Total posts: 5,875
-->
@3RU7AL
The weather was once thought to be "unpredictable"...
How is that pertinent?
And as it turns out, our inability to predict the weather was simply a function of our lack of understanding.
Again, how is this pertinent?
RANDOM =/= FREEWILL
Again. No one has claimed that "random" = "freewill". Please address the rebuttals given to you and stop countering claims no one has made. You are being irrational.
Apparent unpredictability is not a sufficient definition of RANDOM.
Don't be dishonest. I gave the definition of random. I said, "Unpredictability is bound up in the definition of "random". " I did not say it was the definition of random.
Wikipedia agrees - In the common parlance, randomness is the apparent lack of pattern or predictability in events.
The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science agrees - ...randomness is to be understood as a special case of the epistemic concept of the unpredictability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Will you fix it by voting for a numpty that thinks suggesting to a World audience that the consumption of household disinfectant might be a solution to the coronavirus problem, is what it takes to be a President.Yep you probably will.
So many errors...
1. Trump is not a numpty.
2. He did not say consumption of household disinfectant might be a solution to the coronavirus.
3. He is already President.
4. Your opinion is not fact.
Though on reflection and in comparison to a lot of his forebears. he hasn't made any notable World affecting cock-up decisions.
No. All the doom and gloom predictions of the liberal left (you) have been proven wrong. But as we know, reality doesn't affect your adherence to dogma.
i suppose that we should be grateful for Melania and also that he doesn't have a sister like Kim Yo-jong.
I'm grateful that he got the deadbeat Europeans to pay their fair share for their own defence, and for getting minority unemployment to go down, and for defending religious rights, and for curbing immigration of terrorists and criminals into the country, and for exposing the deep state, and for putting people with functioning brains on the Supreme Court. Oh, and I quite like Melania too.
As they say....Behind every good man.
That good man will be re-elected in Nov. And you liberal snowflakes will have another round of teeth gnashing. It will be fun!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Lol. That is the normal reaction to one of Deb's posts.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@zedvictor4
@ebuc
@Z
An uncaused GOD is an impossibility,...
I am aware your fingers can type these words, what I want to see is the logic that formed them.
Just as theists such as Mr Ethan always conveniently don't feel the need to define an imaginary GOD.
I define terms when it is necessary for my argument, I do not allow diversions every time an atheist defaults to his God obsession. When the topic is God, I will supply a definition.
...something that is programmed is therefore not random, no matter how random it might appear to be.
Atheist with article again. Your word "something" above, to what does it refer? The random values are NOT what is programmed, the system that generates them are. But your statement equivocates on what "something" refers to, seeming to refer to what is generated instead of what does the generation.
I will accept that the poverty of you knowledge about computer technology and the meaning of "random" is what accounts for your inability to understand. And as your understanding is not necessary for my argument to be true, I remain satisfied.
...by our very nature we are all materialists.
We were born materialists, we can become other things. Learning and growth are the enemies of stagnation and bias.
@B
Now do you believe the movement of lava-lamp is "uncaused"?
No. I believe the movement of a lava-lamp is random. The definition of random would help you.
Do you believe a lava-lamp has FREEWILL??
No. Perhaps you should explain what free will has to do with our current argument.
UNPREDICTABILITY =/= FREEWILL
No one has said it did.
UNPREDICTABILITY =/= RANDOM
Unpredictability is bound up in the definition of "random". Please look it up. You really need to define your terms.
@E
Does anyone here no what a materialist is? Or what that has do with God/we?
Brutal brought it up. Ask him.
Just mumbo jumbo to evade the facts that it is all mumbo jumbo coming from the materialist finger tips of ethang5.
Ethan is not a materialist. Your poor reading comprehension has caused you to stumble again.
FInally were getting some more rational, logical common sense out of you. About time. its been hard as pulling wisdom teeth without pain killer. ;--)
Note Zed, when you commit a logical fallacy, our genius calls it "rational, logical common sense". An easy way to determine if you've been logical is to see if Cube agrees with you. If he has, your argument needs to go back into the oven.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "random" as "Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness#:~:text=Individual%20random%20events%20are%20by,%22trials%22)%20is%20predictable.&text=In%20statistics%2C%20a%20random%20variable,outcome%20of%20an%20event%20space.
In the common parlance, randomness is the apparent lack of pattern or predictability in events. A random sequence of events, symbols or steps often has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are by definition unpredictable, but since they often follow a probability distribution, the frequency of different outcomes over numerous events (or "trials") is predictable.
Randomness Is Unpredictability
Article in The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
I propose that randomness is to be understood as a special case of the epistemic concept of the unpredictability of a process. This proposal arguably captures the intuitive desiderata for the concept of randomness;
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Multifarious theists believe that they already know the truth, but unfortunately none has ever been able to prove it.
What you mean of course, is that it has not been "proven" TO YOU. To that I say, "So what?" The moon landings have not been "proven" to some yokels either. I don't go and infect their board demanding "proof". That would be silly.
So make an atheists day and prove that your particular GOD hypothesis or any GOD hypothesis for that matter, is wholly accurate.
Its done everyday all around the world. That's why the total number of theists is increasing. It's not difficult to do with people who don't suffer intellectually stifling bias.
But alas, my job is not to make atheists happy, as I know from experience that the truth doesn't make them happy, it makes them angry and mockingly abusive. A skim of the religion board series this.
Why you guys think we crave your belief is beyond me.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
You only say that though, because you're a biased righty and resent what you consider to be a biased lefty....
Yet I have objective facts to back up my position. Lefties rely on feelings.
It is an objective fact that all over the world, countries with leftist policies are failing or have failed economically. In the US, cities and States with leftist policies have failed and are in dire economic trouble. A simple logical evaluation of leftist policies will tell you that leftist policies are logically incoherent. You have to ignore historical reality to claim it's only bias.
And the U.S. currently has a $26trillion national debt, is that economically powerful?.
No. And it proves my point. Most of that debt is due to moron liberals wanting the government to foot the bill for every loony idea that comes to their minds, paying for illegal immigrants, chain immigration, subsidized abortions, pay for NOT working, free needles to crackheads, dumb revolving "investigations", and stupidly unfair trade agreements. The list is endless.
Blue states are responsible for 73% of the national debt. Without the fed (as in other states) to bail them out, Cali, Washington, and Hawaii would collapse economically. The left pretends that money is free and owned by everyone, and that producers of wealth don't mind it being taken away, and will just keep producing no matter how much is taxed away to subsidize the lazy.
Please.
Created:
Please explain to me the difference between uncaused and random.
I can program my computer to flash a light randomly, but the flashes are not uncaused.
Computers can only generate pseudo random light flashes.
What is "pseudo random"? Random is having no set pattern, occurring unpredictably. Uncaused is having no precipitator. A computer can be programmed to behave truly randomly. Today's AI is what makes this possible.
God is uncaused and not random.
Please explain your definition of "god" to the best of your ability.
My definition of God is irrelevant to my argument that He is uncaused. Maybe you meant to ask me, "How is God uncaused?" My purpose was to show you the difference between "random" and "uncaused". I do not care to go into yet another argument of " Does God exist?" With a materialist.
I've differentiated between "random" and "uncaused", if you disagree, say why using logic. Definitions of God are just diversions from the topic. I have not asked you for definitions of "random" and "uncaused". Do you know why? Because I am sincere and am assuming you are also sincerely using the common Orthodox meanings of those words.
Your dichotomy is false.
Created:
I'm sure he'd gladly join the nazi's or the communists if it would benefit him.
Yet it's Trump's opposition that is lawlessly burning buildings, looting stores, and canceling free speech on college campuses! Weird huh?
If your dogma trumps reality, (pun intended) you're liberal left.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
There are many reasons atheism is still a fringe belief, and one of those reasons is due to how atheist activists behave in public.
Even agnostics apparently don't trust them. And the atheists can't blame Christians for that one.....lol.
But they will try to.
Created:
-->
@Nemiroff
So regarding economic policy, all agreement left wins?
Sure, if we pull the usual leftist ploy of ignoring reality.
In reality, blue states have greater income disparity, an over all lower standard of living, and more crime than red states. Quality of life is not determined by capital alone.
The fascinating thing is, the left will try their insipid economic policies, watch them fail over and over, and never get the connection between their economic model and the failure of their economies. Watching them is like watching a sheep repeatedly get snagged trying to run with a rope around it's neck and never figure out that its the rope snagging them.
Cali is not a "powerhouse" because of leftist economic policies, but because they get cheap labor from mexico. Same way the US became rich on slave labor.
Personally, I am in favor of all the blue states enacting every loony leftist economic policy, from the green new deal, to abolishing the police, to socialism. Nothing teaches liberals better and faster than empty bellies and empty pockets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
And I asked those people to substantial their claims.
Sure, there is a historical component, but can it account for all of Christianity's fantastic performance? I don't think so.
Not every culture was subjugated. Christianity generally was not spread by the sword. History does not explain Christianity's effectiveness in such varied cultures and ethnicities, or why it has managed to remain #1 centuries past the days of pillaging.
With all the other conquering countries, why was Christianity's performance never replicated? It isn't like other religions didn't try.
All I wanted to know is how does the atheist resolve the dissonance between Christianity's unrivaled performance and his poor opinion of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
I am not going to continue any further with this game of childish playground insults.
Why. Did you grow up in the last few hours?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
So you didn't imply that its success was in part because it's true when you said:
That is what I believe, but that is not my contention here. I'm trying to ask you the atheist how YOU account for Christianity's success. Again, not every topic is, "does God exist?" Do you have an opinion on the question?
*Is it not reasonable to expect the most true religion to be the most universally acceptable?
This is the crux of my question.
Please address my question first.
It's not remotely universally accepted and non-believers far outnumber believers.
I did not say it was universally accepted. I only asked if you can account for it being such a distant #1. Others have answered, why can't you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you have a clue how either began?
I sure do.
US began due to Columbus taking credit for a...
You said, "There isn't a single nation that is Christian that wasn't conquered and blackmailed into it in past generations of that nation's culture and history."
Were America's native Indians blackmailed into Christianity? Did England conquer and blackmail America?
As for Liberia, every single Christian and Muslim African nation was brutally conquered,
All you've done is repeated your claim, not support it. Liberia was NEVER colonized, and became independent in the 1800's. The first African country to declare independence.
...as a Ghanan resident I thought you'd know that.
I am no longer a resident of Ghana, and I am an American. Every Christian nation being "brutally conquered" is simply not true, so there is no way I would "know" that.
Created:
Posted in:
All through human history, religions rose and fell, one dominated, and then lost its #1 status and was replaced by another. Till Christianity.
Christianity's difference in effect and effectiveness is so stark, only deliberate obtuse glasses will fail to see that there is something unique about that religion.
Every other major religion acknowledges Christianity. Muslims agree that Jesus will return to take away believers on the last day.
Hindus and Buddhists believe that Jesus was an incarnation of God.
And we know about Jews.
There is something different, special, unique... about Christianity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
@Athias
I definitely want to see that argument.
I would like to also.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The pillaging isn't required anymore, just pressure to keep it going.
Why doesn't this hold true for other religions?
There isn't a single nation that is Christian that wasn't conquered and blackmailed into it in past generations of that nation's culture and history.
Are you sure this is true? Do you have any support for that claim? How about Liberia? Or even the United States?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Where will the comedy and true entertainment come from when we have to leave?
From the truly funny and entertaining members on the board, what will be missing with your absence will be true stupidity. And it will be worth it.
The board can thank me later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Because they pillaged and invaded more.
So Christianity has been #1 for 2,000+ years because "they" pillaged and invaded more? Really? What keeps Christianity #1 now?
Heard of any pillaging recently?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Uh, hmmmm, I don’t know if this is actually true.
Of course you dont. You're from Landover Baptist, the idiot church.
Enjoy your vacation Dee Dee!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
basically, the roman empire had the most effect on Europe, then Europe went on to colonize the world and bring christianity with it
No doubt that had an effect, but do you think that accounts for all of Christianity's effectiveness? Having Europe push you may get you into a culture, but can it keep you there?
Muslems colonized much of the world too, yet today most of the places they colonized have reverted away from Islam.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
In did not say it was true, I asked, "If you do not think its true, what accounts for its popularity?" Something must.
Created:
Posted in:
I know this thread invites the anti-theists to take their petty pot-shots at God, but they are a constant, so we will ignore them.
*Christianity is twice the size if its nearest rival. Over a billion people More!
*Christianity seems to have the most effective message of all religions. It has been successful in virtually every culture on Earth. How many Swedish Hindus are there? How many Buddhist Ugandans? How many Paraguayan Muslims?
*Christianity has been so successful, many countries have laws that attempt to restrict and impede it.
*Is it not reasonable to expect the most true religion to be the most universally acceptable? Why would a message from God be hindered by ethnicity or culture?
*Can adoption by a western king account for Christianity's worldwide success?
*Why has no other religion been able to duplicate Christianity's performance for 2,000 years?
Since the atheist does not believe Christianity is true, how does he account for its unmatched performance in the world? In terms of effective performance, no religion comes even close to matching Christianity's record. What, if not because it is true, in your opinion explains this?
Created:
Why are blue states the economic powerhouses?
This is a little misleading. It assumes money is the best indicator of "power house".
For example, most new couples do not want to raise their families in our typical economic power houses.
We can have cultural powerhouses, religious powerhouses, low crime powerhouses, average income powerhouses, drug free powerhouses and even baby friendly powerhouses. None if the aforementioned powerhouses are blue states.
Blue states that are economic powerhouses have the benefit of large land masses, and easy access to low income workers. It has very little to do with blue or red.
But even by economic power, if you adjust for land size and population, red states are the true economic powerhouses. People don't know this, but red states have a higher average standard of living than blue states. California is an economic powerhouse, but do people want to live there? California's population is falling rapidly, so is the population of most other blue states.
So your question assumes an untruth. In the real world, right wing policies are better economically AND culturally. US population demographics is proving this true as we speak.
Created:
Posted in:
Nobody seems to want to define what the very most extreme of left thinking or right thinking is but rather move to the center and characterize in philosophical terms.
Does this not count?
From post #78:
At its core, liberalism places man himself as the standard (touchstone) of morality. That is, whatever man deems moral, IS moral. And thus, pleasure becomes the greatest moral good, (homosexuality is pleasurable, thus good) and suffering becomes the greatest moral evil (poverty is painful, thus evil) All liberal doctrine flow from this core.
At its core, conservatism places the standard (touchstone) of morality outside of men, that is, morality is independent of men, therefore, what a man deems moral, IS not necessarily moral. And thus, pleasure may be moral good (sex in marriage)or moral evil, (sex in rape)and suffering may be moral good (sacrifice to save innocents)or moral evil (oppressing the poor), all conservative doctrine flow from this core.
Either way you look at it you are moving to the left .
I disagree. This is not a movement to the left.
The ruling elite agree not to kill each other...
Neither is this....
...OR they may get allies and agree to enforce rules that say you will be killed if you try to kill and rob other people but you may do as you please other wise.
Those are moves to the right. Thus, anarchy is the middle ground, an absence of left OR right ideology.
The right behaves as if morality is sourced outside men.
The left behaves as if morality is sourced inside men.
Anarchy behaves as if morality does not exist.
It's ok if you find no value in my post, but saying that nobody seems to want to define what the very most extreme of left thinking or right thinking is, is just not true.
Good thread topic BTW.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Sorry Dee Dee, but your post is still unintelligible nonsense.
Parody is not supposed to be stupidity. But I guess real parody requires intelligence.
Where are you from Dee Dee, cause your English says you aren't American, and that its your 2nd language. Your ridiculous anger also indicates childhood trauma.
DEBATEART RELIGION FORUM, ETHANG5 IS NOW ON RECORD STATING THAT IT IS OKAY TO OFFEND JESUS, WHICH IN TURN, COMMITS THE UNPARDONABLE SIN (MATTHEW 12:32). 2+2=4!
Lol! They just had a meep genius, you should have campaigned to have "insults" to Jesus included in the CoC. Where were you and your Landover elders?
Look, it's fun tossing you for lolz, but really, you have to give me something to work with. Your silly repetitive template post are empty and stupid. How many times will you post the same stupidity that someone is running away or insulting Jesus? How many times do you expect a response to such redundant stupidity?
So, let me ask you some questions since you're apparently too challenged to bring up substantial issues yourself.
1. How old are you?
2. Did you once consider yourself a Christian?
3. How far did you go in school?
4. Were your parents married when you were growing up?
5. Do you not think ending EVERY post with "next!" is stupid?
Five simple questions. Sure, go ahead and post your usual stupid repetition from your loony template, but try and answer the questions too. It won't kill you.
What! Huh?
Lol!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Gee, Bro, if the heat is intolerable, no one insists you stay in the kitchen, even if mastering boiled water is asking too much
Besides being a little mentally challenged, Dee Dee is also compulsive, I don't think he can stay out of the kitchen if he tried anymore.
Visit his Landover Baptist Church link and you'll see that mastering boiled water IS in fact asking too much of that group of geniuses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
I now know that any topic you start will be heavily censored, through the construction of a defacto echo-chamber
How would his not responding to some, be censorship?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
“I've seen more intelligence in the crotch lice of harem whores”
-Christopher Moore
Ouch!
Lol!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hey Dee Dee,
Your entire post is just disjointed stupidity. Sorry. I know you are lost in your Landover Baptist parody, but your post reads like the ramblings of a mentally ill person.
For the future, offending your Jesus is not against the site's CoC. And no one cares what your personal opinion of me is. You look like a crackpot when you keep blathering the same silliness over and over in every post.
Your world of pretending to be a ultra conservative Christian is childish. And it grew to be boring a full year ago. You have to put some content in your posts or I will just toss you for lolz as there is nothing to respond to in your Unabomber manifesto posts.
But maybe you like being the class clown. In that case, I was the right man to stalk. Cause I can clown you for years. Here, have some face paint with that rope.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
There were plenty of dresses for trump,...
I saw none brought into evidence.
...the arguments were that those dresses were not a "high crime or misdemeanor."
I did not see Trump's side refer to any dress. There was no evidence of any crime, unless you count TDS as "evidence".
...a blowjob, successful or not, is neither high crime, nor misdemeaner.
Clinton was not tried for getting a blowjob, he was tried for lying to congress.
Trump's accusations were far more serious.
Thank God we still have Republicans who will not convict on accusations alone. First Judge Kavenaugh, then Trump. Democrats seem to believe accusations should be enough for convictions.
Clinton's impeachment was a political joke. You cant twist logic to fit convenience. That's called hypocrisy.
This is your opinion. Clinton CONFESSED on national TV. He was not removed from office because the American people did not want him removed, but he was guilty. His confession was proof. Trump was not guilty, democrats had no evidence, but wanted him removed. The American people saw through that sham.
Hypocrisy is what the Democrats have done, and are still doing. We will fix that this November.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
You have proven that our military represents our flag.
I said nothing about representation.
You have not proven that the flag represents our military.
Nor did I intend to. The comment I was responding to was, "The anthem has nothing to do with the military." That comment is incorrect.
Our military defends the ideals of our nation. The ideal of our nation are not the military.
And none of this is pertinent to our discussion.
Why do you think fascist dictators are the ones that tend to have military parades and not democratic societies?
Is France a democratic society?
The military has little to do with internal politics. He is protesting internal politics. Internal politics, like police, and courts, are also a major part of the flag. This is a distraction.
Eh. CK was disrespectful. The swath of people offended by his behavior is evidence his behavior was hurtful. He should have protested in a none disrespectful way. But he freely chose to do so. Repeatedly. He exercised his right to protest, now he is suffering the consequences of doing so. He should quit whining and go sit down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I never have to check myself because I always know what I say, and only say what I know.
And sorry, you must be the other Discipulus_Didicit. The name is the same so you can understand how I could have mistook you for him.
Never mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Exactly.....You said nothing about bias, though Mr Spode did.
As I told you, I said nothing about bias.
Sure, sounds like that to you.
Just as it sounds like that to you.
It couldn't slick. I said nothing about bias. Your "that" above is unspecified and thus, it's fakery.
Truth and middle.
Who and what are you quoting, you've lost me there.
Don't worry about it.
Atheists understand the truth of day to day reality and are dismissive or sceptical about the likelihood of fantasy worlds contained within mythological and supernatural hypotheses.
Yes, as they have pre-decided that the narrative is a fantasy world contained within mythological and supernatural hypotheses. Anything is easy to dismiss if you pre-decide that it is fantasy. The thing is, that isn't logical reasoning, it's confirmation bias.
So no truth claims necessary as far as the atheist is concerned....The onus rests wholly upon theists to prove their truth claims, with fact rather than with fiction.
I get that but of illogic often. It's not just wrong, its a ploy to avoid the BoP. Whoever makes s truth claim has the onus to support his claim. Everyone is responsible for their claims.
Me personally, would be just as happy with either an existent god or no god. It wouldn't make much difference if any at all, to day to day reality. Other than we would have to find something else to disagree about.
All this tells me is that you are willfully ignorant of the depth of the topic. But I'm sure you're a nice guy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
He clearly said not just trump, meaning also clinton,....
I know.
...where the Republicans voted to impeach along party lines.
Clinton WAS guilty, he confessed on national TV. Republicans voted on the facts, not party lines.
Trump may have been impeached along party lines, but he was also aquitted along party lines,
Because he wasn't guilty. Unlike Clinton, there was no stained dress or national confession.
From dems to repubs, their choices were dictated by politics, not justice.
No sir. The republicans vote on Clinton was dictated by the facts, provided by Clinton himself. It was the democrats who voted along party line, with no evidence.
Are you so obsessed with partisanship and political one liners it is blinding you?
I see facts, not biased desire, just like in the Kavenaugh case, Democrats have zero evidence and are willing to bypass due process and convict on accusations only.
The impeachment cases were not the same.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
He hasn't revealed much else in his application than that he is a devout Christian.
I didn't know you describe yourself as devout Doc. Is that true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And theism is not biased?
I said nothing about bias. I said atheists make emotional arguments, not a logical ones.
Sounds like your describing a theist there Mr Ethan.
Sure. "Sounds" like that to you.
And there is no sound argument for theism either....Both arguments are rendered equally unsound by the nature of the argument...
Untrue. You just think "truth" and "middle" are synonymous. They aren't.
Though the theist does need to provide unequivocal evidence, whereas the atheist just needs to rest on their laurels until such times, when the theist can provide unequivocal evidence....
Again untrue. Atheists make truth claims. There are no laurels to sit on if you have not supported your truth claim. Theists do need to provide unequivocal evidence, but so do atheists. The difference is that Atheism has no possible evidence, for a negative cannot be proven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So now that I have corrected you on the allegations that YOU have made and on YOUR OWN thread , you want to take your ball back and go home. This is why many threads die a death so, so quickly.
Notice that you're on most of them?
...you might want to ask yourself why people at times have blocked you.
I don't care that people "block me"....
And THAT is why so many threads "die a death so, so quickly." And why you can't respond now.
Created:
Posted in:
@user_2006
Question for Christians: If your God holds wisdom, why did he write a giant-ass book instead of creating the humans to genetically, cognitively, and physically avoid those sins?
So many responses....
1. To certain types of people, giant ass books are not a bad thing. What type of people? Intelligent ones who value learning.
2. God doesn't not want you to "avoid sins", He wants you to love Him, and not sinning will be a natural consequence of loving Him.
3. It is not possible to create people to genetically, cognitively, and physically love God. Love must be free, voluntary, and un-manipulated or it is not love and therefore worthless.
I love the bible, and I'm glad God made it happen. There are some novels I've read that are longer than the bible. Finally....
If your God....
No one owns God. He is everyone's God, as there is only one God.
...holds wisdom,...
If God holds all wisdom, would it not take a giant-assed book to communicate it to (relatively) unwise people?
So are you asking for a smaller bible, or did you prefer an audio recording? Zed seems to think God should have given Moses a hologram to prove God had the technology.
That reminds me of the NGO's who go into small African villages and donate computers to the little village school under a tree. Not only do they have no electricity or shelter from the elements for the machine, no one in the entire village has ever seen a computer.
But I guess, if they don't provide a computer, it would mean they didn't have the technology. And we know that to Zed and other atheists like him, it should have been more important to God to prove His "goodness" than get the salvation message out in a way the listeners could understand and use.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Because at the core, their arguments are not logical but emotional. That also explains their unreasonable anger at strangers on the net, and their obsession with God and Christianity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Well yes obviously if they are commie AIs then we should just genocide them all and be done with it, but how do we tell whether they are commies or not?
I said nothing about commies, or genocide. Are you confusing me with another poster?
But intelligence does not necessarily imply sentience.
It does in this scenario though, and I can prove it.
No need, my 1st sentence was..."A scientist creates in his lab, an artificial intelligence that has true sentience."
Would you like me to do?
No need. If intelligence implies sentience on this scenario but not always, then I am right that intelligence does not necessarily imply sentience.
Now, if you think intelligence necessarily implies sentience, I would love to see your logic on that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Lol. The doofus follows me around spamming stupidity to me, and when I reply him, he posts it as stalking. Every link you posted homer has your dumb post above it. Buy a clue.
But its nice to see you are still coming off using your silly template. You've now dropped the insane hobo all caps and toned down on the all bold. And there isn't a single silly quote prefaced with a silly poor English comment. Good job. I will get you to post like a sane human being if you aren't an AI bot, and we aren't sure you're not....yet.
Common sense should have told you that parody cannot sustain a character on a serious debate site. But it has been established you have no common sense. Now you're locked into playing the fool, and unfortunately for you, you've met someone willing to give you all the rope you require to hang yourself.
Here, have some more rope.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
The inescapable fact is that cities with a longtime liberal democratic government are poorer, dirtier, more crime ridden, and more lawless than cities with longtime conservative governments. This is fact. Anyone can write his biased spin here, but historical reality cannot be spun.
Simple common sense tells you that progressive liberalism is illogical.
1. Progressive Liberalism cannot exist until conservatism has built a society of law and order that protects it from the consequences of its self-defeating ideas. This is why progressive liberals are so sparse in 3rd world societies.
2. Progressive Liberalism has built into its ethos, a tendency to deny reality for dogma. So, men can be women, All cultures are equally good, Women can do anything men can do, unborn babies are not human beings, citizenship and borders don't matter, money is a free and unlimited resource, and gender is a social construct. All nonsense.
3. Over and over throughout history, reality has proven Progressive Liberalism to be self-hobbling stupidity, and liberals never learn. Liberals wanted to talk to Hitler, because in their dogma, a) war is always unrighteous, b) men are basically good, and c) violence never solves any problem. All proven bits of well intended stupidity.
At its core, liberalism places man himself as the standard (touchstone) of morality. That is, whatever man deems moral, IS moral. And thus, pleasure becomes the greatest moral good, (homosexuality is pleasurable, thus good) and suffering becomes the greatest moral evil (poverty is painful, thus evil) All liberal doctrine flow from this core.
Simple common sense tells you that progressive liberalism is illogical.
1. Progressive Liberalism cannot exist until conservatism has built a society of law and order that protects it from the consequences of its self-defeating ideas. This is why progressive liberals are so sparse in 3rd world societies.
2. Progressive Liberalism has built into its ethos, a tendency to deny reality for dogma. So, men can be women, All cultures are equally good, Women can do anything men can do, unborn babies are not human beings, citizenship and borders don't matter, money is a free and unlimited resource, and gender is a social construct. All nonsense.
3. Over and over throughout history, reality has proven Progressive Liberalism to be self-hobbling stupidity, and liberals never learn. Liberals wanted to talk to Hitler, because in their dogma, a) war is always unrighteous, b) men are basically good, and c) violence never solves any problem. All proven bits of well intended stupidity.
At its core, liberalism places man himself as the standard (touchstone) of morality. That is, whatever man deems moral, IS moral. And thus, pleasure becomes the greatest moral good, (homosexuality is pleasurable, thus good) and suffering becomes the greatest moral evil (poverty is painful, thus evil) All liberal doctrine flow from this core.
At its core, conservatism places the standard (touchstone) of morality outside of men, that is, morality is independent of men, therefore, what a man deems moral, IS not necessarily moral. And thus, pleasure may be moral good (sex in marriage)or moral evil, (sex in rape)and suffering may be moral good (sacrifice to save innocents)or moral evil (oppressing the poor), all conservative doctrine flow from this core.
You might have noticed that conservatism is a more mature, realistic, and nuanced belief system than progressive liberalism, which is too simplistic for the real world. This explains why most (not all) progressive liberals are younger, while most conservatives (not all) are older.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Envisage
Because democrats see themselves as Americans and others as deplorables. The dolts will tell you now that the "American People" impeached Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Maybe I am a normal person that tends to impersonate atheists.
Normal people don't impersonate atheists. Some atheists are themselves normal people.
If you're ever in the U.K. you more than welcome to call in for a beer and a chat....But let's just keep religion off the agenda.
Jesus is not something I can "leave at the door", and I don't drink. But I would enjoy a cold virgin Pinã Colada.
Cycling and family are my two main religions...
Cjristianity is my only religion but I am very fond of family.
I usually, only put my atheist hat on between 6.30am and 8.30 am U.K time.
If I ever find myself on your side of the pond, I'll be sure to drop by after 9 am.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
I wouls say it's 80% not understanding grammar, though they seem to understand the exact same grammar quite well in non-biblical sources.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
But intelligence does not necessarily imply sentience. Even if it isn't explicitly said, most people mean "soulless intelligence" when they say AI. Though I'm sure some people would say that true intelligence would always include sentience. But others would say the organic part makes a profound difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
In the post where you impersonated a normal person and I invited you to visit Mrs. Ethan and I in Philly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
5) The hypothetical AIs sapience is what would cause me to give a yes answer to question one.
What is the connection in your mind to sapience and moral obligation? I know what we DO as a society, I'm asking for your reaso On what standard are you basing your judgement on the specific laws in question?
The same standard that I would use to evaluate any other moral laws between people. n why YOU do it.
On what standard are you basing your judgement on the specific laws in question?
The same standard that I would use to evaluate any other moral laws between people.
OK, but what standard is that? And how did you decided the AI qualified for the standard you use for people? Sapience?
Created: