You redefine factory and home and you suggest all minds are necessary minds for the existence of the physical universe.
You state things that seem illogical or at least inconsistent. You seem to think that your mind is necessary for the existence of the physical universe yet if you did not exist I would still perceive it.Seem is not an argument; Yes my mind is necessary for and informs my subjective perception of the physical, just as your mind is necessary for and informs your subjective perception of the physical.
I say that (seem) because I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in that I may be misinterpreting what you are saying or there might be a misunderstanding in what was originally penned and what we now have uncovered in your thinking.
Without your mind, the physical universe would still exist, just not for you, because it exists for me. So either I am having a conversation with myself (my ultra-ego) and you don't exist, you are having a conversation with yourself and are making up the opposition to stimulate your mind and I don't exist, or you do exist and so do I. Thus, if you exist, my mind is not necessary for the physical universe to exist since you still perceive it and experience its hard knocks physically.
So, which way should I direct this conversation?
Again, it boils down to the question of if you did not exist would the universe still exist? I say that based on my experience it would. My parents are both dead, but the universe is still here. It did not depend on their existence for it to have being.No, this is a question that you are projecting. Once again, you are making references to survival, not existence (i.e. your parents' death state.)
Prove it. I did not even consider "survival" until you mentioned it. If you survive then you exist, do you not?
Projecting? You are making a lot of assertions on what is and what is not the case that are not logically conclusive, even contrary to logical laws that are dependent in making sense of things.
I can't without using my mind, but my mind is not necessary for its existence because whether I exist or not it would still be here. Whether I existed or not, words, language, maths would still be evident to those who still exist unless you think that you are the only one in existence, then I leave you to argue further with yourself.You cannot perceive your own nonexistence. Nonexistence is imperceptible. You would know "nothing" because you'd be "nothing." You're only making assumptions about that which lies outside of your mind; you have not confirmed this; you have not controlled for it. You merely reference a commonality in communication (i.e. logic, math, science, etc.) as independent without demonstration. You're speaking to the "intersubjective," not the "objective."
So, do you believe I am conversing with you or not?
2+2=4 is an objective fact. Counting is dependent on the laws of mathematics. The laws of logic are objective facts. Without using them nothing can be made sense of.
I confirm it by experience. I see that it did not depend on the various people I know who have died. They were not necessary for the physical to exist. It exists apart from them. They were only necessary to experience it.What experience? And how did you control for that experience independent of your own mind? Once again, death is not the same as non-existence.
My own and that of others confirmed by hearing their accounts of their experience. I have yet to hear from the experience or account of those who have died physically, other than the biblical account of Jesus' death and resurrection and a biblical resurrection in AD 70, as well as those who believe being raised from death to life in God. I do believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus.
So, once dead, my parents minds have confirmed nothing to me. Neither have the minds of those whom I have known, like my sister, or my dead friends.
I agree, death is not the same as non-existence, but many would disagree with you on that contention. But death is where you are separated from the physical universe or realm. You can't SHOW me that someone who has died is still physically and mentally present with us, other than as a rotten body of ashes. You can't show conclusively that they are communicating with us.
Thus I have no experience of these things. What I experience is someone dying and they are no longer with us physically in any sense that my mind can detect. Neither do the continue to converse with me.
Once you say you are necessary for the physical existence of the universe I take unbridge with that.This is projection. Quote me verbatim.
Yes, you are projecting, trying to create the narrative.
If your mind did not exist would the universe still physically exist to other minds, or is your mind the only mind?My mind is not the only mind; but this has no significance independent of my mind, because its mere notion is produced and informed by mind.
Good, you admit your mind is not the only mind!
But the physical universe would still have significance for my mind. You keep denying that in that you keep saying your mind is necessary for the existence of the physical universe. It is not because it would still exist without your mind. You just would not know it since there would be no you.
No, that is not the question. It is not about your subjective experience but about whether you believe the universe would exist for others if you did not.Your questions have been based on projections and non sequiturs. I cannot perceive my own nonexistence, and thus I do not offer rationalizations premised on the aforestated because nonexistence is irrational.
No, you are projecting your narrative on the discussion. I have explained how your mind is not necessary for the existence of the physical universe. I would still experience it if you did not exist. Now, if you think your mind is the only mind, then it would be the necessary mind for the physical existence of the universe. Are you the only mind? You sought of affirm in your next statement of double-talk that your mind is not the only mind and that it is. If your mind is not the only mind then your mind is not necessary for the existence of the physical universe. It is not even the only mind you know of, is it?
You say to my next question, are there other minds - yes.
You say to my followup question that it (meaning you, thus about your mind) is all about YOU (yes) so is your mind the only mind that matters or are other minds involved also?
You miss the qualifier - OR.
So what you are saying is that there are other minds and it is all about your mind (everything centers on your mind - egotistical, don't you think?). Thus, if you think it is, it is so - creating your own reality, or explained in another way, relativism. Everything revolves around subjective you and things are not what they are until you make them so.
Do you believe there are any others? Or is this all about you?Yes, and yes.
See my last statement.
And because you don't know Him you are wrong about Him.How have I been wrong about him. Quote me verbatim.
First, you say God is not a personal being. So, for you, the personal comes from the nonpersonal. Thus, one of us is wrong in our thinking about God. I say it is reasonable to believe it is you.
Because every other god contradicts. To establish this all I would have to do is get you to describe your god and what you think that god is like.So God's existence--or that of any god--is necessarily informed by his description?
Any knowable God is informed by description. What are you aware of God as? Do you know anything about your god or are you making your god up on your likes and dislikes?
If God is not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal, and personal, that is not the God of Christianity. Can you say your god fits that description?
"The scholar Ronnie Littlejohn warns that Tian was not to be interpreted as personal God comparable to that of the Abrahamic faiths, in the sense of an otherworldly or transcendent creator.[36] Rather it is similar to what Taoists meant by Dao: "the way things are" or "the regularities of the world",[33] which Stephan Feuchtwang equates with the ancient Greek concept of physis, "nature" as the generation and regenerations of things and of the moral order.[37] Tian may also be compared to the Brahman of Hindu and Vedic traditions.[9] The scholar Promise Hsu, in the wake of Robert B. Louden, explained 17:19 ("What does Tian ever say? Yet there are four seasons going round and there are the hundred things coming into being. What does Tian say?") as implying that even though Tian is not a "speaking person", it constantly "does" through the rhythms of nature, and communicates "how human beings ought to live and act", at least to those who have learnt to carefully listen to it.[35]
How do you listen to "it" if it does not speak audibly or in written words? It seems from the description above that this god is panentheistic, expressed in nature or what is made.
I have already seen that the god you talk about is not the same God I believe in.I've been talking about two gods, so to which one are you referring? Tien? Or God?
Precisely. I contend your god is not the true, living, and personal God (i.e., biblical), the ONE who is, but a mental construct from the minds of humans, thus an idol and human construct/creation.
Thus, logically, one of us is wrong in our belief. That is a law of logic.Making reference to the qualifier, "logically" does not mean you're employing logic.
Are you saying that two contrary/opposite positions can both be right at the same time regarding the same thing (in this case God)?
It states that two contrary things cannot both be true at the same time concerning the same thing.So I must ask again: why is it logically necessary that God exists to the exclusion of all others? How is the existence of God contrary to that of Tien's?
Because each religion has a different image/ideas of who/what God is. Thus, no two religions (in which I include atheism) are alike in their idea of God. Thus, only one can be true, if any. I claim the Judeo-Christian God is the true God. I believe there is reasonable evidence for this belief; more so than any other "god" belief.
Thus, I ask you for the evidence you have that your god exists. I am willing to provide some on mine, and I have already laid out some basic evidence previously.
He meets the requirements of what is necessary to know about origins.What are those requirements?
A written self-revelation (contained in a historical record - 66 writings) verified in many different ways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
I did not say God was corrupt. I was responding to a person who asked me to suppose for a minute that God might be corrupt. In that event, he asserted, would following this God make things worse for you?My answer was no because this God would still hold all the power anyway and could torment anybody He wanted, whether they were His followers or not. Since people generally like being flattered and worshiped, it seems most evident that a corrupt God would be less likely to torment those who did so and more likely to punish stubborn holdouts who refused.
And I was responding specifically about the biblical God in answering the corruption issue.
Created:
-->
@Athias
A "dog" is a word we use (it represents something) to describe a particular type of animal. When we speak of a dog we are not speaking at the same time of a cat. A=A. It has its own identity. A dog is a dog. A dog is not a cat.Something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in reference to the same thing. It is either true or it is false. It is either true that it is raining outside my house at this minute or it is not true. It cannot be both true and false at the same time.Truth is not false.Non sequitur.
I am showing what happens when you just invent meaning such as saying a house is a factory (house = factory) without qualification.
If you think such things that go against the laws of logic, yes. The laws of logic are necessary for meaningful conversation.It suffices to state that I'm intimately familiar with the rules of logic. Demonstrate which rules I'm breaking. And do so while not projecting your non sequiturs onto my arguments.
All three laws, contradiction, identity, and middle inclusion.
House = factory stated without qualification and clarification is contravening these laws.
Oh yes, it is. I am not relying on my mind alone but on the mind of God, in as much as I understand His mind.Hence your understanding of God's mind is subjective since you decided to qualify your understanding by prefacing it with, "in as much as..."
You confuse my subjective mind with objective knowledge. It is still possible for my subjective mind to understand objectively or else communication would be impossible. Now where origins come into discussion I believe it is not science but scientism. Thus, an objective being (one who created and understands such things) is necessary for our understanding. Thus, such a Being would have to revela to us the way things are. That is the biblical contention - God has revealed.
When I correctly think and interpret His communications I think in an objective manner.No you are not. To your own admission, your understanding of his mind is limited by default.
Are you saying that when someone communicates something it is not possible to be the authors meaning? If so, I might as well give up communicating with you since you believe my words have no objective meaning to them. You just make up whatever meaning you want to accept. You create the narrative not on what I intend it to mean but on what you intent it to mean. Again, such thinking is relativism. It does not work in the real world where words in context do have specific meaning and communication does take place where we understand each other.
I'm questioning whether you think you are all that exists?And this question is based on a non-sequitur. Hence, I haven't answered it because it would presume that I'm making the argument you allege I'm making.
Again, you are playing games, IMO. It follows that if your mind is the necessary mind in the physical universe existing, then you are creating what is necessary from your mind.
I'm trying to find out what you think.No you're not. You're projecting what you think.
I am following through on the consequences of your stated belief system as you have conveyed it, and trying to make sense of it. I question to find out more of what you believe. I am discovering contradictions and implausibility then highlighting them. I can go back to our OP and subsequent posts again to qualify my concerns, as you stated them, if you like.
Created:
-->
@Athias
My mind is not necessary. The physical would still exist if I did not. It would just not be known by me.You cannot confirm anything about your nonexistence because you do exist. You are making bald assertions based on assumptions. You "assume" that there's a physical without the mind.d
Even though I cannot confirm nything without my existing, you can while you exist. Either that, or one of us is having a conversation with ourselves. Does my non-existence mean that nothing of the physical universe exists? I thought you would agree the physical still exists since you would still exist, would you not? Or does you existing depend on me existence? That seems to be what you are saying. If I die would you still exist? Am I the necessary being that grants you your existence? If so, your argument from before that you are that necessary being is void.
All minds, yet if you did not exist I would still be aware of the physical, so your mind is not necessary for its existence.You're entertaining a condition that is not logical. Once again: I do and will always exist; existence is not the same as survival.
How is it not logical. Please back up your thinking instead of just asserting.
Are you saying that you will still exist in the physical or earthly realm when you die, other than being dust or ashes? When you die, would you still exist in this realm as a conscious, mindful being? If so, give me some evidence that this is the case.
Did you always exist then in this physical realm? You have said previously that you had a beginning. I would argue that you had a beginning, that you began to exist.
Will you always exist in this physical realm? If so, give me evidence of this.
If I did not exist, you would still be aware of the physical, so my mind is not necessary for its existence.Yes, because my mind in my own experience is operative and necessary, just as yours is.
It is necessary for you alone, not the physical universe.
My mind is not the necessary mind for the existence of the universe, only for my perception of it. Your mind can also perceive it without me being alive or in existence. That is what I have been arguing all along. Your mind is not the necessary mind for the universe existing. But I argue a necessary Mind is and since the universe still exists without your mind then your mind is not that necessary mind for its existence.
This does not inform and independent existence outside of our minds' rationalization. The minute you share your experiences with me, my mind automatically transmutes it and conforms it to my perceptions. Our perceptions have facilitated a standardization of communication which is--and this is important--common, not independent.
Common, meaning specific meaning is necessary, and words in context convey specific meaning. There is a standard that you cross and confuse. Thus, a home is different from a factory although sometimes a home can house or include a factory and visa versa.
It was here before either of us existed, so our minds are not necessary for its existence.How have you confirmed this?
Yes, confirmed through the coming into existence of others makes it logical to believe. It is most reasonable to believe. If you think not, are you being reasonable? Explain.
I confirm it by conversing with you. You exist apart from me, or are you confirming and saying you are a figment of my imagination and that you do not exist as anything separate from my mind? If so, my mind is necessary and you are not. I think I will create a new imaginary character. I will also eliminate any physical record that my conversation with you existed since this conversation thread is just my imagination working overtime. Bye!
The impossibility of the contrary or the unlikehood of the contrary is sufficient reason.
Yet without a necessary mind - the eternal God - would the physical universe exist?Physical is a manifestation of perception. The mind rationalizes and informs perception. Any scrutiny outside the bounds of the mind is epistemologically insignificant.
Then try stepping in front of a speeding bus and not suffer any physical harm or hurt since it is all perception. I think you will find that the physical bus is more than just a perception but it actually exists. And not only you perceive it.
Yet, there was a time when you did not.Can you confirm this?
Not in your universe.
Am I speaking to THE necessary being here? Are you it? I know I am not. My conscious experience began. I became aware of my being.
According to your profile, granting it is true, you were born 01 January 1930 (that makes you more of an antique than I am) so you had a beginning.My sentience had a beginning. (And my profile is an exaggeration save my native language and country of origin.)
Can you confirm this?
You have confirmed it, yourself, so your previous paragraph is answered by your present one.
I guessed as much about your profile since 1930 and your mental acumen at that age (90) was unreasonable. I surmise you are fairly young in relation to my age although I was not aware that you made up the whole thing. It seems to be a common thread in our conversation, your invention or creation.
Did the universe exist before that time (just not to you)? If you say no, are you (meaning me) the only person in the universe and are your (am I) playing games with yourself (myself) out of shear loneliness?Yes, it was just as much of an expression of the perceptions and mental faculties of those who preceded me. And my "loneliness" is none of your concern. We are discussing mind over matter, so to speak, not the emotions you allege I have.
Then you are not necessary for its existence as has been my contention from the start. I was offering a scenario based on you as the creator of your own universe since you seemed to be suggesting you are necessary for the physical universe. It took a lot of effort to hear differently.
I was following through on your comments that seemed to imply you created the physical universe via your mind.
I'm not being mean. I am just investigating your thought process and trying to understand what you believe by candid questions and following through with the implications. I am not going to defend myself further. I initiated the conversation because I thought your position was inconsistent. If you do not believe I am here in good faith then it is your problem, not mine.
But the distinction is whether either of our minds are necessary to experience the physical and I know that I would still experience it without you existing.Non sequitur. No one has argued that I'm necessary for you to have an experience, albeit physical. It is being argued that the "mind" is necessary. And you have a mind.
It is being argued that A mind is necessary but that mind is not your mind or mine. You turned it into your mind being that necessary mind for the existence of the physical universe.
I'm sure you believe the same about me.I cannot perceive you without the use of my mind. Your existence ndependent of my subjective experience is insignificant as it concerns me. That is not to say, that it bears to no significance to you.
While this is true, it does not equate to there is no physical universe without your mind existing.
I'm not just asserting it. It is a logical impossibility. Some things are just illogical to think and thinking them makes no sense.I.e.,One apple plus one apply equals three apples.How is it a logical impossibility? One plus one equals two so long as the descriptions of each number are defined to make that statement true. Change the definitions and it's no longer an impossibility. And words, numbers, and descriptions are, as you had put it earlier, "figments of the imagination." There are no material characteristics or chemical properties to numbers, so do they exist?
Something would be logically impossible if it did not correspond to the laws of logic, which are mindful. That something, if illogical, would not be reasonable to believe but irrational.
If I buy one dog, then buy another dog, that does not mean I bought three dogs. The concept of oneness exists without your mind thinking it. It are not physical or tangible but without it mathementics would be impossible. It is a concept that does not need your mind or my mind alone for it to be logical. It exists outside our minds thinking it. So it is separate from your mind or my mind yet it still requires mindfulness, suggesting a necessary mind gives it meaning, unless you can point to an individual human mind that gives it is meaningfulness and is necessary for its mental actuality.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Are you a pantheist or panentheist then?No.
Then God is a personal being and separate from creation. Is God then monotheistic or pluralistic?
It matters a lot. Is your god real (exists) or a figment of your imagination.You still haven't answered my question. What do you mean by actual? Material or does the distinction not matter?
I mean God is something outside of yourself who exists without you inventing Him/God, or existing just because you accept another subjective person's invention. He is real, not invented but actual, not a figment of your mind or a projection from another person's mind but actual regardless of your mind.
Do words have meaning or have you lost the law of identity to your vocabulary? (I.e., A=A)Yes, words have meaning, and no, the law of identity doesn't apply to vocabulary.
So "dog" is the definition of a horse!!!
Vocabulary gives the word meaning in a context, a combination of alphabetic symbols to describe something specific. Depending on how you use that word in context gives it specific meaning.
Words convey a specific meaning.No, they do not. A single word can have several meanings. Case in point: "mine." Tell me the meaning of this word. (Note: I did not provide context, so be cautious.)
In context words convey specific mean or else you would not be able to understand me. You know when I say I'm green with envy I am usually speaking figuratively, not speaking of my physical being as being green. You know when I say the grass at my house is green I am usually speaking of the physical lawn at my house.
They represent and are necessary for communication. Don't blur the difference between a house and a factory without qualifying what you mean. House =/= factory. House = house. Factory = factory.Your proposition is sufficient as long as you substantiate it. Demonstrate that a House =/= Factory. That is, demonstrate that the description of a house excludes a factory, and vice versa.
You are the one blurring the difference. You think that just because you can think it, then it makes it true. That is the message you convey throughout this dialogue. That, my friend, is the definition of a relativist. Relativism doesn't work successfully in the real world.
***
Your proposition is sufficient as long as you substantiate it. Demonstrate that a House =/= Factory. That is, demonstrate that the description of a house excludes a factory, and vice versa.
A house is a living abode. We don't usually have our abode in factories. A house has a place to eat, a place to sleep and a place to s_ _ t. A factory does not usually have a place to sleep. A word that describes the place we sleep is called a bedroom when it is walled and separated from other areas. Yes, some people do not have such rooms. I speak of what is common.Demonstrating a logical contradiction has nothing to do with your impressions. You're not asked to speak to that which is "common;" you're asked to speak to that which is descriptive. And thus far, you have not done this. You're merely projecting your opinion as description.
It is you who are projecting. You are blurring the difference between a house and a factory without first qualifying it by context.
A factory does not usually have bedrooms. Houses usually do have bedrooms.A bedroom is a place where people sleep. Do you really intend to extend this argument to its logical conclusion?
Sure. It is ONE of the distinctions that usually separate houses and factories. Some houses may qualify as a factory, and some factories qualify as a home (such as a factory ship in a whaling fleet), but it is not usual. People do not usually live or sleep at a factory with their families. Homes usually house families.
I have not argued a building called a house cannot ALSO act as a factory or visa versa. To call a house a factory would be adding to our normal understanding of what a factory is and such distinction needs to be qualified since what is meant is not in the standard meaning of the word factory, to call it a house. The definition of a house is not the same as that of a factory. To call the two the same needs qualification. If the BUILDING you call home also is being used as a factory I have no beef about that.Both a house and a factory are buildings. That's a non-issue. A house can be and is used to produce goods. A factory can be used as a dwelling and/or place to sleep. Your projections of usual behavior has no bearing on that fact. And that's my point. If you're going to state that I've made a logical contradiction, then you're going to have to do more than just state that which you think is usually done. So, I'll make it simple: can you or can you not find a description of either a house or factory that precludes one from the other?
Can you find one that includes both? Take a standard dictionary, whichever you like, and prove your case. Prove that the definition of a house is the same as that of a factory.
I appeal to common sense.Yes, that would be another word for it, and that would still be logically fallacious reasoning.
I have qualified my meaning.
What I am saying is don't blur the distinction that gives words meaning (in context) without qualifying what you mean.I'm only "blurring" the distinctions you've projected, not that which is part of their (house and factory) descriptions.
No, you have blurred the standard definitions found in dictionaries without qualification. Your relativism say, "I call something what it is and that makes it what it is." Thus, to you, a house can be the same thing as a factory or a snake can be the same thing as a dog. You just invent a meaning then insist it is what it is because you believe it, exactly what you do with God too. You just invent a god and say that god is the real God when that god does not comply to the real God if you do not believe it to be so. That is why I ask you for evidence that God is who you say God is.
Created:
-->
@Athias
What I am saying is that your mind is not necessary for physicality.Then demonstrate physicality without the use of your mind; you can't use logic, science, math, language or words. I wish you luck.
You miss the point and are overthinking. I can demonstrate physicality without using YOUR mind, so your mind is not necessary for the existence of the physical. And you can explain and show physicality without the existence of my mind, so physicality is not dependent on my mind thinking it.
So what I am saying is that this physicality is not something that depends on your mind or mine. They are not necessary for it. This same physicality would exist if either you or I did not,Can you confirm that? How would you go about this confirmation if you have to both isolate and nullify the use of your mind?
If you did not exist, I could still show other mindful beings that it still hurts to get run over by a speeding bus or for me to hit another mindful being with a hammer, causing a contusion as a minimal consequence.
or do you believe there is only you and you are having a conversation with yourself?Non sequitur.
You seem to be suggesting that nothing exists if your mind does not exist since your mind is the necessary mind for it to exist. It is for you but not me and without your mind existing the physical universe still exists, so your mind is not necessary for its existence. I'm following through on such thinking. If it does not follow then explain to me what I'm asking you. I do not see your mind as the necessary mind for its existence unless you are saying that only your mind exists. You see, if you did not exist but I did would the physical universe still exist? If so, it does not depend on your mind for its existence. Likewise, if I did not exist would you still be able to perceive the physical universe? If so, it does not depend on my mind for its existence. Thus, my mind is not necessary for its existence. Now, if no mind existed, there would be no one to know it existed, thus would it exist? If so, how did the physical make it possible for us thinking, conscious beings who are aware of its existence unless the physical universe is created in itself by a necessary mind who in turn creates other limited mindful beings? That is what we continually find when we examine the universe. Mindful processes are found to be in operation that we discover, not invent. They existed before we discovered them.
If so, I'll leave you to do that. In such a case, I would suggest you re-examine yourself. With such thinking, you are obviously capable of more than you give yourself credit for! Why not just materialize your heart's desire?Both introspection and that for which I give myself "credit" are irrelevant.
Then why is your mind the necessary mind for the existence of the physical since you believe your mind is needed for there to be a physical reality? It is irrelevant.
What I am saying is which mind is necessary for physicality?All minds.
No, that is not true. Some mindful beings no longer exist or are non-functioning in this physical realm. Thus, not all minds are necessary for its physiology.
Is it yours alone?As it concerns my subjective experience, yes.
I'm not interested in a conversation about your subjective experience but about what is necessary for physicality. Your subjective experience is not necessary. Without it I would still be experiencing the physical. Thus it continues to exist even if you do not. The only difference is you would not be aware of it.
That is just my point, you don't know Him.You're repeating what I just told you.
Yes, your ignorance of Him distorts who He is. Instead of worshiping the Creator, you worship a graven image, what you suppose God to be, not what He is. You manufacture God based on another subjective beings (Confucius) feelings of God. What makes him right about God?
Why? Because logically there can only be one true and living God,Why? Why is it logically necessary that God exists in exclusion to all others?
Three reasons: The law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of excluded middles.
and I believe that God is the God revealed in the Bible.What does that have to do with a logical necessity?
He has what is necessary, a personal God, an omniscient God, an unchanging God, an eternal God, an omnipotent God, a benevolent God, a revealed God. He gives us verification. How does Confucius, other than his subjective writings and musings about God reveal God?
I state that based on many pieces of evidence and will gladly argue for this God against your belief. Is that sufficient?Against my belief? I do not dispute the existence of God. (In fact, I on several occasions demonstrated the existence of God.) So against which "belief" would you argue?
Yes, I argue against yours as found in Confucius, based on the biblical God's revelation. The biblical God who is knowable and has made Himself known is my reason.
How do you test for Tien's existence?Perception.
As I said before, each perception is different. My understanding of God is different than yours. One of us is most definitely wrong since we understand God differently.
What kind of proof has Tien left you that he/she/it actually exists?The writings and teachings of Confucius.
Confucius was a man. What makes him infallible or even correct about God?
What is that
Again, written by ONE man. Why should he be believed?
and how do you verify it is true?Through the fact that it was believed and is believed; that it was perceived and is perceived.
People believe all kinds of things that are not true. What are the internal pieces of evidence that what is said is true?
If your god is not a personal being, as you state, how did you get this "Mandate of Heaven and Confucius?" Did Confucius just invent it?"My" God once again does not register. And you'd have to ask Confucius about the origin of the Mandate. I 'd presume Tien. It would be no less "invented" than the Bible, Torah, or Qu'ran.
There you have it. I can't ask Confucius. You presume. I'm asking for your evidence that your particular belief is a reasonable belief.
The Bible has many verifiable proofs; one of the most reasonable is prophecy. Another is the unity of the Bible. Each of the 66 writings written by around forty different authors, presents a typology of the Lord Jesus Christ. What is spoken of God in the OT is spoken of Jesus in the NT! There are at least eight NT writers that claim 1st-hand knowledge of witnessing Jesus and His resurrection.
How many 1st-hand witnesses were there that Confucius could cite regarding Tien?
Because I believe the evidence points to the Jewish Scriptures as related to the Christian Scriptures and speak of the same God, just in a greater revelation.What is this evidence and what is its nature?
The 66 writings I spoke of a few paragraphs ago.
Really? What is Tien then? I will stop using the pronouns "he" or "she" and call Tien "it."Tien is a deity.
What does that mean? Is Tien a person? If so, describe Tien's personality.
How do you account for consciousness and personhood if Tien is not personal?Why would one attribute consciousness and personhood to Tien or any other deity? Aren't you just projecting?
Why? Because we are personal beings. How does personhood come from the impersonal? How does consciousness come from that which is devoid of it? How does agency come from something devoid of intent. You have to be mindful to have intent. If Tien is not personal, I want to know how personhood originates.
Are you saying Tien is not a personal being? If so, your god difference from the biblical God. Thus, logically one of us is wrong in our perception of God and I say that it is you.
What is it, then?God is God; Tien is Tien. "My" has nothing to do with it.
That means nothing. It is a tautology. You have said nothing meaningful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Whether or not God's corrupt, you couldn't do anything about it. Whether you chose to put your trust in Him or not, you'd still be at His mercy once you died. He could still do to you however He wished. But at the very least you'd have better chances of a good outcome if you stayed on His good side, right?
The biblical God is not corrupt. You have a choice. Either you trust in Him and the means He has given or you will be judged on your own merit. He has given you His word of truth. There is a problem. You are not righteous. You have sinned. A good and just God will not overlook wrong. God has a solution. Jesus (the Son became human and lived as a human being) lived a righteous life before God on behalf of those who would believe. Thus, He became our substitute in that He volunteered to live righteously before God to meet God's perfect standard of righteousness. But that in itself would not solve our problem completely, for those who sin must meet the problem for sin - death (or separation from God's good and beautiful presence and close relationship with Him). Thus, Jesus pays the penalty for those who would believe by dying the death they deserve. Thus not only is God's righteousness met, but so is His justice. For those who believe we are clothed in Jesus righteousness and the penalty for our sin is taken care of by His grace!
John 3:16-21 (NASB)
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@wlowsi9
I question who is removed from reality - the believer or YOU? I say it is those who deny God. I believe they are the ones living and telling the lie.I think it is one very big misunderstanding that theists make in stating that non-believers are denialists.
I'm speaking of the Christian God specifically. There is no other.
Since there is not one iota of evidence as to the existence of God, there is nothing to deny in the first place.
Another denial.
There is all kinds of evidence for God. With the biblical God there are 66 writings that state over and over again that God said or God spoke. These manuscripts confirm with other external evidences of the times places, people and events. The internal consistency and unity of the Bible is another evidence. Prophecy is another. External to the Bible are the many questions that cannot have certainty without a deity that fits the biblical description.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Thanks for replying!
I assert they are independent of our human minds. Can you show me a mind that is necessary for them to exist, a necessary mind?Yes, your mind.
My mind is not necessary. The physical would still exist if I did not. It would just not be known by me.
You insist mind is necessary for the existence of the physical. Which mind? Is your mind necessary for such existence?All minds. And yes, my mind is necessary.
All minds, yet if you did not exist I would still be aware of the physical, so your mind is not necessary for its existence. If I did not exist, you would still be aware of the physical, so my mind is not necessary for its existence. It was here before either of us existed, so our minds are not necessary for its existence. Yet without a necessary mind - the eternal God - would the physical universe exist?
I say they will exist if you do not.I do and will always exist. Existence is not the same as survival. Existence is the quintessential ontological expression; survival is a stall to corporeal harm or decay.
Yet, there was a time when you did not. According to your profile, granting it is true, you were born 01 January 1930 (that makes you more of an antique than I am) so you had a beginning. Did the universe exist before that time (just not to you)? If you say no, are you (meaning me) the only person in the universe and are your (am I) playing games with yourself (myself) out of shear loneliness?
I will still perceive and experience the physical.Not without your mind, thereby eliding the premise of my challenge.
But the distinction is whether either of our minds are necessary to experience the physical and I know that I would still experience it without you existing. I'm sure you believe the same about me. Yes, my mind is necessary for ME to experience the physical, but not the necessary mind for the existence of the physical.
So, how can one know? On the impossibility of the contrary. Some things are just plain illogical and irrational to think. They make no sense. They go against what is coherent.Do not simply assert that which you do not comprehend as incoherent/irrational. Demonstrate the incoherence/irrationality.
I'm not just asserting it. It is a logical impossibility. Some things are just illogical to think and thinking them makes no sense.
I.e.,
One apple plus one apply equals three apples.
A "dog" is a word we use (it represents something) to describe a particular type of animal. When we speak of a dog we are not speaking at the same time of a cat. A=A. It has its own identity. A dog is a dog. A dog is not a cat.
Something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in reference to the same thing. It is either true or it is false. It is either true that it is raining outside my house at this minute or it is not true. It cannot be both true and false at the same time.
Truth is not false.
***
There are a few examples that came to mind.
Even so, you are welcome to think such nonsense.Have we come to this point where one is indulging "nonsense"? Suffices to say that there is something to be said for one who spouts "nonsense." There's also something to be said for someone to call that with which one disagrees "nonsense" especially when there's a lack of comprehension and counterfactual.
If you think such things that go against the laws of logic, yes. The laws of logic are necessary for meaningful conversation.
Your limited, subjective mind does not have what is necessary.And your mind is not subjective, I presume?
Oh yes, it is. I am not relying on my mind alone but on the mind of God, in as much as I understand His mind. When I correctly think and interpret His communications I think in an objective manner. When I correctly think logically, I think in a rational way.
I will argue that you are not having this conversation with yourself.Non sequitur.
I'm questioning whether you think you are all that exists? If you are then I will quit arguing with you. There will be no point. You win! You always win when you argue against yourself! Even when you lose you win or at least your ultra-ego does.
The inconsistency of your thinking is troubling to me who claims I exist apart from youI extend my previous statement. You're also imputing a straw man argument.
I'm trying to find out what you think. You are playing games. I'm being perfectly honest with you now. I'm expressing my thinking as it comes out of my mind. You state things that seem illogical or at least inconsistent. You seem to think that your mind is necessary for the existence of the physical universe yet if you did not exist I would still perceive it.
No math, no logic - how so? God (in three Persons), is that necessary mindfulness that we originate from and owe our being. How is that irrational? From the living comes life. From conscious beings come other conscious beings. From the loving come other loving beings. From personal beings come other personal beings. From intelligent mindful beings come other intelligent, mindful beings. Do you ever witness otherwise?I extend my previous statement.
Again, it boils down to the question of if you did not exist would the universe still exist? I say that based on my experience it would. My parents are both dead, but the universe is still here. It did not depend on their existence for it to have being.
What I am saying is that your mind is not necessary for physicality.Then demonstrate physicality without the use of your mind; you can't use logic, science, math, language or words. I wish you luck.
I can't without using my mind, but my mind is not necessary for its existence because whether I exist or not it would still be here. Whether I existed or not, words, language, maths would still be evident to those who still exist unless you think that you are the only one in existence, then I leave you to argue further with yourself. There is nothing further I can say to you since you know it anyway. (What colour socks am I wearing?)
So what I am saying is that this physicality is not something that depends on your mind or mine. They are not necessary for it. This same physicality would exist if either you or I did not,Can you confirm that? How would you go about this confirmation if you have to both isolate and nullify the use of your mind?
I confirm it by experience. I see that it did not depend on the various people I know who have died. They were not necessary for the physical to exist. It exists apart from them. They were only necessary to experience it.
or do you believe there is only you and you are having a conversation with yourself?Non sequitur.
More games!
If so, I'll leave you to do that. In such a case, I would suggest you re-examine yourself. With such thinking, you are obviously capable of more than you give yourself credit for! Why not just materialize your heart's desire?Both introspection and that for which I give myself "credit" are irrelevant.
Once you say you are necessary for the physical existence of the universe I take unbridge with that. I say its existence does not depend on you perceiving it. Once you deny that it leaves me at the point where I realize I cannot discuss this with you.
What I am saying is which mind is necessary for physicality?All minds.
If your mind did not exist would the universe still physically exist to other minds, or is your mind the only mind?
Is it yours alone?As it concerns my subjective experience, yes.
No, that is not the question. It is not about your subjective experience but about whether you believe the universe would exist for others if you did not. Do you believe there are any others? Or is this all about you?
That is just my point, you don't know Him.You're repeating what I just told you.
And because you don't know Him you are wrong about Him.
Why? Because logically there can only be one true and living God,Why? Why is it logically necessary that God exists in exclusion to all others?
Because every other god contradicts. To establish this all I would have to do is get you to describe your god and what you think that god is like. I have already seen that the god you talk about is not the same God I believe in. Thus, logically, one of us is wrong in our belief. That is a law of logic. It states that two contrary things cannot both be true at the same time concerning the same thing.
and I believe that God is the God revealed in the Bible.What does that have to do with a logical necessity?
He meets the requirements of what is necessary to know about origins.
Created:
Posted in:
The King of Tyre is also another example of where an earthly king as the primary address also personifies and references Satan. (Ezekiel 28)
11 Again the word of the Lord came to me saying, 12 “Son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord God,
“You had the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 “You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:
The ruby, the topaz and the diamond;
The beryl, the onyx and the jasper;
The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald;
And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets,
Was in you.
On the day that you were created
They were prepared.
14 “You were the anointed cherub who covers,
And I placed you there.
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 “You were blameless in your ways
From the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was found in you.
16 “By the abundance of your trade
You were internally filled with violence,
And you sinned;
Therefore I have cast you as profane
From the mountain of God.
And I have destroyed you, O covering cherub,
From the midst of the stones of fire.
17 “Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty;
You corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor.
I cast you to the ground;
I put you before kings,
That they may see you.
18 “By the multitude of your iniquities,
In the unrighteousness of your trade
You profaned your sanctuaries.
Therefore I have brought fire from the midst of you;
It has consumed you,
And I have turned you to ashes on the earth
In the eyes of all who see you.
19 “All who know you among the peoples
Are appalled at you;
You have become terrified
And you will cease to be forever.”’”
Again, the verses speak of judgment for the king of Tyre and allures to Satan. Again, in the King of Tyre we find imagery, typology, and descriptions of Satan just like in Moses we find a description and typology of Jesus Christ (Deuteronomy 18) throughout the OT in perhaps over a thousand different examples. Satan is the personification of evil. Where we find evil and evil people in the OT we find imagery of Satan and what he is like.
Definition of cherub
1 cherubim plural : an order of angels
1 cherubim plural : an order of angels
Created:
Posted in:
I would like to have a Christian on this website present me proof that Lucifer became Satan rather than Lucifer becoming Jesus.
Hebrews 1:13-14
13 But to which of the angels has He ever said,
“Sit at My right hand,
Until I make Your enemies
A footstool for Your feet”?
14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?
That alone makes Jesus different from any other angelic being. Attributed to Him all creating things. Where is that description ever said of Satan, Lucifer, the devil? So you have the Creator and the created distinction too.
What is more, I believe Isaiah 14:10 contains typology on judgment but the judgment is on the king of Babylon. The metaphoric language is a picture of someone who was considered an exemplar until he tried to place himself above God, as would be the case with Satan too.
Isaiah 14:4
4 that you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon, and say,...
8 “Even the cypress trees rejoice over you, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying,
‘Since you were laid low, no tree cutter comes up against us.’
9 “Sheol from beneath is excited over you to meet you when you come;
It arouses for you the spirits of the dead, all the leaders of the earth;
It raises all the kings of the nations from their thrones.
10 “They will all respond and say to you,
‘Even you have been made weak as we,
You have become like us.
11 ‘Your pomp and the music of your harps
Have been brought down to Sheol;
Maggots are spread out as your bed beneath you
And worms are your covering.’
12 “How you have fallen from heaven,
O star of the morning, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth,
You who have weakened the nations!
13 “But you said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God,
And I will sit on the mount of assembly
In the recesses of the north.
14 ‘I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.’
15 “Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol,
To the recesses of the pit.
16 “Those who see you will gaze at you,
They will ponder over you, saying,
‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
Who shook kingdoms,
17 Who made the world like a wilderness
And overthrew its cities,
Who did not allow his prisoners to go home?’
18 “All the kings of the nations lie in glory,
Each in his own tomb.
19 “But you have been cast out of your tomb
Like a rejected branch,
Clothed with the slain who are pierced with a sword,
Who go down to the stones of the pit
Like a trampled corpse.
20 “You will not be united with them in burial,
Because you have ruined your country,
You have slain your people.
May the offspring of evildoers not be mentioned forever.
21 “Prepare for his sons a place of slaughter
Because of the iniquity of their fathers.
They must not arise and take possession of the earth
And fill the face of the world with cities.”
22 “I will rise up against them,” declares the Lord of hosts, “and will cut off from Babylon name and survivors, offspring and posterity,” declares the Lord. 23 “I will also make it a possession for the hedgehog and swamps of water, and I will sweep it with the broom of destruction,” declares the Lord of hosts.
These verses speak of judgment and could very well be likened to how Satan also lost favour in God's eyes with his pride. They also have specific references to Babylon and its judgment. The king of Babylon lost favour with God when he exalted himself above God in his lofty ambition, as could be said of Satan too. Thus, the primary audience is the king of Babylon. The secondary audience could be in reference to Satan.
"How you have fallen from heaven," suggests that the king lost favour with God just as various angelic beings and Satan lost favour with God in their rebellion.
Jesus also uses this verse of Satan to show he fell too.
Luke 10:18 (NASB)
18 And He said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.
18 And He said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.
Jesus saw Satans fall from heaven also.
And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
"Throwing down" speaks of judgment.
Revelation 20:2 (NASB)
2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;
2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;
Revelation 20:10
10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
We are never told Lucifer is the devil or Satan whereas we are told that the dragon is the devil and Satan. The devil and Satan are equated. We are also told a lot about Satan in the NT, how he (as a serpent) deceived Adam and Eve and with that typology, Jesus is presented as being tempted by Satan for forty days and nights yet does not give into Satan as they did. We are told how Satan was a liar from the beginning, how he deceives the nations, etc. None of these derogatory descriptions are ever said about Jesus Christ but the exact opposite. He never fell from God's grace when He became a human being except when He agreed to suffer the judgment of humanity on behalf of those who would believe in what His sacrifice accomplished on the cross. He is described as a Lamb without blemish throughout His earthly ministry. Thus, the contrast between Jesus and Satan is diametrically opposite. And Satan is described as masquerading as an angel of light. Jesus is the light.
No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Why is it so difficult to answer these questions if those who deny Him believe they have more reasonable answers?Their definition of "reasonable". To them "reasonable" is what ever agrees with their emotional, no evidence personal opinion. Ask them for a logical reason for their belief, and you automatically become "unreasonable". Because, if "reasonable" is what ever agrees with their emotional, no evidence personal opinion, then "unreasonable" is what ever disagrees with their emotional, no evidence personal opinion.It's a great circular bit of tautology that keeps them safely locked in their delusion.
I would have liked RationalMadman to provide numerous verses of Scripture to see where he got the idea the two could be the same.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
I like the take. Although, the clear counter is why would God make the Earth appear old in the first place? There is nothing to gain and a lot to lose.
What is there to lose - salvation and a wrong view of existence? The lesson - God is to be trusted!
What is there to gain? Salvation and what is necessary for surety - an omniscinet, omnipotent, benevolent, unchanging, eternal Being and Creator!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Pack a toothbrush.
Still waiting. Maybe I had better pack a few! (^8
Why is it so difficult to answer these questions if those who deny Him believe they have more reasonable answers?
Both are l[i]ghtbearers. Both have a face that is part feminine in elegance, part masculine in chiseled features. Both are persuasive, rebellious and stand for justice as an end in itself.
Because two people bear light does that make them the same person? And how is Jesus' face feminine? How does he know what Jesus' face looks like, or for that matter Lucifiers? And how is Jesus rebellious to God? Where did that materialize from? What verses is he appealing to? He never lists them and open them up for discussion.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
RELIGION POLL #3: Is Genesis Compatible With Science?A couple of points I'd like to share. From a non-literalist perspective, many of the "days" in Genesis happened without the presence of a sun. That suggests to me that perhaps the time schemes are longer. Even If you were to come from a Biblical literalist perspective, in context, Genesis does not necessary make for full-fledged historical accuracy. At the time of Genesis' writings, no Jew would have a scientific background to understand concepts like evolution and the old earth. So it makes sense that God would present a simplified account that had some symbolic meanings.
Considering that it appears to be an account of what happened I don't see it as unrealistic.
1. God is a supernatural Being. That means He can and does work outside of nature in creating. Thus, He is able to sustain things before the sun existed.
2. The Ten Commandments treat the days of creation as literal. If the days are not literal what do they mean to humanity? How long would the Sabbath be if they are not literal and God is speaking in language we can understand? The reference to days is not for God's benefit, but ours.
4. His genealogy is trace through Joseph back to Adam.
5. Death reigns from the time of Adam onwards. Adam is the first human being God created. He is a typology of Jesus Christ, the Second Adam. There is a lot of spiritual significance in his physical existence.
So, the question is what is more reasonable to believe from a biblical perspective? Is it reasonable to believe the earth, the universe is relatively young? Could God not give it the appearance of age since He created Adam as a man. Could He not put things into existence in the period of six days - mature trees, mature mountains, mature fish, mature human beings? As I point out constantly, you and I live in the present and look back to the past. Therefore, the past is a matter of intepretation. Since you come at the problem from a strictly materialistis and naturalistic position what you want to find is confirmed by your starting point. To you, the present is the key to the past, for that is the reference point you use. You also use the musings of subjective human beings as your highest appeal. Which ones? There is a diversity of opinion. It appears the universe had a beginning. We can probably both agree about that. How the universe came about is where there is a great divide.
But that is just my limited knowledge on the subject. Feel free to share your take.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Yes, I believe Jesus Christ is alive. That is a reasonable belief.Alive in what sense? Not the corporeal sense, clearly, correct? That's the common definition of "alive." If you're talking about a different sense, can you clarify? I'm not sure you think the remainder of that paragraph is evidence or arguments that support your position, but it's not even close. You say as much yourself:
Alive in the sense that He is, He exists. How you want to classify that is another matter. Jesus taught that His kingdom is not of this world. He speaks of being born again, spiritually regenerated. The NT makes a distinction between the spiritual and physical, the temporal and eternal. He speaks of a physical or natural body and a spiritual body.
So, you have to consider whether we are nothing more than physical beings. Is that what you believe? Do you believe there is nothing else but the physical?
Billions have believed this throughout history. Over 2 billion currently or one third of the world's population identify as Christians. While the number is likely significantly smaller as to actual true believers, the number is still huge. While the number that believes exceeds any other religious belief (I include atheism) that does not necessarily make it true, it does show that a bigger percentage of any one religious belief acknowledges Jesus.This is appeal to popularity, not to mention there are more non-Christians than Christians, plus it ignores the thousands of years of human history that predates Christianity and the religious beliefs therein, which be necessity would have to be non-Christian. It's an observation at best, assertion at worst (not really backed up by much), but in any case "well lots of people believed it, therefore it's probably more true than not" is just strange. I thought your arguments for Jesus were basically "math works, therefore the bible's real" and some sort of oblique prophecy that combines scripture with non-scripture and a bunch of imagery from some dude's dream 1500 years ago about a temple. Needless to say these are less than compelling.
Sure, it is an appeal to popularity, just as Willows statement was an appeal to popularity. It is true that throughout history many have claimed belief in Jesus Christ. It is also true that Christianity has approximately 2 billion adherents. It is true that they are less people who proclaim to be atheists? It is also true that not all who claim to be Christians are, because their lifestyle does not meet the basic tenants of Christianity. And, it is true that a larger percentage of believers are Christian than atheist. So what is false about my statement?
While the above stated is all true, the aim of atheism is to change the number of converts it has to a greater and greater number because they are convinced that what they believe is more reasonable than Christianity, but it is not in the least. It does not have what is necessary to make sense of origins, life, or morality. It presumes to know but this is from a subjective viewpoint. They don't have a necessary objective reference-point unless they borrow from one that necessarily does, such as the Christian worldview.
When everything is seen as originating by chance happenstance atheists have no means to verify anything, no meaning, no purpose, nothing but the present as the key to the past. You live in the present and are looking back to the past guessing at what happened for you to exist.
1. Jesus Christ is a historical Person.2. The Christian faith is based on Him.3. He is the central Person in both testaments.4. He and the OT prophecied the destruction of Jerusalem. This happened in AD 70.5. Every NT writing was written before AD 70.Is it not possible that the Christian faith was based on a mythological figure from an oral tradition? I mean, you think every other religion is basically that. You must have evidence for JEsus being historically real, which I'd like to see. Evidence, not argument or logic or it seems reasonable, though. 2 and 3 don't need 1. Jerusalem exists today, so 4 is wrong.
What is more reasonable from the historic evidence available? You appeal to history too. What are your earliest sources that say Jesus did not exist? Please present them. Christianity has not only credible 1st hand witnesses but also external sources that verify the biblical accounts about some aspect of the life of Jesus Christ.
The question is why would those who propagated the "oral myth" risk their life knowing that what they said was a lie. Many of the disciples were said to have suffered excruciating torture and never denied their faith. Why were these disciples not refuted when they started preaching about Jesus. Where is the evidence that they were? Both the Jews and the Romans could have gone to the tomb and produced the body early in the spread of the movement. That would have ended the movement right away. Instead the message preach was that Jesus had risen, the tomb was empty. So, from a reasonable or logical point of view, your mythical Jesus does not meet the bill.
Yes, I think every other religion is false based on the laws of logic. Every religion teaches something contrary to every other, thus logically they all can't be true.
Yes, I have evidence for Jesus being historically real, the testimony of those claiming to be eyewitnesses. It is reasonable. They teach a noble and reconcilatory message. They teach a love for all humanity, a call to be honest, pure, sacrificial for the the greater good of others. I have historical evidence of early church fathers that proclaim this risen Savior. I have other external evidence in the numerous secular and religious views that He existed. Then, I have the internal unity of the Bible, both testaments speaking about the same Person. Much of that is confirmed by prophecy as reasonable. There is evidence that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70. There is evidence that these OT writings are prior to AD 70, even AD 1.
We have a greater number of ancient manuscripts than from any other works of antiquity. Do you doubt those writings too? Then where did they come from and when? Do you want to go down the slippery slope of denying all history? And if so, on what evidence?
Although Jerusalem exists today was it destroyed in AD 70? What evidence do you have that it and the temple were not? Where is the temple today? Do you believe it existed or do you want to relegate it to ancient myth too? So, let us compare evidence for reasonableness. We can ask the question after both sides are given.
Created:
-->
@wwlow9
If he is not open to a fair exchange where both sides have their questions met then I will discontinue.I'm completely open to fair exchange.The problem is that it can never be a "fair" exchange since all my assertions are correct and can (and have been, as you very well know) by solid facts and reason.
Assertions are not proofs. So far, you have no irrefutable evidence.
I accept that you are at a disadvantage since none of your wild statements relating to religion can be backed up since you have not one iota of truth or evidence to back them up.
Sure they have evidence and I can reasonably back up most of what I claim.
1. Jesus Christ is a historical Person.
2. The Christian faith is based on Him.
3. He is the central Person in both testaments.
4. He and the OT prophecied the destruction of Jerusalem. This happened in AD 70.
5. Every NT writing was written before AD 70.
Now, I have reasonable evidence for all my statements. Care to refute them. Let the audience determine whose belief is more reasonable and has better evidence.
But I am open to discussion....if you have any proof to back up why Jesus Christ exists bring it on and stop the pussy-footing around with the well worn tactic of "answer my questions".
I have opened the discussion. Keep your word.
Created:
-->
@wwlow9
Who are you and why are you answering for wlws9? Is wlws9 an alias? If so, answer my questions like I've addressed your statements and questions.You know perfectly well who I am just as you know perfectly we'll who Richard Dawkins is.
Yes, I believe I do know who you are and most certainly know of Richard Dawkin's.
I have formally studied the Bible and the science of evolution. My opinion is not biased but fully backed up and correct.
Let me test your knowledge.
What evidence is there that every canonized NT writing was written before AD 70?
Let's see whose position is more reasonable by examining what is known or logical.
As for your bias, if you are who I believe you are (Willows) you have shown by the number of threads you have created attacking Christianity.
You have been unable to refute my claims and if you insist that you believe that Jesus Christ is still alive I suggest that you are deluded or at best, very naive, impressionable and gullible.
What have you given as evidence? You have just asserted.
Yes, I believe Jesus Christ is alive. That is a reasonable belief. Billions have believed this throughout history. Over 2 billion currently or one third of the world's population identify as Christians. While the number is likely significantly smaller as to actual true believers, the number is still huge. While the number that believes exceeds any other religious belief (I include atheism) that does not necessarily make it true, it does show that a bigger percentage of any one religious belief acknowledges Jesus. Now you could say they are gullible, or on the other hand, that your belief is the gullible one. It can apply either way so your charge is meaningless without your irrefutable evidence that you refuse to quote from. I still haven't seen any.
Created:
-->
@wwlow9
You know perfectly well who I am just as you know perfectly we'll who Richard Dawkins is.I have already presented you with the relevant and viable reference (The Greatest Show on Earth) which still stands as undeniable proof of evolution by natural selection.
I can't find your referenced "quote" from Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show On Earth.
Post # 78:
That is your presupposition, your personal opinion, built upon a particular worldview, or do you have concrete evidence as my previous comment asks?The irrefutable evidence is that life was formed through evolution by natural selection and there is no evidence whatsoever as to life being intended.The undisputed evidence that backs my claim is clearly and comprehensively tabled in the book by Richard Dawkins...The Greatest Show On Earth.Are you able to present any concrete evidence that contradicts such facts?
Where is that evidence? You have just asserted it exists.
Post # 83:
I quoted Richard Dawkins and "The Greatest Show On Earth" as a definitive work on the fact that life evolved as a result of evolution through natural selection.The findings are irrefutable and fully backed up with carefully researched evidence, none of which has been successfully challenged.So, the fact of evolution through natural selection stands and any notion or theory of creation is completely nullified. There is no God and life was not created.
What post is this quote found? I can only find a citation to a Richard Dawkin's work, not a quote from it that you claim is irrefutable. Show me where this irrefutable quote is so that I can discuss it.
"Definitive work" in your opinion.
This guy is a subjective human being. Let me see what you call definitive or or you just showboating?
So far you have offered no evidence, just dropped a name. What you have offered is nothing more than fallacious. As if just citing someone is evidence that evolution is true.
Micro-evolution (change within a kind) is a fact. Macro-evolution (change of kind - all originating from a common ancestor) is speculation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Racism is media trendy and therefore lucrative.....And is presented as a white over black issue because this is what sells.
I agree.
The real facts.... A. Would be boring... And B. Not what people currently want to hear. (Or so they are told).
You are right there. They want to hear it.
And in Bristol England media junkies tore down a racist statue and replaced it with a racist statue, which the local authority quietly removed....No media generated fuss required. LOL.Media junkies....Outsheeping the sheep.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
ok. I am going to wrap this conversation up as you just seem to be rambling about nonsense.
Actually, Post 132, the 45 aims of the Congressional Record - Communist Goals (1963) is significant to what is happening today. The propaganda campaign has worked. I could go down the list citing how exactly what they spoke of has happened.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.
Does anyone not recognize the mission has been accomplished?
Created:
-->
@swows9
So what? A definite work in your subjective eyes. So what? What exactly is he saying that you favour?No, a universally definitive and accepted work which presents irrefutable facts.Have you read the book?Can you quote one section that is incorrect?
No, that is why I asked wlws9 to explain the points he wants me to glean from that book.
So far he has not done that.
Who are you and why are you answering for wlws9? Is wlws9 an alias? If so, answer my questions like I've addressed your statements and questions.
Created:
-->
@swows9
Yes, there is a chance to ask him to be accountable and when he is not expose his thinking as biased or unsound. IMO, there is an extreme confirmational bias going on here on his part. If he is not open to a fair exchange where both sides have their questions met then I will discontinue.I have never displayed "an extreme confirmational bias" and I ask you to explain what on earth you are talking about.
Who is this? I was addressing Ehang5 about wlws9. Who are you?
What that means is wlws9's worldview shuts down his looking at the issue objectively. He have a bias and I believe he hears nothing but what he wants to hear and his mind has programmed him to hear. That is what it means.
I have always been open to discussion.
Who are you? Are you wlws9's?
Perhaps you may be more than a little prejudiced against those who (quite rightly and justifiably with sound evidence and reason) question the unfounded and absurd beliefs of others.
I understand I have a bias, just like everyone. I am willing to discuss my justification for what I believe.
In other words, if you have a question, have the guts to ask it instead of pussy-footing around with unfounded, wild insinuations.
If this is wlws9's, where have you answered my questions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
well now you are talking about bias and not racism so if you want to say he had a bias I could agree with that.
Racism is a negative bias or prejudice.
noun
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
***
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
***
Definition of racism
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a: a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b: a political or social system founded on racism
Prejudice Synonyms: Noun
- bias,
- favor,
- nonobjectivity,
- one-sidedness,
- parti pris,
- partiality,
- partisanship,
- ply,
- tendentiousness
Definition of bias
(Entry 1 of 4)
(Entry 1 of 4)
1a: an inclination of temperament or outlookespecially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE
b: an instance of such prejudice
d(1): deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Yet his ideology led to social Darwinism, a form of racism.was it his ideology or his scientific findings, which isn't a reflection on him as to what it led to.you seem to be conflating fact finding (even highly flawed or wrong) with some opinions taken out of context or extreme even based on the science.from this thread (I'm not an authority on Darwin) but he made observations, hypothesis etc. We know he was wrong, but he didn't. Racism isn't based on facts or science is it?
Did Darwin promote humanity had descended from the lower forms? If so, he must have felt not all races were equal. On that thought alone he had a bias. In his mind some human beings were not as evolved as others, such as the "savage," or any human being that was not of European descent.
It depends on whether you are speaking of science or scientism as to factuality. Darwinism made many presuppositions that he inferred from common anscestory.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
ok. I am going to wrap this conversation up as you just seem to be rambling about nonsense. Trump has done a shitty job as president.
Overall, he has done a great job up until the Coronavirus, which he took serious long before the Dems, who were in a political witch hunt to impeach his and let everything else slide. It was the Dem governor and mayor in NY state and city that contributed to the early death toll and spread. Their incompetence and the Dem response is far worse. Each state is responsible for managing their population. The Federal government provides the needed resources, but the states direct and funnel the aid provided. Then if Trump had not restarted the economy we would have been having another crisis were people died due to starvation and suicides from losing everything, their homes through lack of payment, their jobs because the economy is shut down, some case their momentary sanity nd lawfulness, as demonstrated by the willful riots and destruction. These protestors ran ramped throughout the streets in close proximity and largely unmasked. Others ignore the risk to others as they pursued their hedonism and flocked to the beaches, bars, and other public places because their particular age group was only slightly effected.
He has flailed around and accomplished very little.
Actually, that is blantently false. His record is long and I'm not going to include it here.
He has absolutely bungled the corona virus response which has now killed more than double the number of americans that died in the vietnam war. It has killed something along the lines of 44 times the number of people who died on 9/11. This is the worst crisis america has had in at least a decade, probably longer.
Considering the USA is the third larges populated nation on earth and has more flights going in and out of the USA than most countries, a population with many out of shape and having preexisting conditions, that is not surprising. What are you comparing the stats to and how?
Do you think the death toll in China is a true representation? Is not China to blame for covering up the virus and allowing a mass exodus from Wuhan province yet not to the rest of China. Wuhan was on lock down to the rest of China but not the world. What better way to disrupt the American economy!
Trump's narcisism and selfishness have killed thousands, if not 10's of thousands of americans. Sadly, more people are going to die for trump's terrible leadership before he can be removed. But at this point, his removal is extremely likely because he is a completely useless president.
The incompetence of the governors who control each state have a lot to do with controlling the virus.
See ya!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I'm suggesting the outcome if your follow the thinking through to is consequences because what is happening here is a form of devaluation, perhaps even dehumanization. When you start treating some people as not as valuable as others based on some physical or mental attribute you can devalue their life out of existence as well, such as with abortion. This has been the position taken with slavery, the protection of the Jews, Aparthied in South Africa, and the caste system of India, and yes, abortion, to name a few.of course, we know that now, we've learned, adapted and changed, I'm not challenging any of that, only the claim that Darwin was racist because of his science.
See last post, first comment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You are speaking of the physical or quantitative (that which can be measured through the five senses).correct because it's my assertion that is what Darwin was doing, hence not racist as some have tried to claim.
Yet his ideology led to social Darwinism, a form of racism. Some thought it was a natural outcome of this ideology. Not only this but did Darwin see the pygmy or some primitive people as human as he was? Not bloody likely. Were they not a step down the ladder? Thus, was it permissible to treat them differently? Apparently so, for slavery did just that.
Are some humans to be treated as superior because they have a higher IQ than others?LOL of course they are, they get more scholarships, college aid, better course choices, school choices etc
Then, on that basis of higher IQ, if these superior humans determine you do not have the right to life, as Hitler and the Nazis (considered their Aryan "race" superior) thought of the Jews and other "inferior" groups within their society, what then? In the 1936 Olympics Hitler wanted to showcase the German people as superior in a physical way. His plan did not go as pictured. His elitist athletes were put to shame by Jesse Owens, one of the races Hitler considered inferior. The Nazis then legislated the Jew and other undesirables out of existence through time as their policies became more and more the norm. Once the villainization of Jews was acceptable, this lead to greater dehumanization and then to the concentration camps.
While I'm all for giving people opportunities if they prove they have a better mental ability and can do things we can't, we should not turn this into a platform to discriminate against those less endowed. There will always be some with greater mental ability than us. If we allow some human beings to be treated unequally we can do the same with others, to the detriment of justice.
as soon as you met someone with a higher IQ should not that person determine what to do with you and whether you live or die?do racists have that authority or power? I'm not sure where this live or die came from, but I said nothing remotely like that.
I'm suggesting the outcome if your follow the thinking through to is consequences because what is happening here is a form of devaluation, perhaps even dehumanization. When you start treating some people as not as valuable as others based on some physical or mental attribute you can devalue their life out of existence as well, such as with abortion. This has been the position taken with slavery, the persecution of the Jews, Apartheid in South Africa, and the caste system of India, and yes, abortion, to name a few.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The cultural war is not nonsense but real. There is a big difference between the right and left. There is a battle of two ideologies vying for power and the one side cannot justify its means to power for they are unjust.this is exactly how corruption has been able to spread. Both parties play up the culture war as much as they can. They get people so riled up about what bathroom a person uses, that they aren't paying attention to the corruption and corporatism taking over government. the culture was is bullshit because they use it to keep people from paying attention to the things that really matter.
No, generally speaking, there is a real divide here of those who believe in a Creator and those who do not. That divide affects the way a people are governed. For those who have no absolute, ultimate authority as their standard the standard becomes whatever can be forced on others. Morality becomes personal preference and might makes right. What the battle for the hearts and minds of America is really about is this deeper cause. While those who deny or ignore God push for their own standards, what they like or can get away with, those standards have no anchor or foundation (is is shifting and cannot be bolted down) for justice except when they borrow from a believers worldview.
During this Covid-19 pandemic the Dems Comrade Bill de Blasio decides those who protest are allowed to go throughout the streets without masks and in close proximity while barring church attendence. Again, a double-standard. Rioters okay, police no good.
Think of what the Democrats are ignoring and turning a blind eye to. Would you feel the same way if it was your house, your wife, your property these people were violating and the Democrats ignoring. There is a double-standard with the Dems. The Dems are turning a blind eye to this destruction, actually promoting it with their silent complicity. At the moment, they are using a movement for their own political gain. That is just how dishonest and corrupt they are.
Lucky, or foolish? If the Dems win watch what happens and four years later ask yourself if you are better off and how well did those Dems keep their promises?after 4 years of trump, i cannot imagine how Biden could do worse. Trump has flailed around for 4 years causing damage and getting nothing done. Now he is bungling a global crisis leading to the deaths of tons of people. Biden isn't a good candidate. I wouldn't be excited to go out and vote for him. Sanders was clearly the better option. But after watching trump's reaction to a crisis, there is no question any more. He cannot be trusted to be in charge.
Let's hope you don't find out how worse Biden can do then! He will push your country to ruin and the point of no return if he implements what he has promised.
Trump did not fail. He has done more in four years than any other president in that time frame, IMO. He had incredible odds stacked against him. First the Russian hoax that monopolized two and a half years. Then the Muller Witch Hunt hoax, then the Impeachment hoax, then the BLM/police are evil hoax. Now they are working on three fronts, the Covid-19 fear mongering, the racist Republican fearmongering, the cripled economy fear mogering (as they promote and feed no one going back to work), as they fashion one manufactured crisis after another, just like they did for the last three years. And you Dems appear blind to all this. It just shows you the power of controlling the narrative through media and educational indoctrinaion.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So, I'm asking, would you rather live in a socialist state since that is the direction the Dems are guiding your country and economy.but your question makes no sense. The establishment dems have an almost identical economic policy to the republicans.
Then why not vote Republican?
Even the most left wing elected officials in america are suggesting plans that would be centrist on other modern western countries (Canada, the UK etc). The idea that the dems are "socialist" for trying to do what other modern countries do is a false narrative.
As I said previously, the Dems are no longer moderates but leftists. They push Marxist ideology.
Canada and the UK are big government and marginally socialist. I am now living off the taxpayer since I am retired. I can go to jail in Canada if my speech is considered hate speech and singles out a minority indiscriminately, which is reasonable. But my religious freedom is also somewhat limited. Thus, my freedom to say what I want is limited just as yours is but in your case it is the extent to which one Party is manipulating and influencing, in your country. A conservative on a liberal college or university is in danger of not only being bullied verbally but also risks physical danger and even their life is threatened, so the sharing of ideas is only permitted where the ideas coincide with what these liberal (mostly Democrats) believe. Several right-wing lecturers have been prevented from sharing their message to the point that riots have taken place to prevent this. Nine of ten proffesors are leftist leaning and many are Marxist. Thus, anyone who gets an education is overly exposed to a one-sided indoctrination.
Congressional Record - Communist Goals (1963):
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
Their idea for power is open borders so that the USA is flooded by (no longer illegal) immigrants who will mostly vote Democrat so that the Dems will never again have to worry about losing the power they put above all else.again, a false narrative. The Obama deported record numbers of people. The dems are just slightly less delusional. The republicans understand that the US desperately needs immigrants to fuel it's economy, but they pretend like they are "stealing jobs" or some nonsense. The democrats just don't play the xenophobic games the republicans do. But their policies are pretty much the same on a fundamental level.
False? The Dems oppose deportation. What was okay for Obama is not okay for Trump. Thus, the double standard. Not only this, the Dems has radically opposed any amendments, or deportations of illegal immigrants. Where are you getting your information from? (CNN - The Communist News Network)
It is a radical socialist revolution we are speaking of with the Democrat Party. Anyone who opposes this radicalism is opposed.who exactly are these radical socialists? The democratic party is filled with economically right wing people. The furthest left people like AOC or Sanders would be considered centrist in places like Canada or the UK. So where exactly are you seeing "radical socialists"?
No, AOC or Sanders would not be considered centrists but extremists. Even we do not have free colleges and universities, unlimited health care, a society that most earn a living, and qualifications for those who need social assistance. We are pro-environment to a greater extent than you are, IMO, but our politicians have not to my knowledge promoted no oil, no fossil fuels, just a cutting down on them. And no one is asinine enough to push for the elimination of cows here in Canada that I've heard of.
The bigger the government "powers" and outreach the less freedom the citizens have.this is also a false narritive. The idea that if the government is strong, then people have less freedom. When the government is weak you are just changing who has power over you. Instead of it being an elected official you have a say in selecting, it is now someone unelected who has the power to fuck with your life.
When the federal government is big and overreaching it takes away from the each state or province deciding what is best for its people and its particular environment. Thus, places with big populations get the attention while rural areas are overlooked and exploited.
In a democracy each person has a say in who gets elected. It is governance of, by, and for the people, not those elitests who rule (supposedly on your behalf). When government gets too big the government is no longer for the people but for special interests of those in power. They decide your fate to a greater and greater extent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If you don't see someone as being as evolved as you are you tend to discriminate against them in your thinking (at least, perhaps even in your actions) of yourself as superior, not equal.we are not equal, someone with a physical handicap is not equal to someone without in certain ways, someone with legs IS superior at running compared to someone without.
I think you are confusing two different subjects for we are not arguing about the same thing. Let me explain further. Equal in the sense of valuable, not equal in the sense of physical ability. Discrimination describes an injustice. You are speaking of the physical or quantitative (that which can be measured through the five senses). I am speaking of the qualitative or abstract/intangible/non-physical.
IOW's, if we are not treated equally under the law it is not just.
Point being they were making these assumptions based on flawed/wrong science. Human are superior to monkeys but not in every way, but more ways than not based on our knowledge and understanding, perhaps we'll learn that we are wrong someday. but based on what we know and science humans are more evolved and superior.still doesn't prove racism imo
Are some humans to be treated as superior because they have a higher IQ than others? If so, as soon as you met someone with a higher IQ should not that person determine what to do with you and whether you live or die? If I can run faster than you should I have the right to kill you because you are deficient in that area? Once you start making distinctions based on one person having a better physical ability than another as to whether they live or die you are being unjust and you cannot yourself live by such standards because all it takes is someone coming along who can demonstrate you are not up to their standard.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
His idea of dialogue is limited to setting himself up to post another diatribe against God. In seven years I saw no difference.If a guy has to repeatedly create fake alts and break into a private site just to spew his hatred of Christianity with basically the same post over and over, how sincere can he be?But his lame over the top repetitive vitriol does give us the chance to evangelize. He thinks he's "exposing" Christianity tilting at windmills.
Yes, there is a chance to ask him to be accountable and when he is not expose his thinking as biased or unsound. IMO, there is an extreme confirmational bias going on here on his part. If he is not open to a fair exchange where both sides have their questions met then I will discontinue.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
You won't find perfection. Would you rather live in a socialist country?again, your argument appears to be that there are worse countries, so we should do nothing to address critical flaws in the way our economy is designed. That is an extremely weak argument.
No, I'm saying that you will never fix every problem and if you did it would never be to everyone's satisfaction. There would always be dissenters. So, I'm asking, would you rather live in a socialist state since that is the direction the Dems are guiding your country and economy. Their idea for power is open borders so that the USA is flooded by (no longer illegal) immigrants who will mostly vote Democrat so that the Dems will never again have to worry about losing the power they put above all else. These immigrants will be given free everything while you pay for it. For those who do not want topay for it, no worries, you can pay for them too as they watch from the side-lines.
That is the way you are going. Do you understand what socialism does?democratic socialism is already widespread in modern countries. Places like Canada and the UK have been providing healthcare to their people for a long time and their economies are fine. Their democracies are still going strong. The idea that if the government provides services to it's people that communism is going to spring up is something no one should believe.
It is a radical socialist revolution we are speaking of with the Democrat Party. Anyone who opposes this radicalism is opposed. Riots, destruction of history, vandalism, murder, is permitted for the "cause" but anyone standing against this lunacy to shamed and ostracized. That is the kind of government you are pushing for. There is little justice with such governance.
The bigger the government "powers" and outreach the less freedom the citizens have. Our income tax in Canada are higher than yours. Our tax freedom day (when I worked before retirement) was August. That is when what we earned was ours to keep. Communism takes away freedom because the pleb must conform to the state. There is no freedom of speech. It is shut down just like the educational system does with conservative ideas. Conservatives are shouted down.
There is a glaring difference between the policies of the two parties.I'm curious what you think the difference is? I mean they are extremely similar on every point. the only real difference is culture war nonsense. On most issues that matter they totally agree (and not in a good way)
The cultural war is not nonsense but real. There is a big difference between the right and left. There is a battle of two ideologies vying for power and the one side cannot justify its means to power for they are unjust. Abortion, defund the police, allowing illegal immigration, open borders that promote drugs, sex-trafficking, gangs, crime. Open prisons, no penalty for crime, witch hunts, false allegations, lies, spin, corruption by the one side yet a different standard, for people are treated differently if they are not Democrats. Justice is unequal, therefore unjust. Mail in ballots that are easily manipulated. They want to suppress and manipulate the vote once again. This list goes on.
With the wrong person in office may cause irreparable damage.very true. But luckily he will be gone in a few months. Hopefully the damage can be undone though.
Lucky, or foolish? If the Dems win watch what happens and four years later ask yourself if you are better off and how well did those Dems keep their promises?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@wlws9
Why? Why do you spend so much time and energy opposing what you call a fairy tale? Why do you appear so angry over the biblical teachings? Is it not good to love others and want the best for them, to devote oneself to helping those less fortunate, to do what is in one's means to fight against injustice and when possible to give food and shelter to the poor and needy, to change lives for the better? Do you not want others to have hope and inspiration?Basically, you are saying that all Christians believe in fairy tales and are liars.Fair comment.There is some really great stuff in the Bible which I value highly although you could say that, given that the Bible is "a bible" most of its contents have been assembled from many other publications.
Which makes the Bible even more remarkable since the 40 or so different writers, over 1500 years, have a unified and CONSISTENT message.
I think most Christians take their faith with a grain of salt and when push comes to shove, most do not believe in God, let alone most of the exaggerated anecdotal accounts in the Bible.For example, a recent census in Australia revealed that less than 14% of Roman Catholics regularly attend Church.
Whether they do or not makes no difference as to the existence of God.
What I do say is that those who firmly believe that there is a God as master are deluded. I have made many posts giving the proof and if you like I will reiterate.
To the contrary, I think those who say there is no God are deluded.
Sure give me two of your best points, and don't copy and paste. State two proofs you believe are your strongest so we can discuss them.
I object to those who hide behind their own anti-social prejudices and use the Bible or their faith to justify such prejudices, for example, homophobia, abortion, unmarried mothers, euthanasia.
As you and others justify your own prejudices. We could take your examples one by one but I will focus on abortion.
1. Is the unborn a human being?
2. Should all human being have intrinsic value? (I.e., should the law be equally applied or should some groups of human beings be above the law they enforce on others)
3. Is killing innocent human beings just?
Look forward to your answer to these three questions.
Religion, on the face of it, offers comfort and direction to followers, however, it allows followers to live in a world far removed from reality. When you live a lie, you will tell lies in order to maintain your stance.
I question who is removed from reality - the believer or YOU? I say it is those who deny God. I believe they are the ones living and telling the lie.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
You said:
"The rest of your post was pretty much your standard right wing "american dream!!!" bullshit. That kind of stuff is peddled to make sure that people don't see how the rich have rigged the game. As long as everyone keeps killing themselves trying to get rich, then the rich simply soak up more and more money. Just like the lottery. As long as people believe they will win, they keep buying lottery tickets. The main people getting rich are the people running the lottery though, not the people buying the tickets. The main people making money in the US economy are the millionaires and billionaires. But as long as they dangle the idea that you could be one some day, then people will keep funneling them money."
What you have here is pretty much your standard left-wing BS. Your game is also rigged, but just like in George Orwells 1984, you are led into group-think by being fed a pill that is a placebo or mind altering. The ruling class of Dems, just like the ruling class in Russia, Cuba, China, and Venezula live rich at the expense of the rest. And to a large extent the Dems are running this fixed lottery through the media and educational centers. These Dems want to replace hard work and innovative ideas with free handouts for all, but they don't pay, you do. The people who do not pay are the Dems and those taking a free ride. So, why shouldn't we all take a free ride? What incentive is there to innovate? I'm not going to improve my standard of life in such a Democrat-run system of governance. Fine, play with the party that controls the Congress, controls the media, controls the educational system, controls the courts. Give them more power. Let them do more injustice; they are the culprits. The more they win the more you buy their spin as they get richer while confiscating your standard of living and denigrating to to the status of third-world. Let the riots, robbery, murder, and mayhem continue. Ask what the Dems have done that is good for you. What??? BLM? What about the lives these blacks are taking? What about the one-year-old killed in NY by other African Americans, and not the police? Did that life matter? What about the life of the father walking his daughter down the street? Did his life matter? Why is there little outrage of these and the hundreds of shootings taking place since George Floyd? Why would these people call for defunding and eliminating the police instead of weeding out the few that are corrupt? What kind of justice is this where people can go into neighbourhoods and destroy them, threaten those living there who do not agree with them, treat them inhumanely? Democrat values? What values? These people are hoodwinking you. Take the blinders off so you can see!
Created: