Total posts: 4,363
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
Christ was responsible for the death of thousands
As you said, Jones and Koresh were personally responsible, by coercion, for the deaths associated with each's cult. Jesus did not cause the deaths of thousands, nor even potential millions since, by his direct coercion, as did your other two. Those millions of deaths were at the hands of other people, having a specific agenda of death in order to eradicate Christians. They failed, by the way.. Jones and Koresh accomplished their own eradication of their respective groups. Not so, Jesus Christ. You're comparing apples and oranges. Stop it.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No - the chemistry is the entire point of all of this
Actually, no. Benjamin set this topic in philosophy, not science, and specifically not in chemistry. As I said, YOU put it in chemistry, ergo, science. Is philosophy science? Or is it art? Or neither? The discussion rages, but the general attitude seems that philosophy resides in its own realm, even though it discusses both subjects. The point is, Benjamin did not. His questions are not answered by empiric evidence, nor by aesthetics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Are the rules still in force
The "rules" as you call them, are covenants: covenants that bear the weight of ultimate justice. Justice will not be denied, nor should it be bent. Covenant = contract. The Old Covenant, or Testament, or Contract, was in force until the coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. His Atonement fulfilled, that is, met the demand of the justice imposed by the Old Covenant. Therefore, the "rules" of the Old Covenant are no longer in force, but that does not mean they are dismissed, as in erasing their history. We erase at our peril. Why? Because it is good to know the seeds of why the Atonement was necessary in the first place, and what it actually accomplished. By holding the history, not erasing it, we understand the continuity of Old and New Covenants. Jesus Christ embodies the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. It is upon his New Covenant that we are implored to obey, but obedience, and its consequences, are our choice, completely. Otherwise, justice would not be served and met.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
if you have no evidence there is no reason to believe.
Belief is not a bad thing. It has its place. So what if I believe that sapient humanoid blue Na'vi inhabit a moon somewhere out there? Am I compelled to act on that belief? No, and that is the distinction between belief and faith. Faith demands acting on what is believed, else the "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen" [Hebrews 11: 1. - but really, the entire chapter] is never achieved, and belief continues, or not, unproven. Thus, there is reason to believe, and since faith can only express truth [one cannot have faith in falsity, because the false will never bear fruit], belief can, ultimately, lead to faith, and faith to truth, but only by action, and not mere thought.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
That is a neat little word salad wrapped up in semantics
A semantic you started, and now cannot accept that it was brought up to demonstrate your disdain of Benjamin's intelligence, when you, demonstrate the same ignorance with regard to the value of salt and its historic use; again, a subject you added, and does not belong in this string. So, you double-down on it wondering why I don't say anymore than I did on a non-relevant subject?
Come on. That's beneath you. Let the chemistry go.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
No time now, but I will comment when U c am. Good topic.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
table salt - totally harmless.
Uhhhh....... disagree. Worse, you accuse Benjamin of chemical illiteracy while you display historic illiteracy, so whose is the greater offense? Not mine to say, just a matter of civility. Salt has so many functions and meanings, it is one of the few words in my OED that occupy many column inches of definition and etemology to complete. It is a seasoning, a commodity of trade, and payment, a preserver, a multi-faceted metaphor, and on and on. At one time in Renaissance Italy, and likely elsewhere, its value as a commodity priced it out of the food prep industry, to be replaced by clove.
As for its potential harm, yes, although composed of two poisonous elements, their combination yields a substance of such value, it will never be valueless. However, as with any edible substance, its excess consumption can bring death, and many maladies less serious. Hardly "totally harmless."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
because the Bible says so.
Yes, and that is my highest objection to the justification many Christians adopt for numerous arguments that develop over our penchant to discriminate against others. The Bible says many things, but it is hardly a perfect book. No book that I am aware of [and I have a sizable library of just printed books] is perfect, so I am not likely to use that argument without the exception of its imperfection. Besides, unlike BrotherDThomas, for one [there are others] I detest Bible pounding to prove a point; it has little, and should have no effect on reasonable people who believe the Bible as far as it can be construed to be correct [and I certainly believe it is with my reservations]. Unfortunately, some fall into poundmethomas' pounding by pounding back. No book should suffer that fate, because it does take a lot of beating.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Not to be doubted at all. It is a formidable accomplishment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
Making things up
I am not the one putting eggs in one basket. One basket is an illusion.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Congrats. However, for a bit of humble pie, SuperDudz does have a point, although, being at the top, which is greatly earned, the pie must also be served.
Created:
Posted in:
Avis a tout le monde
I am strictly disinclined to respond to 70+ alleged challenges considering the depth off my knowledge of the Bible is multiple, complete readings in four languages. While they differ, in specie detail, these languages agree in principle well enough considering that dictionary-to-dictionary translations are lacking word-for-word agreement. Example: in English, the word “love” translates fully to seven separate words in Greek. So, how dependable are translations if one is not aware of these details?
About as dependable as the pounder.
Created:
Posted in:
The party of the pounding part is just adding to my stats. Makes no sense, but is it even aware? Well, it's certainly not by invitation, and, frankly, is a waste of space of any kind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
35 or more years of age
A natural-born citizen of the United States
A resident in the United States for the past 14 years
Executive experience in the private sector
Able to discuss, at length, the defense of basic liberties that all world leaders ought to enable their citizens to embrace, accepting responsibility for the value, purpose, and objectives of society in each nation, and allowed to each nation such that any nation's citizens are neither oppressed nor restricted in their use of these liberties to create, retain, and advance their personal lives and their families.
If all nations were as benevolent to their citizens as the United States claims by constitutional decree to be [but sometimes isn't, to our shame] then the US would not have the immigration crisis we currently face, meaning we are still better off than many nations of the world, and that should not be. So many nations rebut what we claim, and do not have the trust of their citizens to preserve and protect them. This should not be so. Any president ought to proclaim and defend such actions by governments as claimed constitutionally in the US.
Created:
Posted in:
I think you understand the pattern
Well, I understand what you're presenting as a "pattern, but with so few samples in a group study, and being a statistical professional, I don't see a pattern with a minimal 42 as a combined sample population of either males, females, or m > f or f > m transexuals:
"Post-mortem brain material was used from 42 subjects: 14 control males, 11 control females, 11 male-to-female transsexual people, 1 female-to-male transsexual subject and 5 non-transsexual subjects who were castrated because of prostate cancer. "https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/131/12/3132/295849 [your source] Not even 42 of each sub-group would suffice to establish a pattern.
I am reminded of a famous study conducted in 1901 called the "21 gram experiment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment
Interesting study that was meant to determine if the spirit, or soul of a person leaving the body at death had measurable weight. Yes, according to a Dr. MacDougall, who made the same statistical mistake as your cited study group, only worse: he had a sample size of 6 individuals. That is worse than pathetic. 42 samples is only pathetic. You get me? Many more samples are required to establish any kind of dependable pattern.
Not to mention that all samples should have approximately the same variables, even those not generally associated with what the experiment is meant to discover. Variables kill a statistical study. Yeah, all of your study's subjects were dead, and they all were castrated. Other than that, were they all of the same general weight and size, even within their sex? Did they all have approximately the same diet? I could think of a dozen variables that could affect the outcome, any one of which would skew the data. These must be accounted for in the design of experiment, and usually are not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Edge has been more convincing in a single line than in your total... verbosity. Your arrogance as if you can command any of us to "BEGIN" some enterprise at your command. Stuff it. You command not one jot or tittle other than yourself, and I wonder how much control is even there. Not much as you cannot seem to contain yourself. You can't even ban me. How pathetic is that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
@Theweakeredge
Edge has been more convincing in a single line than in your total... verbosity. Your arrogance as if you can command any of us to "BEGIN" some enterprise at your command. Stuff it. You command not one jot or tittle other than yourself, and I wonder how much control is even there. Not much as you cannot seem to contain yourself. You can't even ban me. How pathetic is that?
Edge: thank you.
Created:
Posted in:
Bald assertion.
Don't we "die" in principle every night, losing consciousness to sleep? And don't we usually wake up the next morning? Death and resurrection. Our sleeping and re-awakening are a type.
I'll continue later...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If half your holy book can be dismissed why have that half in the first place?
Did I say it could be dismissed? Don't put words in my mouth. I said it had been fulfilled. There's a difference I recognize, and that difference does not dismiss the O.T. as if it no longer had relevance. After all, didn't Santayana say that those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it? Is there relevance to the N.T., since it was finished 2,000 years ago? Many believe that, and that belief is on them, just as in the belief many share that Earth was created in six 24-hour periods, 6,000 years ago. They are welcome to that belief; I don't share it even though I am a creationist. The hitch is, I also believe creation continues to this day by the work of evolution, which God still oversees while allowing it [evolution] its own free agency. How many Christians do you know who buy that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
"Believe" becomes the extent of what you accept as true when belief, alone, cannot get you there. Belief and faith are not synonymous, and never were. Most think that way, but not this kid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
"Renowned scientists have unearthed fossil specimens that date back millions of years yet according to Christians the earth was created 6000 years ago. What is the reason for the discrepancy?"
There you go again, painting with a wide brush that ALL CHRISTIANS.... and add your subject. ALL CHRISTIANS do not believe that Earth was created in 6 days, 6,000 years ago, and you should not assume we do. SOME Christians believe that, but do not include by your indiscriminate brush that all of us do. As I have said numerous times, I don't buy the 6-day creation routine in days of 24 hours. Again, there were no days and nights until the third day, and the Christians who do believe in the 6-day, 6,000 years routine cannot explain that. That's their problem, and it is usually chalked up to a magic God act. Sorry, I don't buy it.
The creation may have, and probably did, take millions of years, or more to accomplish. So what, I say. Time is of no consequence to God, anyway. He's thinking and acting in eternal perspective, wherein there is no time. I personally think time is a myth, anyway, something made by man to explain his penchant for having schedules. That we can read the entire creation story in a half-hour does not mean that's all it took yo accomplish it. Not to mention that, by the Bible, there are interrupts in the chronology of Adam's posterity such that the 6,000 year routine is an interrupt, itself. I say, so what? If it took six billion years... so what? Why are we so hung up on time, as if God is married to a clock? Nope, I think he is married to his Wife, our Mother, and that we are literally their children. And what do children grow up to be...? How typically Christian is that theory? I am not the typical Christian, and I resent being painted as such.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
My point is not that I do not recognize the general need of society. After all, we are social beings by nature. My point is that I am not as dependent on society for survival than most, but that is only because I have carefully planned and prepared for the possibility that society may, end the end, fail in its effort to sustain me in the case of its collapse. Yes, there are risks to not having four walls to protect, either from wildlife which has no malice, or from human wild life, which does, particularly when they are of the variety that have not properly planned and prepared, but still think they are deserving of my planning and preparation when they have no right to it whatsoever. Why didn't they plan and prepare? That's on them, not me. What good will their RVs and boats and 4WDs, and whatever do for them when fuel is no longer available? I don't waste money, accepting added debt, buying these things; I rent when wanted, and give it back when the want is done. I still have two healthy feet if that is all that is left to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
I do a bit of "cherry-picking" myself, such as researching charities to determine which actually funnel the great majority of the monies they collect to do the work they claim to be dedicated to accomplish, but, instead, absorb it as personal enrichment. "Charity" itself, becomes a temptation to be greedy, and they which practice the latter are not worthy of the former. That is why, to some extent, I personally aid a chosen neighbor directly, and that with more than money, but my time and talent in labor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
In other words, you have no intention whatsoever to address the issue raised in the OP whatsoever, i.e. that Christians discriminate against and vilify gays.
Did I not address it, now in my #15? Seems some of us do not see the forest for the trees.
For you, then since the sense of the answer was not inclusive enough for you, because your charge is demonstrating a lack of inclusion of covering the issue you raise [incorrectly, by the way, since you, once again, make it an all-or-nothing issue], that ALL Christians do not discriminate against and vilify gays: I said:
Christ answered that there were actually two [commandments]: Love God, and love your neighbor [meaning everyone else]. Under these two laws, all previous Mosaic laws are consumed. If we love God, are not the first 5 commandments covered? If we love our fellow man, are not the last 5 covered, along with every other detailed Mosaic law?
Either you hold to your wide, and self-limiting paint brush, or you do not understand that meaning of "love your fellow man [meaning everyone else."] It is you who carve out with you callous "All Christians discriminate..." Do we, now?
"If," as I said, "we love our fellow man, are not the last five [of the ten commandments] covered?" I believe that answers your questions; including Q4. But you cannot see it, because you do not want to see it. Your bias slip is showing, sweetie, not mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Skin colour/tone is a distinctive identifier, because it is a distinctive identifier.
By your analysis, "by the eye department," we should either be male or female, and not a wider variety. Apparently, however, the argument tends to drift from a binary department.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
According to Mandrakel, per #10, yes. I don't happen to agree, but then, I don't think it matters one whit. On the other hands, Mandrakel's claim makes little sense. I am not Black. I have no idea if Mandrakel is, or not. Again, I don't really care. One of my best friends in high school was truly Black, and not a native of the U.S. but from the Ivory Coast. I asked him once, while at the beach [I grew up 4 miles from the beach in So. CA] if he ever sunburned. He said, "Of course. But I have no warning other than by the pain. My skin does not redden like yours does." That said, scientifically, darker skin, containing more melatonin, protects more than lighter skin, but it does not prevent skin diseases. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326378
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
What part of this is supportive of religion or God?
Because the sensation of faith based on my continued effort of growing it is as familiar to me as any other sense. I don't just "have faith" indiscriminately; it is directed specifically at faith in Jesus Christ; there is where all other truth becomes known to me. Until one has experienced it for themselves, it is not known what it is. Faith is the first step in ultimately knowing, not just believing, all things. There is a distinct difference between those two things. One can believe whatever they wish, but belief, alone, compels no one to action. only faith drives one to act on whatever one has faith in, because faith has the curious property that only faith in what is already true, but unknown, drives one to reach, ultimately, what the truth is. Most people equate belief and faith, and that blurring is even described biblically, but that is not fault of Jesus, for he wrote not one jot or tittle of scripture. It is the error of men who believed more in their own intellect than dependence on God's inspiration to either write what was written, but more likely, what was subsequently re-written and translated over centuries and millennia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Like I said, the OT is interesting for historical detail reference, but Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. I'll follow him, and by his precepts, and my acting on them, not just accepting them, I have met and fulfilled all the O.T. has to say by command, and more. That leaves me a lot of work to do; I am trying to be about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
First, you must let go of the idea that death is a permanent condition. It isn't.
Second, that God is the cause of the suffering we face, even if just by his ignorance. The truth is, God is not the total cause of anything. As noted already, creation happens even by continuation of evolution, including evolving into beings than when merely mortal. We are more responsible, ourselves, for human suffering than God is, or ever was.
Third, We are allowed to be agents unto ourselves, we are not the puppets of anyone. Having our own agency, we are the primary cause of virtually all our ills. Case in point. We can change building codes to resist the power of wind and rain to destroy, of earthquakes to destroy, but we have a hard time controlling ourselves. We could build an aqueduct from the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers to the southwest. Why don 't we? Is that God's fault? We could easily desalinate ocean water for drinking. Is it God's fault we do not? We could actually use most of the food we harvest instead of throwing it away because we have poor distribution methods. Is that God's fault? There's quite a lot of misery-causing things we do that we could solve tomorrow if we could spend the money doing so instead of feeding and housing and educating the poor at the other end of the scale. We could innovate artificial organs for transplant instead of a black market. We could properly irrigate, cultivate, plant, grow and distribute food sufficient to feed the world, and then some. Why don't we, and is that God's fault? Stop blaming God until we have done all that we can do. We're barely scratching the surface because we turn our free agency in to greed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
That's like asking when did God create graves. He didn't, we did. The handling of our dead, of any animal's dead is up to us and them. It is as I've told you in another of your threads: Creation continues to this day by [at least] the means of evolution. So, in a sense, each dead thing once living evolves to a fossil, depending on its original chemical make-up. Fossil fuels are the dead/decaying result of softer tissue than bone: the goo we call raw petroleum - the original renewable earth-bound energy source.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No, that is not all. After accepting Christ, it is our command to be like him, to do the works he did. That is, as James tells us, "faith without works is dead."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
I notice your Q1-4 all reference Mosaic law of the Old Testament, or the Talmud for Jews. Christians believe the Mosaic law was utterly fulfilled by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. At least, that is what he said. The references to the O.T. in these regards, as well as even the Ten Commandments are completely fulfilled, and therefore not applicable in favor of the Gospel of Christ. This is why when asked what the great commandment was, Christ answered that there were actually two: Love God, and love your neighbor [meaning everyone else]. Under these two laws, all previous Mosaic laws are consumed. If we love God, are not the first 5 commandments covered? If we love our fellow man, are not the last 5 covered, along with every other detailed Mosaic law? All the laws of blood sacrifice are replaced by our remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, and our commitment to sacrifice a broken heart and contrite spirit for the commission of our sins. All the laws of our proper activities are covered by our proper observance of the Sermon on the Mount, and our proper devotion to God by our observance of the Bread of Life sermon. The fact is, our proper observance of just these two sermons, if consistently practiced, would eliminate every single social ill we suffer today, bar none. Tell me what commandment of the O.T./Talmud can accomplish that?
Q5: Every season; I have two cherry trees, also an apple, nectarine, and two apricots, the produce of which I share with my neighbors, either fresh or freeze dried.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Can you demonstrate this?
No, I will not. I am not a trained seal. This is intensely personal and spiritual.
"Thermal sense" = infrared vision.
No, it is not. As with X-ray and radio, including nuclear emission, infrared exists outside the scope of visible light, even for bats. This is a thermal sense, but one that is sensed only by properly equipped animals needing none of the sensory devices which receive your five holies. It is an entirely different organ sensing heat, alone, but not vision, and not touch. Go back to school; your five holies are not unique in the animal world.
It's like UV light, which is outside the visible light spectrum, as well. We see black light, but only because this is emitting UV light, but it is not a precise UV light source, therefore, some of its light emission drifts into the visible spectrum. That's what you see. Same with "infrared light" at the other ends of the scale. Come on, you know this stuff. Don't you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” (Matthew 19:21)
To fully understand this passage, one must not focus only on the cited verse, but the context of the entire discussion and conditions surrounding the discussion, i.e., at least the entire chapter of Matthew 19. This is a common Bible-bashing attitude; to single out a single verse. I suggest understanding the context; it helps to determine complete meaning. The conditions of discussion with the young rich man are not speaking to a crowd, but to a single individual. Jesus has been in Galilee, but departed to Judea. There, a crowd follows, he offers a lesson about marriage and divorce, and then blesses little children, about which he is given grief. He departs that region for an unidentified place, where there is, mid-chapter, the encounter with the subject single individual, with only Christ's disciples, not a crowd, accompany Jesus, and this continues to the end of the chapter. The man asks Jesus, "What good thing shall I do [not everyone, but he, alone] that I may have eternal life?" Jesus replies with a number of the Mosaic laws, specifically, the commandments obtained at Sinai. The man says he is obedient to these. Then Jesus, only when offering the condition of being perfect, admonishes that this man "...sell that thou hast and give to the poor..." This conversation is recorded three times; in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but it is obvious by the virtual same language that the Gospels share a singular experience, in all cases, conversing with the same young man. His response, due to the man's great wealth, is said to be "...very sorrowful for he was very rich." To teach the young man the full breadth of the triple command that faith, hope, and charity are to be the watchwords of proper living, "all that [he] hath" was the necessary sacrifice, but this is not a necessary sacrifice, unless we have given solemn commitment by covenant to obey the law of consecration, which is not imposed on all. Because of the young man's greed, he needed to be advised to sell all and give to the poor. I have committed to the offer of 20% of my entire annual increase to charity, but, in addition, I donate food, volunteer at a local food bank, and at my local school district, plus dedication of a portion of my earnings, time and talent to assist a family near me. So, lets not quibble whether I have a charitable heart, or not.
I will not ask about yours; that's between you and your God, and I'd appreciate you keeping it at that, and not worry, or criticize anyone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
the ability to detect blood flow (sight)
No, you misunderstand the sense blood in veins of a victim, such as exhibited by vampire bats, which exhibit this skill about as well as any animal on Earth. It is not by sight, my friend, but by thermal sense, which is not sight, nor touch, nor smell, nor taste, nor hearing, your holy five. For us, the only method we have, naturally, of thermal sense is by touch. obviously, the bat does not need touch. Just so, I declare that faith is an internal sense, whereas all of your five holies are external senses, including the open mouth, nose, eyes and ears. It is not touch in the traditional sense, because nothing is physically touched.
It is by faith that I am warned of a potential sense of danger where none physically, by my other senses, exists. When I am in complete darkness, where normal sight is defeated, my faith provides a feint, yellow light from behind my right shoulder, such that I can partially see ahead about three feet faintly. I don't know why, but it's there. Explain that with your five holies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How would you go about DISPROVING the existence of some god(s)? What would a universe look like if there were none?
How much do you really understand about "evidence?"
You are surely aware of the common argument that a negative cannot be proved. That's because there is no evidence supporting that which does not exist in the first place. I found this as a description of BoP:
"The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning."https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
What if your father paid for your healthcare through property tax instead of direct payment? That worked for your education.
That paid for K-12. My dad & I paid for the other nine years out of pocket. Our pockets, alone. And, lest you think I'm freeloading now that I am retired [though still working] and on SS and medicare, you should know, because you are now paying it, or soon will, that your FICA taxes are paying for yours at a rate of something between 80 to 90%, that I paid plenty. It is claimed that SS and Medicare, as currently construed anyway, are socialism. Nope, because the interest that should be earned on what FICA I paid is supposed to cover the balance. It doesn't, but that's giovernmen t's fault by raiding it, not mine or yours. What Biden and others propose, certainly, because the system cannot support everyone on medicare without taxing everyone [not just the"rich"] to the hilt, is going to be socialism And it will bury us, just like in every other country that embraces it..
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
You don't get a life alone in the wilderness,
Whether alone, or with other people, I get to survive, and I get to live. you have no idea of my circumstances, what I can do without, and to what extent I am prepared to maintain life. That society as a whole is not as prepared; that's on them. They have the same potential to prepare, but that they don't is entirely on them. If you're one of those, I understand your cynicism, but that won't buy you a slice of bread.
Without the government, money would not be worth anything
I actually understand the value of government. As James Madison said: "If men were angels, we would not need government." We're not, so, I get it. It is a necessity. However, my personal need of it is quite minimal because I do not depend on it for much other than my local infrastructure, and that, now, is quite limited. I cannot see my closest neighbor's house. As I said, if needed, I can go completely off the grid for power, water, and food at literally the flip of one switch, and the turn of one valve. If my money becomes worthless, I am prepared to accept that. The sign of true wealth is how you deal with its lack.
I pay taxes. Does that not help society prosper? I volunteer at my local food bank, and elementary school. Does that not help society prosper? I donate 20% of my financial increase to charity. Does that not help society prosper? You do not know who you're arguing with, my friend. Get a clue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
And? We clearly do not exhibit a single color anymore. Not even Blacks. Again: So what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
Have we got that little omission clear now?
What omission? Are we seeing things not there? What do you think an agnostic is? According to the OED:
1. A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of immaterial things, especially of the existence or nature of God. Distinguished from atheist n.
Therefore, there is doubt, as opposed to being certain, which is the realm of the atheist. The doubt, in Tysobn's case, is, as I stated clearly:
hung-up on the idea of a omnipotent being who, nonetheless, allows natural disasters to occur.x
It's the lack of recognition that just because a god is omnipotent does in no way mean he must act omnipotently consistently; he applies the power necessary to accomplish a task. Some tasks are more easily performed than others. And that God allows suffering to occur only means that the consideration of the duration of mortal life is not a primal, necessary factor, where we [some of us] are hung-up on the idea that it must last for as long as possible. No, not necessary. Further we [some of us] consider death as some kind of barrier, as if a door that closes on our lives and cannot be overcome. Nonsense. There's not even a door, which when closed, is a wall, anyway. Through an open passageway, there is no door; it is merely an open transition between one room and another. Thus, what we call a door is just another part of a wall, when closed. When open, it is nothing at all but open access to another space. That is what death is; no barrier at all, just a transition. However, all human suffering, no matter how small or great, is covered entirely by the atonement of Christ; He paid for it all as an innocent, though godly act that covers so much more then mere sin; it covered all suffering, all disappointment, all ill feelings, all doubts. Yes, we sometimes suffer, even by loss of life, but life continues and is so much more glorious after passing through the portal of death if we have lived mortal lives of faith, hope and charity. not so much if our lives have been filled with doubt, dismissal and greed. You don 't need to preach probability to me. I happen to have been a professional in that field as a certified Six Sigma Black Belt. Look it up.
Even a 5% probability is still a factor allowing major doubt that something is absolute. You seem to have a problem with that word. Absolute is the desire of probability to be correct, completely.
Have you bothered to search the topic? I got 12,200,000 hits
Wow. Over 12M hits. That's a lot. However, my friend, what is the probability that at least one [therefore, doubt, and not so much absolute assurance] hit is an inquirer who does not accept either atheism or agnosticism, but wants to research the subjects, anyway. Yes, I have researched these subjects. Not that I agree with them, as you seem to think must be my position before looking into them, else what would spark my interest? You seem to think 12M somehow means the subjects are valid. That is, to be subtle, utter bullshyte. It's called curiosity, my friend, which is why, among the volumes in my library is Marx/Engels' Communist Manifesto, Chairman Mao's Little Red Book, and Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. They have been read, annotated, re-read, re-annotated, and so on.
a notable drop in IQ of theists
I was wondering when you would broach the subject of your topic. It was not evident in your #1. I did bring it up for you you in my #2 to save your arse.
I don't know about you, but I did not grow up in an idiot household such as you present. We've been given a cartoon. I'm not laughing. Worse, your topic is presented as an absolute. Sorry, it does not hold water, because there are, as well, just like theists, idiots among the atheist households. Some, but not all. So, stop being an idiot by treating those who oppose you be the too-common epithet of all being stupid. It's just what one sees in the mirror, after all, sparking the recognition.
Your problem is an all-or-nothing approach. All theists are idiots according to your topic. I've seen the survey. It does seem to have a definitive conclusion, but, there are matters apparently beyond your understanding that are faults with many published surveys: it's called Margin of Error, that is, what is the percentage of assurance that the data collected and analyzed is a true condition. Anything more than a ±2.5% begins to include doubt as to the accuracy. Take a look at your survey's MoE. If you can. Also, take a look at the number of respondents. Surveys typically short the needed number of samples in a sub-group. Third, take a look at the questions. Are they unbiased, or do are they engineered to illicit a desired response? Most do, and that invalidates the survey. How many questions? More than ten, and respondents get bored and will answer anything just to be done with what was promised as a "quick survey." All these factors contribute to a high MoE, regardless of what is planned. This IS rocket science, and most who conduct surveys don't know which direction the rocket should go.
Created:
Posted in:
A bunch of expected limited intelligence to introduce Neil deGrassi Tyson, a deserved astronomical expert with an admitted agnosticism hung-up on the idea of a omnipotent being who, nonetheless, allows natural disasters to occur. https://www.cbsnews.com/video/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-god/#x
He, like even many believers in God, cannot explain this apparent conflict of interest. One simple answer, which I have offered before, is that it is a mistake to assume that God, being omnipotent, and all the other omni- concepts, will always act by any of the omni- concepts, i.e., by creating imperfect things, including not just man and his present environment, but the entire universe around us. It's a St. Augustinian invalid argument: Can God create a stone he cannot lift? The answer is: why shouldn't he? Is God compelled to do only all-powerful things? If so, why? We and all other things in the universe, are created imperfectly in order for us [the collective "creation"] to improve ourselves from an imperfect to an eventual perfect condition, when we will then earn the right to exist in his presence. This is aGod of understanding the necessity of growth from imperfection to perfection; not a God who plays with us, blaming us for being imperfect when it is he who created us in this fashion. He understands this because he was once, many eons ago, imperfect, too. The pattern is simple: exist as an imperfection, and grow into perfection by an effort to continuously improve; the ultimate purpose of life. What's wrong with that?
I don't know about you, but I did not grow up in an idiot household such as you present. We've been given a cartoon. I'm not laughing. Worse, your topic is presented as an absolute. Sorry, it does not hold water, because there are, as well, just like theists, idiots among the atheist households. Some, but not all. So, stop being an idiot by treating those who oppose you be the too-common epithet of all being stupid. It's just what one sees in the mirror, after all, sparking the recognition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
And, just as with tech, who says the existence of God will only depend on "religious airheads?" Again, is that from your pocket mouse? He didn't do such a terrific job of explaining the limitations of tech to you, did he?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Zed, I'll have to admit I did not see this string until tonight, and trying the first puzzle, I''ll have to depend on your good graces that I solved it before reading your #68, in which you solved it, but I did not solve it until after your #59. I realized that it was additive, but at first fooled by trying to include the 20 cipher. I then realized it was a red herring, and just added the first three ciphers in each series, and backed into 18 as the solution. I take it that this is the end of the puzzle; that the pattern is not intended to continue.
Whereas, I have stopped reading as of your #68 to enter these comments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@Athias
I don't think your suggestion of a puzzle in your #79
1,2,3,4,5,?
is a puzzle at all, because you have violated the very point that Zed was trying to explain to Edge; that a puzzle need not have context, just pattern. As Zed explained in his #59, your "solution," given in your #81 applies mathematic functions within the consecutive series of numbers, but one has no idea what functions are to be applied in what order. You have, first, an exponent [really multiplication of the same number], then simple multiplication, then division, and then addition, thus using three pf the four simple functions [minus subtraction]. Even that subtraction would be the missing function is self-explanitory; it is "minus," that is, a missing function. Fine. But, the sequence applied is still a problematic issue due to it not being an obvious pattern without convoluted attempts, and this goes beyond the use of intelligence, requiring some guesswork to arrive at the solution. Zed's puzzle solves by pure intellect, alone. Guessing is not intelligence, because there is no absolute pattern to follow to arrive at your solution; no pattern at all because the sequence of application of math function does not follow a logical sequence. Logic is replaced by guess work. That is not puzzle-solving at all.
Whereas, Zed's first puzzle, though also remote in its solution, uses, consistently, the same, most simple of math functions: addition, and the patter of its use is consistent. Therefore, presented as a patterned puzzle, I agree with Zed's solution: 6.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
What point (if any) are you trying to make?
My point: Even those who profess to know religion, including "professionals," which, in this particular industry causes me to question those in which their "professionals" are paid a salary, do not necessarily know what they are talking about.
This idea of proving God by technology is a case in point. What is technology? A known science. Clearly, we thought the known science of the universe was that it was geocentric. Clearly, even Genesis is organized after that view. But, was God really giving Moses an astronomy lesson, or just describing events from a perspective Moses understood by his limited observation; a geocentric view. Would Moses have understood the process of creation described from an omnipresent perspective that is God's? Not likely, but the point of observation was not the critical factor for Moses, but rather, the actions of the creative process themselves.
But, then we discovered that geocentrism was not the correct perspective of the universe; it's just our perspective that the rest of the universe in no way shares. Even the view from the Moon is obviously a different perspective, isn't it? Should God have used that view? or, more to the point, should we discount the Genesis description just because we have disproven the geocentric perspective? Except we have not really done that, have we? We still have that perspective, even while knowing it is not the "absolute" perspective. Get's us to an impossible discussion of the absolute of reality, but only because our perspective is, after all, limited.
Thus, we are given to understand that perspective is not the most important factor, that truth has more important matters of sustenance. More important than our technology, too, because that, as reality, is limited, as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
I repeat:
Who said technology is supposed to prove God?
Created: