http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4?format=rss Tribe.net. Local Connections http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#53f67558-277d-4d6f-a172-b99ca509dcf3 Visitors to the present message board let us observe whether or not Dan will give straight , direct answers to the follow up questions in the post shown above ? Will he answer all of them directly without swerving them or will he continue to swerve ? As people sometimes type in internet parlance : bump ! Tue, 21 Jul 2009 01:10:53 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#53f67558-277d-4d6f-a172-b99ca509dcf3 Jason Leary 2009-07-21T01:10:53Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#beaa3389-b8ae-4cec-876d-0512804e8033 Visitors to the present message board let us observe whether or not Dan will give straight , direct answers to the follow up questions in the post shown above ? Will he answer all of them directly without swerving them or will he continue to swerve ? Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:11:12 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#beaa3389-b8ae-4cec-876d-0512804e8033 Jason Leary 2009-07-20T23:11:12Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#638a349a-27f8-4618-b98f-10a26927fe75 DAN POSTED :I am starting to think that you are in love with your own "voice" Jason. Please learn to "say much in few words" RESPONSE: Brevity can sometimes be a drawback when there are a lot of issues to highlight . DAN POSTED :Sola scriptura? RESPONSE: No DAN POSTED :Wrong. Sola scriptura is implied throughout scripture. RESPONSE: Implied----(laughs) often when conservative evangelicasl/fundamentalists cannot find a scripture to back up some doctrine they support they turn to the "it's implied" routine ! They want us to think that "it's implied" even if the bible verses don't explictly say so"---just go ahead and read conservative evangelical presuppostions into the text ; it's allright we can just dress up those presuppositions by using words like "context" in some, broad, catch-all way . I'm quite dubious if someone says some notion is implied in scripture . Now I'm *not* claiming that you , Dan , would do the following so please don't misunderstand it as an accusation against you (I merely wish to show the potential danger in the it's implied routine) . But if someone came up to me and told me the notion that it was implied in the scripture that I should go to a town in Guyana and drink cool-aid with cyanide in it , I would tell them , 'The bible does NOT explictly teach that anywhere' and add , 'no thanks .' "man shall not live on bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." RESPONSE: That verse shown above does NOT state that words outside the Western Canon of the Bible cannot also proceed from the mouth of God . It does not state that doctrines should only be based on the bible . DAN POSTED :No traditions, teachings or extrabiblical writings which contradict the bible can be true and the bible is sufficient for equipment man for every good work. Why do you insist upon using straw men fallacies? The issue is not the consistancy of evangelicals on the subject but whether this doctrine is implied in scripture, and of course, it is. RESPONSE: It is not a straw man fallacy at all I'm using. I wish to highlight how there are severe *internal contradictions* in the theologies of many conservative evangelicals in terms of the way they treat doctrines such as sola scriptura and the notion of inerrancy . For example , the term "age of accountibilty" is nowhere found in any of the verses of the Bible , and yet many conservative evangelicals propose the notion that there is some age of accountibility where if a child dies before that chronological age that God automatically considers them "saved" or does not hold them accountible for any sins they may have committed . When somebody asks them: where in the bible it teaches anything about the "age of accountibility", they fail to find a prooftext of scripture to back up that doctrine and may have to resort to the "it's implied" routine . As for the doctrine of sola scripture , there are scriptures in the bible that present serious problems for the doctrine of sola scriptura . One of the letters to Timothy refers to men named 'Jannes' and 'Jambres' , stating they were 'men of corrupt minds which withstood Moses' . I challenge you to find anywhere in any of the books of the Old or New Testament that tells usa nything about men named Jannes or Jambres . Yet there are some extra-Biblical writings that were added as commentary to Old Testament verses by the ancient Jews ..they tended to be written in Aramaic --and they are called 'targums ' Those extra-biblical writings called 'targums' DO mention men like Jannes and Jambres . Also Paul , in the book of Acts , when he speaks to the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers on Mars Hill , quotes Greek philosophical poets apparently one of them was named Cleanthes , telling them statements like 'We are also his offspring' and 'In him we move live and have our being ' quoting those Greek philosophical poets, who are not elsewhere mentioned in the Bible, WITH APPROVAL for what they wrote .! The epistle called Jude, apparently quotes text found in the extra-biblical book of Enoch ,'Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints..' (Jude 1:14) There are Old Testament books that refer the reader to books outside the Bible (such as the book of Jashar) . "We are saved from sin through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and His resurrection . He is 'the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world" DAN POSTED :Very true, and who was Jesus? Is he diety? the Creator of the Universe? RESPONSE: Indeed he is . The messiah. The only incarnation of the Divine Logos . The Son of Man .The Redeemer . The only incarnation of God the Son :the second member of the Trinity . And yes he was the means by which God created the universe ---and any other ones out in the vast plenum of space and time . DAN POSTED :You decry Tim LaHaye for writing a novel loosly based upon biblical prophecy, RESPONSE : Darn right I do . Taking the prophetic books of the bible as fodder for voyeuristic entertainemnt, is yuppie era paganism of a vile sort ! As you yourself report it is 'loosely based' . Jim Jones and The Manson Family could get fast and loose with proclamations using imagery taken from the bible too . As could the Klan . DAN POSTED :You are way off and write recklessly. You come onto a forum of atheists and pagan fools and push forward an agenda of splitting hairs over non essential doctrines of the Christian faith, which would only further confuse the foolish souls present here. Get a grip man, no one cares about your pet peeves. RESPONSE: First of all , how do you know that such splitting hairs would confuse the people here in the forum .? Secondly, it is a lazy mind that *refuses* to split hairs. Glossing over thin distinctions is always wrong. Having some "happy medium", in the middle between accuracy and ambiguity, is a lousy goal ! Jesus denounced the pharisees for NOT being accurate enough , for taking a broad, fast and loose , apporach that *glossed over* distinctions . Thirdly , how do you know that such doctrines of the Christian faith are "non-essential" --does the Bible itself explicitly tell us they are non -essential OR INSTEAD is it some evangelical writer or pastor that is telling you that the Bible somehow "implies" that such doctrines are "non-essential " ? Fourth , a crass , trendy pop culture where people follow secular, contemporary trends --especially people who give lip service to supposedly being against secular culture---is far more than a "pet peeve" . It shows a frightening LACK of integrity---an ANTI-integrity ! "Besides, isn't Tim La Haye in risk of getting plagues ?" DAN POSTED :no, he didn't write the book of mormon. He wrote a fictional account around what he believes to be a biblical truth. RESPONSE: So is Joseph Smith: author of the book of Mormon, guilty of violating the warning in Revelation 22:18 (about adding to the words of the prophecy of the book) by writing the book of Mormon ? Also *which parts* of the Left Behind books are fiction and which parts are Biblical truth .? Is the physical description of what Tim La Haye describes the mark of Beast will be in the Left Behind books (A) fiction OR (Z) Biblical Truth ? Which is it , Dan ? Why didn't Tim La Haye in addition to maybe having his editor or whoever write some blurb in the beginning about the events and persons in this book are fictional , go a step further and make a specific disclaimer as to stating that what he writes the mark of the beast will be in the book is a fictional ascription , and that the mark of the beast may not be what he Tim La Haye writes that it will be in the Left Behind books ? After all, some of the readers might be so impressionable as to take the way he depicts the mark of the Beast as what the mark of the Beast is . If Tim La Haye writes in the Left Behind books that , say, the mark of the beast might be some computer generated technology applied to a person's body , they might take that as what the book of Revelation actually teaches-- which it doesn't ...and not bother to read the book of Revelation itself to verify that claim ---thinking something like , "Well Tim La Haye's a great Christian leader , he's studied the bible and been a preacher of the gospel and so I can trust what he says about the mark of the beast." . Isn't there a risk in that prospect ? DAN POSTED :No where does he claim that these books are non fiction. They are essentiallly a gospel tract. RESPONSE: Now wait a minute , if your going to extoll sola scripture, then don't go getting NON-consistent with it . Why doesn't Tim La Haye teach the book of Revelation by just sticking with the text of the Bible, and publishing copies of the book of Revelation and/or giving them away to people ? Why does the book of Revelation need any help from books of admitted fiction like the Left Behind books ? Isn't the bible sufficient unto itself to teach people Biblical truth without any help from the exciting fiction of the Left Behind books ? Also , doesn't duty require for him to write a long disclaimer spelling out specifically which parts of the Left Behind series are fiction and which parts are not ?. If he were to have an editor (or somebody) write the blurb that reads something like , "The events in this book are fiction any similarities to persons living or dead is coincidental" ...well that wouldn't quite set matters right ...after all , Jesus certainly ain't fiction, Jesus is a noted historical figure .In contrast, fancy pants guy named Nicolai found in the Left Behind books, ain't a historical figure! Isn't it incumbent on Tim La Haye (when dealing with matters so weighty as the message of the book of Revelation) to spell out which parts of his books are fiction and which parts are *instead* Biblical narratives .? "Actually, I'm inclined to think that warning applied to copyists to dissuade them from physicaly changing the manuscript text of Revelation *through* written means ." DAN POSTED :then why have you blown so much hot air implying otherwise?! You are a piece of work jason. How old are you? 13? RESPONSE : Because I wish to highlight the internal contradiction in the beliefs of those conservative evanglicals, who do *not* limit the warning in Revelation about adding to the prophecy of the book to copyists additions and attribute to it a more a broad application and yet don't mind at all the way that Tim La Haye spin-doctors the book of Revelation with extra narratives not found in the text . I've even witnessed a number of Fundamentalists gloss over how the warning in Revelation 22:18 to the entire Bible when the wording of Revelation 22:18 applies the warning about adding words specifcally to Revelation itself , hence the phrase about adding to 'the prophecy of this book ' . A number of years ago , I witnessed a debate between a young earth creationist pundit adn an old-earth creationist (the latter happened to be an astronomer ). The old earth creationist had put forth some statement by means of spoken dialogue (he had NOT apparently changed the manuscript of Revelation with any copyist addition) and the young earth creatonist indicated that the old earth creationist in the debate was somehow going contrary to the warning in Revelation 22:18 (and to boot attributing the warning to the Bible as a whole rather than to the book of Revelation alone ) . Furthermore , I have a friend who is a conservative evangelical who (when he and I were having a discussion not that many years ago), I proposed that if Satan has free will then it is techically possible that Satan could choose to act in such a way so as *not* to fulfill the predictions about what he would do (e.g. it would be possible for Satan to choose to NOT sponsor a beast 666, NOT sponsor a false prophet , or nations coming to try and conquer Israel from the east and the like) In the course of the conversation with my evangelical friend , though he was inclined to think that would be a nice outcome , he indicated to me a worry he had that if he were to say such a scenario of Satan choosing not to do those activities mentioned in Revelation , that even the *spoken act* of agreeing to such an alternate scenario might go contrary to the warning in the book Of Revelation , and not just physically changing the manuscript . Thus , I have witnessed examples of conservative evangelicals who do not limit the warning in Revelation 22:18 to copyists physically changing the manuscript . So to answer the question you asked , I wish to point out the internal contradiction that would be if (1) .A conservative evangelical, who maintains the warning in Revelation 22:18 against adding to the prophecy of the book applies to *more* than just copyists changing the manuscript , but applies to other sorts of proposals being made concerning the events noted in the book of Revelation , including spoken messages and works of written print, proposals of purported events AND WHO ALSO BELIEVES (2) . That it is somehow okay for people like Tim La Haye to make proposals about the scenarios found in the book of Revelation , proposals that include fictious events and names NOT found in the text of the book of Revelation or anywhere else in the bible. Unless an evangelical *does* limit the warning in Revelation 22:18 strictly to physically changing the manuscript of Revelation with copyists additions, he or she is *not* being consistent with a larger interpetation of the warning , if they make an exception for Tim La Haye playing around with Revelation , spin doctoring it , merely because the evangelical happens to like the theology that Tim La Haye supports ! "But in light of how some evangelicals tend to claim that even in writing separate books or articles , or through spoken discourse , a person-- if they add on scenarios of supposed events not directly mentioned in Revelation or elsewhere in the Bible --can run afoul of the warning in Revelation 22:18 ---why won't they apply such warning to people like Tim La Haye ???" DAN POSTED :for the same reasons you stated above. They know the difference between copyist additions and avowed fictional works. RESPONSE: Again a number of evangelicals do not limit the interpretation of the warning in Revelation 22:18 to copyists' additions . DAN POSTED :You say you "admire the Weslyan and old school church of the Nazarene". These are the churches of my upbringing and are expressly evangelical, so in what sense are you not evangelical? "RESPONSE: Do you still belong to such churches ?" DAN POSTED :No RESPONSE: What denomination are you now afilliated with ? "By the way, i admire them in *some aspects* , inasmuch as I admire them for not assimilating to the secular world of sexiness , unlike other more yuppie minded Fundamentalists who subtly accept the sexiness of the milleu of contemporary pop culture , support globalist trade agreements , which run the danger of promoting the very one world economic system that (according to the interpretation of Bible prophecy that dispensationalists favor--will bring about the dominion of the Beast 666)--- on the grounds that such globalist economic trade can being about the mammon world of Economic competitiveness --prized by both the globalist conservatives and Clinton crowd ." DAN POSTED :well now, don't you feel better? You were to get out your entire world view in one run-on sentence! RESPONSE: Whether I feel better is not the issue here . The issue is: can you vindicate what beleifs you support by giving direct answers to questions or will you swerve the questions with broad, loose statements that are merely indirectly related to the focus of the questions ? (And please don't do like Loki does, and play the "Ive already answered the questions" sort of routine , when there are new questions---follow up questions that you have yet to answer to clarify in what sense you may have meant some statements ) . "At least the Wesleyans, and old style Church of the Nazarene, are more authentic in keeping with the rejection of the secular world ." DAN POSTED : you are wrong here and I speak from personal experience. The great apostacy has swept up the wesleyans and Nazarene as well. In addition, they have their own false doctrines... RESPONSE : Specifically how have they not resisted the secular world ? Furthermore , what doctrines of the Wesleyans and Chruch of the Nazarene do you allege are false ? "They apparently don't wear sexy shorts or skirts with slits and high heels --like the assimilated trendy , sorts of yuppie Fundamentalists do. They would not be inclined to talk about having a "sexy" new luxury car ." DAN POSTED :They are inclined to talk just like all other evangelicals... RESPONSE: Specifically how ? "I advocate a BACK TO JESUS approach to Christianity" DAN POSTED :Glad to hear it. Jesus is the center peace of Christianity, the Creator of the world. You should honor him. RESPONSE: Indeed he is . Everyone should honor him . I wish more of the conservative evangelicals would honor him more than they do Augustine of Hippo, or John Calvin, or Spurgeon , or J.N Darby and the Plymoth Bretheren, or Francis Schaeffer. I wish more of the evangelicals would honor Jesus more than they apparently honor the mammon goal of economic productivity with its status symbols and such . DAN POSTED :I wish you would honor him more than you denigrate others, many of who you don't know and you have not demonstrated to have a greater righteousness than they. RESPONSE: Jesus has a greater righteousness then those evangelicals I mentioned . He has a greater righteousness then secular postmodernists also (who like fundamentalists are okay with having internal contradictions in what they claim to believe) . Denigrating what they think is constructive criticism !. Zecheriah the Jewish prophet taught ,' 'Speak ye the truth every man to his neighbor , execute the judgement of truth and peace in your gates ' . DAN POSTED :Who your christian heroes are or not is not all that interesting to me. What clothes you prefer to wear or not wear is not interesting to me. This is a preference of yours since the bible doesn't condone or condemn t-shirts! "RESPONSE: Wait a minute didn't St. Paul exhort women in one of the epistles (I Corinthians, if memory serves righly) to keep their hair covered in church ? In those evangelical churches that believe in the inerrancy of every verse in scripture where the women do NOT keep their hair covered in church, aren't they being terribly NON-consistent with the doctrine of inerrancy ? Please answer directly with either a yes, no, I don't know , or maybe ...and then expound more if you like !" DAN POSTED :the doctrine fo the head covering is something we practice. It is not a core doctrine or something to denigrate other believers over as you do here. RESPONSE: Not a "core doctrine" . Whoa , whoa, whoa , talk about internal NON-consistency . If a scripture in the Bible that you maintain is inerrant tells people to do something, then how could it not be a core doctrine, if every verse of the Bible is inerrant ? I acknowledge that you report your church does comply with that teaching of St.Paul , but you are quite okay with thinking of other congregations as being fellow Christians when they intentionally *refuse* to do what St.Paul tells people to do in a scripture that you maintain is inerrant ? DAN POSTED :BTW, John Darby, whom you denigrate, was a proponent of scriptural head coverings as are the so-called "plymouth brethren". No group or denomination is perfectly in line with the bible, but this fact doesn't deny innerancy or sola scriptura. RESPONSE: "No group or denomination is perfectly in line with the bible" , Dan reports .. So you maintain that every verse of the Bible is inerrant , and yet you think that if fellow evangelicals that you consider Christian do *not* comply with what every verse of the bible teaches , as long as the Bbile scripture isn't a "core doctrine" , they can hang loose about *not* following that scripture , "not sweat it" ? Hmmmnnn. Sounds like y'all evangelicals are giving lip service to inerrancy , but still allowing a little bit of the liberty of treating the Bible as if it were errant on some points (without coming out and directly saying so) . "Also, wouldn't you find it inappropriate , if evangelical churches sent out girls wearing micro mini skirts and no underwear, to pass out Christian tracts ? I would find that inappropriate ....But you seem to think it doesn't matter whether the clothes might be that or this (does that apply to people decidign to get luridly contemporary and flash their bottoms in a salacious way and still claim to be Christians ?)" DAN POSTED :yes I would find this innapropriate, but this extreme example aside, there is room for much variety in terms of clothing and the bible doesn't require Amish garb and a hair bun for women. RESPONSE: Specifically how much variety in dress ?. What level of inches of hemline in a skirt is appropriate for an evangelical woman to wear ? DAN POSTED : What is interesting to me is have you trusted in Jesus' substitutionary death as payment for your sins? This Jason, is the bottom line as they say. "Incidentally , Dan, I'm still waiting for you to address the questions based on the scriptures I quoted to you in the earlier posts above. It is ironic that Fundamentalists who profess that they beleive that every verse of the scriptures are infalliable , are quite willing to gloss over what the specific Bible verses state --glossing it over with phrases like "the whole context" and other sorts of theological and exegetical gymnastics !" DAN POSTED :You will be waiting along time then as I have no intention of reading or commenting further to that post. It simply didn't interest me so I chose not to wade throught it. Essentially you hijacked a post of mine toward someone else, not you. I was not interested in addressing a lengthy dialogue with you on a topic tangential to my post. Obviously you have an axe to grind here, I don't. Believe me, If I read a post of yours which is interesting to me or in which I feel you not in line with scripture, I will be sure to let you know. Nor am I afraid to deal with your biblical exegesis unless of course your exegesis is really isogesis like John's or Wendy's nonsensical mis-interpretations. "RESPONSE: You leave people wondering" DAN POSTED :great, I suggest they write a novel about me. Make it a mystery... RESPONSE: Hmmn . what would they title it , 'Sherlock Holmes and the case of the conservative evangelical named Dan, who claims to base doctrines on the bible, and yet avoids questions that have Bible verses that might well refute what he maintains . ' A long title for a novel ! "You wouldn't want anyone to suspect that you are hiding the doctrines you support from the scrutiny of the questions , would you ?" DAN POSTED :the fear of man will prove to be a snare Jason. It is enough that I have stated that I accept the entire bible as Gods inspired word to man. I also find you to be an unbalanced nit picker. RESPONSE: If you have nothing to hide, and you have time to answer the questions, then you should answer them .Remember there was a time when Jesus asked the pharisees a question, they didn't want to answer it either . When Jesus asked the pharisees whether baptism of John was from heaven or of men , like you, they were disinclined to answer ! "First of all , tell us how the righteous acts of almsgiving for the Jews, PRIOR to meeting Peter / BEFORE being converted could have been considered filthy rags somehow supposedly *not* motivated by unselfish love and still ---as the angel said , ' come up for a memorial before God' BEFORE he even met Peter and BEFORE he converted to Christianity .?" DAN POSTED :"there are none righteous, none who seek for God, none who do right, not even one" selah RESPONSE : You didn't answer the question directly . How could the almsdeeds that the Roman soldier Cornelius did on behalf of the Jews come up 'as memorial before God' BEFORE he was converted by Peter, if Cornelius didn't have a truly righteous motive of unselfish love when he did them before he was even converted to Christianity ? RESPONSE: Do you interpet the bible as literal according to a consistent criteria ?. When Jesus said , 'if thy foot causeth thee to sin cut it off' , do you interpret that literally or do you say "oh no that one's an exception , that one is symbolic? ". Why is that one symbolic , if so ? Do you interpet the references to stars falling to earth from the sky, as mentioned in the book of Revelation, as literal suns (which is what literal stars in outer space are) OR instead do you claim that is just metaphors for meteors or fallen angels or something other than literal stars ? DAN POSTED :Jason, the criteria for consistently interpreting the bible is the basic rules of grammer. RESPONSE: List the specific rules of grammer that you are using as a criteria to interpret the bible and delineate them in detail !!!! DAN POSTED :If Jesus states metphorically that he is a "door", I need not believe that he is a slab of wood swinging upon two hinges. The context is clear that this is not literal. RESPONSE : Conservative evangelicals use the word "context" as an open ended , catch all term . Please delineate what *specific* rules you use to determine what the context is, as to literal or symbolic?, in Bible verses ? How do you know that Jesus didn't mean for a person to literally cut off their foot , if their foot causes them to sin ---how do you know that's not literal ? DAN POSTED :There is imagery in revelation which I am not sure of. RESPONSE: Does that include the imagery of many stars falling to earth ? DAN POSTED :I personally don't feel anyone knows the exact meaning of everything in scripture, just as the jews didn't know all of the prophecies concerning the comming Messiah. RESPONSE: Since you don't feel anyone knows the exact meaning of everything in scripture , would that purported lack of knowing apply to scripture verses , that the faction of evangelicals that you are affiliated with, claim to base doctrines on ? DAN POSTED :you are becoming a tedious pedantic bore. I guess you have usurped me in this regard.... RESPONSE: Since when is being pedantic something bad? Being pedantic is good . Being pedantic is accurate. Ironically now you are starting to sound like Loki.! He often reproaches me for being pedantic also ! Remember Jesus rebuked the pharisees for not being too accurate; for taking a fast and loose approach that *glossed over* fine distinctions ! Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:36:19 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#638a349a-27f8-4618-b98f-10a26927fe75 Jason Leary 2009-07-20T20:36:19Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#cda7a4d2-d0e6-450e-9175-b75a7d809f9f I am starting to think that you are in love with your own "voice" Jason. Please learn to "say much in few words" DAN POSTED :Sola scriptura? RESPONSE: No Wrong. Sola scriptura is implied throughout scripture. "man shall not live on bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." No traditions, teachings or extrabiblical writings which contradict the bible can be true and the bible is sufficient for equipment man for every good work. Why do you insist upon using straw men fallacies? The issue is not the consistancy of evangelicals on the subject but whether this doctrine is implied in scripture, and of course, it is. "We are saved from sin through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and His resurrection . He is 'the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world" Very true, and who was Jesus? Is he diety? the Creator of the Universe? DAN POSTED :You decry Tim LaHaye for writing a novel loosly based upon biblical prophecy, RESPONSE : Darn right I do . Taking the prophetic books of the bible as fodder for voyeuristic entertainemnt, is yuppie era paganism of a vile sort ! As you yourself report it is 'loosely based' . Jim Jones and The Manson Family could get fast and loose with proclamations using imagery taken from the bible too . As could the Klan . You are way off and write recklessly. You come onto a forum of atheists and pagan fools and push forward an agenda of splitting hairs over non essential doctrines of the Christian faith, which would only further confuse the foolish souls present here. Get a grip man, no one cares about your pet peeves. "Besides, isn't Tim La Haye in risk of getting plagues ?" no, he didn't write the book of mormon. He wrote a fictional account around what he believes to be a biblical truth. No where does he claim that these books are non fiction. They are essentiallly a gospel tract. "Actually, I'm inclined to think that warning applied to copyists to dissuade them from physicaly changing the manuscript text of Revelation *through* written means ." then why have you blown so much hot air implying otherwise?! You are a piece of work jason. How old are you? 13? "But in light of how some evangelicals tend to claim that even in writing separate books or articles , or through spoken discourse , a person-- if they add on scenarios or reports of events not directly mentioned in Revelation or elsewhere in the Bible --can run afoul of the warning in Revelation 22:18 ---why won't they apply such warning to people like Tim La Haye ???" for the same reasons you stated above. They know the difference between copyist additions and avowed fictional works. DAN POSTED :You say you "admire the Weslyan and old school church of the Nazarene". These are the churches of my upbringing and are expressly evangelical, so in what sense are you not evangelical? "RESPONSE: Do you still belong to such churches ?" No "By the way, i admire them in *some aspects* , inasmuch as I admire them for not assimilating to the secular world of sexiness , unlike other more yuppie minded Fundamentalists who subtly accept the sexiness of the milleu of contemporary pop culture , support globalist trade agreements , which run the danger of promoting the very one world economic system that (according to the interpretation of Bible prophecy that dispensationalists favor--will bring about the dominion of the Beast 666)--- on the grounds that such globalist economic trade can being about the mammon world of Economic competitiveness --prized by both the globalist conservatives and Clinton crowd ." well now, don't you feel better? You were to get out your entire world view in one run-on sentence! "At least the Wesleyans, and old style Church of the Nazarene, are more authentic in keeping with the rejection of the secular world ." you are wrong here and I speak from personal experience. The great apostacy has swept up the wesleyans and Nazarene as well. In addition, they have their own false doctrines... "They apparently don't wear sexy shorts or skirts with slits and high heels --like the assimilated trendy , sorts of yuppie Fundamentalists do. They would not be inclined to talk about having a "sexy" new luxury car ." They are inclined to talk just like all other evangelicals... "I advocate a BACK TO JESUS approach to Christianity" DAN POSTED :Glad to hear it. Jesus is the center peace of Christianity, the Creator of the world. You should honor him. RESPONSE: Indeed he is . Everyone should honor him . I wish more of the conservative evangelicals would honor him more than they do Augustine of Hippo, or John Calvin, or Spurgeon , or J.N Darby and the Plymoth Bretheren, or Francis Schaeffer. I wish more of the evangelicals would honor Jesus more than they apparently honor the mammon goal of economic productivity with its status symbols and such . I wish you would honor him more than you denigrate others, many of who you don't know and you have not demonstrated to have a greater righteousness than they. DAN POSTED :Who your christian heroes are or not is not all that interesting to me. What clothes you prefer to wear or not wear is not interesting to me. This is a preference of yours since the bible doesn't condone or condemn t-shirts! "RESPONSE: Wait a minute didn't St. Paul exhort women in one of the epistles (I Corinthians, if memory serves righly) to keep their hair covered in church ? In those evangelical churches that believe in the inerrancy of every verse in scripture where the women do NOT keep their hair covered in church, aren't they being terribly NON-consistent with the doctrine of inerrancy ? Please answer directly with either a yes, no, I don't know , or maybe ...and then expound more if you like !" the doctrine fo the head covering is something we practice. It is not a core doctrine or something to denigrate other believers over as you do here. BTW, John Darby, whom you denigrate, was a proponent of scriptural head coverings as are the so-called "plymouth brethren". No group or denomination is perfectly in line with the bible, but this fact doesn't deny innerancy or sola scriptura. "Also, wouldn't you find it inappropriate , if evangelical churches sent out girls wearing micro mini skirts and no underwear, to pass out Christian tracts ? I would find that inappropriate ....But you seem to think it doesn't matter whether the clothes might be that or this (does that apply to people decidign to get luridly contemporary and flash their bottoms in a salacious way and still claim to be Christians ?)" yes I would find this innapropriate, but this extreme example aside, there is room for much variety in terms of clothing and the bible doesn't require Amish garb and a hair bun for women. DAN POSTED : What is interesting to me is have you trusted in Jesus' substitutionary death as payment for your sins? This Jason, is the bottom line as they say. "Incidentally , Dan, I'm still waiting for you to address the questions based on the scriptures I quoted to you in the earlier posts above. It is ironic that Fundamentalists who profess that they beleive that every verse of the scriptures are infalliable , are quite willing to gloss over what the specific Bible verses state --glossing it over with phrases like "the whole context" and other sorts of theological and exegetical gymnastics !" DAN POSTED :You will be waiting along time then as I have no intention of reading or commenting further to that post. It simply didn't interest me so I chose not to wade throught it. Essentially you hijacked a post of mine toward someone else, not you. I was not interested in addressing a lengthy dialogue with you on a topic tangential to my post. Obviously you have an axe to grind here, I don't. Believe me, If I read a post of yours which is interesting to me or in which I feel you not in line with scripture, I will be sure to let you know. Nor am I afraid to deal with your biblical exegesis unless of course your exegesis is really isogesis like John's or Wendy's nonsensical mis-interpretations. "RESPONSE: You leave people wondering" great, I suggest they write a novel about me. Make it a mystery... "You wouldn't want anyone to suspect that you are hiding the doctrines you support from the scrutiny of the questions , would you ?" the fear of man will prove to be a snare Jason. It is enough that I have stated that I accept the entire bible as Gods inspired word to man. I also find you to be an unbalanced nit picker. "First of all , tell us how the righteous acts of almsgiving for the Jews, PRIOR to meeting Peter / BEFORE being converted could have been considered filthy rags somehow supposedly *not* motivated by unselfish love and still ---as the angel said , ' come up for a memorial before God' BEFORE he even met Peter and BEFORE he converted to Christianity .?" "there are none righteous, none who seek for God, none who do right, not even one" selah RESPONSE: Do you interpet the bible as literal according to a consistent criteria ?. When Jesus said , 'if thy foot causeth thee to sin cut it off' , do you interpret that literally or do you say "oh no that one's an exception , that one is symbolic? ". Why is that one symbolic , if so ? Do you interpet the references to stars falling to earth from the sky, as mentioned in the book of Revelation, as literal suns (which is what literal stars in outer space are) OR instead do you claim that is just metaphors for meteors or fallen angels or something other than literal stars ? Jason, the criteria for consistently interpreting the bible is the basic rules of grammer. If Jesus states metphorically that he is a "door", I need not believe that he is a slab of wood swinging upon two hinges. The context is clear that this is not literal. There is imagery in revelation which I am not sure of. I personally don't feel anyone knows the exact meaning of everything in scripture, just as the jews didn't know all of the prophecies concerning the comming Messiah. you are becoming a tedious pedantic bore. I guess you have usurped me in this regard.... Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:46:18 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#cda7a4d2-d0e6-450e-9175-b75a7d809f9f Dan 2009-07-19T13:46:18Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#730e1464-e7de-4fb0-b5a2-1875523a590e DAN POSTED :I don't think you have really addressed the core issues Jason. Where do you stand oI n salvation? Faith alone? about scripture? RESPONSE: Look I aked you questions first .Now you are trying to divert away from them . DAN POSTED :Sola scriptura? RESPONSE: No , the bible itself does NOT teach sola scriptura . 2 Timothy 3:16 does NOT lest you think that one is in support of that position, lest you should quote that one .Funny deal is-- though a lot of evangelicals claim to support sola scriptura --they have other doctrines that don't fit that doctrine they give lip service to . Take for example the notion of an "age of accountability " for children who die . Nowhere is that phrase or any synonymous phrase or term found anywhere in the Bible ! Sometimes when some evangelicals cannot find a verse in the bible-- to explicitly back up one of the doctrines they support--they resort to the "it's implied" routine . I hope you don't condone the use of that flimsy technique . We are saved from sin through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and His resurrection . He is 'the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world ' DAN POSTED :You decry Tim LaHaye for writing a novel loosly based upon biblical prophecy, RESPONSE : Darn right I do . Taking the prophetic books of the bible as fodder for voyeuristic entertainemnt, is yuppie era paganism of a vile sort ! As you yourself report it is 'loosely based' . Jim Jones and The Manson Family could get fast and loose with proclamations using imagery taken from the bible too . As could the Klan . DAN POSTED :yet Tim Lahay is a great Christian who has done a awesome service for the gospel in our generation, why slander him because you are not fond of the left behind series? RESPONSE : A man who goes to bed ---metaphorically speaking-- with the voyeuristic mammon world of lurid, pop entertainement by borrowing imagery culled from books of the bible , has NOT done an awesome service for Gospel . He has catered to voyeuristic desires for suspense , on behalf of credulous people wanting to be entertained with vicarious drama . Besides, isn't Tim La Haye in risk of getting plagues ?. After all , he has added on statements to the prophecy of the book hasn't he, through the novels where he gives names and extra information not found in the books of Revelation , Daniel and so on ? If a liberal theologian (or someone like that) were to write a novel taking imagery from the books of Revelation ,Daniel , and so on and add fictious extra names, places, and events along side references to the bible books and their imagery wouldn't you conservative evangelicals cry "foul" and say he was adding to the words of the book ? So why it is okay that Tim La Haye adds on fictious names , events, and places in the Left Behind Series and tries to portray such fictional material as pertaining to the events mentioned in Revelation ? Revelation 22:18 warns against adding to the prophecy of this book . It states, ' If any man shall add unto these things Gods shall add on to him the plagues that are written in this book " . Doesn't that warning apply to the authors of the Left Behind Series who have added on names like Nicolai and added a lot of content that isn't found in the bible ? Actually, I'm inclined to think that warning applied to copyists to dissuade them from physicaly changing the manuscript text of Revelation *through* written means . But in light of how some evangelicals tend to claim that even in writing separate books or articles , or through spoken discourse , a person-- if they add on scenarios or reports of events not directly mentioned in Revelation or elsewhere in the Bible --can run afoul of the warning in Revelation 22:18 ---why won't they apply such warning to people like Tim La Haye ??? DAN POSTED : I am not fond of it either, but I respect his committment to biblical truth and inspiration. To sum up, I know of Tim LaHaye and value his contributions, I don't know you are what you have brought to the table. RESPONSE: Since when is appealing to a voyeuristic desire for suspense ---anything congruent with biblical Truth ? DAN POSTED :You say you "admire the Weslyan and old school church of the Nazarene". These are the churches of my upbringing and are expressly evangelical, so in what sense are you not evangelical? RESPONSE: Do you still belong to such churches ? By the way, i admire them in *some aspects* , inasmuch as I admire them for not assimilating to the secular world of sexiness , unlike other more yuppie minded Fundamentalists who subtly accept the sexiness of the milleu of contemporary pop culture , support globalist trade agreements , which run the danger of promoting the very one world economic system that (according to the interpretation of Bible prophecy that dispensationalists favor--will bring about the dominion of the Beast 666)--- on the grounds that such globalist economic trade can being about the mammon world of Economic competitiveness --prized by both the globalist conservatives and Clinton crowd . At least the Wesleyans, and old style Church of the Nazarene, are more authentic in keeping with the rejection of the secular world . They apparently don't wear sexy shorts or skirts with slits and high heels --like the assimilated trendy , sorts of yuppie Fundamentalists do. They would not be inclined to talk about having a "sexy" new luxury car . One can admire them for having authenticity, in rejecting the contemporary secular lifeworld of pop culture , target marketing and such , regardless of whether one subscribes to other doctrinal notions they have in regard to eschatology and such . They're at least more authentic in rejecting contemporary secular pop culture then say an assimilated fundamentalist Baptists or other sort of trendies who , say , doesn't mind enjoying such fare as Desperate Housewives on t.v. , or might say that Christian women like Sarah Palin are "sexy" -- while at the same time giving cant about the "sanctity of marriage", in the sort of moribund way a politician might . "I advocate a BACK TO JESUS approach to Christianity" DAN POSTED :Glad to hear it. Jesus is the center peace of Christianity, the Creator of the world. You should honor him. RESPONSE: Indeed he is . Everyone should honor him . I wish more of the conservative evangelicals would honor him more than they do Augustine of Hippo, or John Calvin, or Spurgeon , or J.N Darby and the Plymoth Bretheren, or Francis Schaeffer. I wish more of the evangelicals would honor Jesus more than they apparently honor the mammon goal of economic productivity with its status symbols and such . DAN POSTED :Who your christian heroes are or not is not all that interesting to me. What clothes you prefer to wear or not wear is not interesting to me. This is a preference of yours since the bible doesn't condone or condemn t-shirts! RESPONSE: Wait a minute didn't St. Paul exhort women in one of the epistles (I Corinthians, if memory serves righly) to keep their hair covered in church ? In those evangelical churches that believe in the inerrancy of every verse in scripture where the women do NOT keep their hair covered in church, aren't they being terribly NON-consistent with the doctrine of inerrancy ? Please answer directly with either a yes, no, I don't know , or maybe ...and then expound more if you like ! Also, wouldn't you find it inappropriate , if evangelical churches sent out girls wearing micro mini skirts and no underwear, to pass out Christian tracts ? I would find that inappropriate ....But you seem to think it doesn't matter whether the clothes might be that or this (does that apply to people decidign to get luridly contemporary and flash their bottoms in a salacious way and still claim to be Christians ?) DAN POSTED : What is interesting to me is have you trusted in Jesus' substitutionary death as payment for your sins? This Jason, is the bottom line as they say. RESPONSE: I believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead to redeem us from sin . I beleive that Jesus is the suffering servant found in Isaiah 53 . However, I would interpret the atonement mentioned in Isaiah 53 differentyl then the vicarious penal theory, that has been advocated by some . In the narrative found in Isaiah chapter 53 where it reports of God's disposition towards the sufferring servant by saying , 'It pleased him to bruise him ', I would not interpet that to mean that God was angry and got some sort of visceral satisfaction by seeing physical pain inflicted on Jesus . God's wrath is different from the wrath of man, inasmuch as it involves moral outrage , not a desire for visceral satisfaction from physical pain . God the Father is purely Spirit ...He is NOT visceral at all , and so would not get visceral satisfaction from pain being inflicted on anyone . So I would interpret that verse to mean that God was pleased that Jesus the suffering servant was able to remain faithful / loyal to God despite suffering and , thus , act as a proxy represenative for fallen humanity in having a human (as well as a divine) nature . Jesus reconciles mankind to God NOT by being someone that God takes out his anger on and gets satified by seeing Jesus in pain to satisfy some visceral desire for vicarious retribution . Instead , Jesus remains faithful to God in the midst of apparent despair of wondering if he had been forsaken by God The Father and , thus , displays on behalf of mankind perfect faith in the father --thus undoing the sin of the first humans which fell from grace . He also reconciles us to God by defeating death . "Incidentally , Dan, I'm still waiting for you to address the questions based on the scriptures I quoted to you in the earlier posts above. It is ironic that Fundamentalists who profess that they beleive that every verse of the scriptures are infalliable , are quite willing to gloss over what the specific Bible verses state --glossing it over with phrases like "the whole context" and other sorts of theological and exegetical gymnastics !" DAN POSTED :You will be waiting along time then as I have no intention of reading or commenting further to that post. It simply didn't interest me so I chose not to wade throught it. Essentially you hijacked a post of mine toward someone else, not you. I was not interested in addressing a lengthy dialogue with you on a topic tangential to my post. Obviously you have an axe to grind here, I don't. Believe me, If I read a post of yours which is interesting to me or in which I feel you not in line with scripture, I will be sure to let you know. Nor am I afraid to deal with your biblical exegesis unless of course your exegesis is really isogesis like John's or Wendy's nonsensical mis-interpretations. RESPONSE: You leave people wondering if you are hiding the notions you support from the questions . I quoted Bible scriptures, that apparently refute the conservative evangelical doctines you support. They are scriptures that could leave readers wondering if the verses you cited should be perhaps interpreted differently . If that is not the case and the scriptures I quoted from the Bible, with the questions asked about them, do not pose any problems for the conservative evangelical doctrines you support , then you would face up to the questions and address them (when you have time to do so) and, thus, remove all doubt that you are hiding the notions you support from the questions . You wouldn't want anyone to suspect that you are hiding the doctrines you support from the scrutiny of the questions , would you ? First of all , tell us how the righteous acts of almsgiving for the Jews, PRIOR to meeting Peter / BEFORE being converted could have been considered filthy rags somehow supposedly *not* motivated by unselfish love and still ---as the angel said , ' come up for a memorial before God' BEFORE he even met Peter and BEFORE he converted to Christianity .? DAN POSTED :I believe in the fundamental core teachings of evangelical Christianity but I am not a "fundamentalist". (The terminology is used loosely on tribe for those who believe in the bible as literal truth, which I do.) . RESPONSE: Do you interpet the bible as literal according to a consistent criteria ?. When Jesus said , 'if thy foot causeth thee to sin cut it off' , do you interpret that literally or do you say "oh no that one's an exception , that one is symbolic? ". Why is that one symbolic , if so ? Do you interpet the references to stars falling to earth from the sky, as mentioned in the book of Revelation, as literal suns (which is what literal stars in outer space are) OR instead do you claim that is just metaphors for meteors or fallen angels or something other than literal stars ? Do you interpet the references in Ezekiel to Gog of Magog , coming to try to conquer Israel by sending armies against a superpower like Israel , armies that are on horseback .? Pssst....A military superpower could easily make mincemeat of an army on horseback literally or is the part about horses symbolic for 21 century transport vehicles ? . The Israeli could easily destroy an army on horseback with nerve gas , cluster bombs , tank fire ect. ? Would a military nation like Russia, or whoever lately the dispensationalists are claiming Gog of Magog is , would be so tactically stupid as to attempt a siege of a hi tech military superpower like Israel, with enough nukes and other weapons to kill any of the people in the country of Gog of Magog, by sending a calvary on horseback ? Do you take the part about Gog of Magog coming against Isreal, as a land of unwalled villages , when Isreal today has a quite solid wall separating them from the Palestinian territories ? Do you take the part in the Ezekiel prophecy literally, where it refers to the people of Israel using the wood weapons from Gog of Magog as firewood for 7 years ? Hello ---in contemporary Israel they have contemporary techniques for cooking and heating the residences and kibbutzes of people , so why would they need firewood from wooden weapons in Israel ? ? ? ? Sun, 19 Jul 2009 06:38:24 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#730e1464-e7de-4fb0-b5a2-1875523a590e Jason Leary 2009-07-19T06:38:24Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#b8bf42b0-d4b0-421d-af72-d82c946f5bad I don't think you have really addressed the core issues Jason. Where do you stand on salvation? Faith alone? about scripture? Sola scriptura? You decry Tim LaHaye for writing a novel loosly based upon biblical prophecy, yet Tim Lahay is a great Christian who has done a awesome service for the gospel in our generation, why slander him because you are not fond of the left behind series? I am not fond of it either, but I respect his committment to biblical truth and inspiration. To sum up, I know of Tim LaHaye and value his contributions, I don't know you are what you have brought to the table. You say you "admire the Weslyan and old school church of the Nazarene". These are the churches of my upbringing and are expressly evangelical, so in what sense are you not evangelical? "I advocate a BACK TO JESUS approach to Christianity" Glad to hear it. Jesus is the center peace of Christianity, the Creator of the world. You should honor him. Who your christian heroes are or not is not all that interesting to me. What clothes you prefer to wear or not wear is not interesting to me. This is a preference of yours since the bible doesn't condone or condemn t-shirts! What is interesting to me is have you trusted in Jesus' substitutionary death as payment for your sins? This Jason, is the bottom line as they say. "Incidentally , Dan, I'm still waiting for you to address the questions based on the scriptures I quoted to you in the earlier posts above. It is ironic that Fundamentalists who profess that they beleive that every verse of the scriptures are infalliable , are quite willing to gloss over what the specific Bible verses state --glossing it over with phrases like "the whole context" and other sorts of theological and exegetical gymnastics !" You will be waiting along time then as I have no intention of reading or commenting further to that post. It simply didn't interest me so I chose not to wade throught it. Essentially you hijacked a post of mine toward someone else, not you. I was not interested in addressing a lengthy dialogue with you on a topic tangential to my post. Obviously you have an axe to grind here, I don't. Believe me, If I read a post of yours which is interesting to me or in which I feel you not in line with scripture, I will be sure to let you know. Nor am I afraid to deal with your biblical exegesis unless of course your exegesis is really isogesis like John's or Wendy's nonsensical mis-interpretations. I believe in the fundamental core teachings of evangelical Christianity but I am not a "fundamentalist". (The terminology is used loosely on tribe for those who believe in the bible as literal truth, which I do.) Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:35:45 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#b8bf42b0-d4b0-421d-af72-d82c946f5bad Dan 2009-07-19T02:35:45Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#a685c556-00ed-44cd-ba85-08d568641787 You can boo hoo and call it "unsupported" - whatever that means, coming from you I assume 'not written in a retarded Bible Science glossy 8-page magazine for children' - but anyone familiar with the science in question (such as marketing strategists and economists) knows that people committed to their beliefs are unable to reason that their beliefs are bullshit. The more unrealistic the belief, the greater the need for self-delusion, the greater the denial, the more complicated the internal logic of cognitive dissonance. > I agree completely this is why Atheist are usually very intellegent. It takes some brain power to wrap ones self up in that much denial. Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:33:52 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#a685c556-00ed-44cd-ba85-08d568641787 John 2009-07-19T02:33:52Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#f1f4a372-b011-400d-bced-191cd247fcd8 DAN POSTED :I don't know Jason, but from what I have seen so far, he doesn't hold to an evangelical christian position. So I can see why you would like him. RESPONSE: No, I don't hold to that postion exactly . Hey, what can I say---I truly love Jesus / love his teachings ...love the way he healed the ear of the man who illegally arrested him ...I love Jesus of Nazareth : the Jewish carpenter rabbi who said radical , anti-establishent stuff like the meek shall inherit the earth (borrowed from a radical Psalm ) .. I advocate a BACK TO JESUS approach to Christianity ---free from the the pollution of those who Jesus doesn't require any help from ---free from the weird and often inconsistent teachings of Agustine of Hippo, John Calvin , Charles Spurgeon , J.N Darby , Jerry Fallwell, Francis Schaeffer , that pulp fiction author Tim La Haye and so on . I also happen to be very staunchly ANTI-abortion , so perhaps we would have common ground on that . Provided you ain't one of those pro-choice conservatives ...and there are some like Horowitz . I also happen to be quite anti-sexuality ..quite a puritancal Victorian era throwback ---that is one of the reasons Loki often calls me a "bigot" and disagrees with what I post (on many matters) As far as Fundamnetalists go , I can at least to some extent admire the Wesleyan and old school church of Nazarene , the ones where the women wear dresses down to their ankles and the men might wear bow ties . At least , they aree more authentic to not being partway assimilated to the secular culture they decry --- at least they are more authentic with rejection --- UNlike the yuppie-like Fundamentalist Baptists and so on ---who wear Christian t-shirts , watch the suspenseful movies based on the pulkp fiction of Tim La Haye (which adds words to the prophecy of the book of Revelation! ) , like sexy luxury cars , and misconstrue the the verse about the marriage bed being undefiled to the effect of misinterpreting it towards supporting hideous , unspeakable filth like sodomy and fellatio --as if doign such carnal trash were somehow okay if it is done under the cover of marriage . Incidentally , Dan, I'm still waiting for you to address the questions based on the scriptures I quoted to you in the earlier posts above. It is ironic that Fundamentalists who profess that they beleive that every verse of the scriptures are infalliable , are quite willing to gloss over what the specific Bible verses state --glossing it over with phrases like "the whole context" and other sorts of theological and exegetical gymnastics ! Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:41:54 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#f1f4a372-b011-400d-bced-191cd247fcd8 Jason Leary 2009-07-18T17:41:54Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#482a7ade-8759-47a3-9627-99458f4900de Loki: Committed believers are *pathologically* unable to perceive their own inability to reason - it's as true now as it was when you failed to comprehend it originally; psychiatrists and psychologists know the effect well - but you can't be held to too stern an account for it, as you are more than normally dimwitted for a committed believer in ridiculous fantasies, such as the "Dan is a science teacher" lie or the "Dan is a Christian" comedy. define committed believer Loki cite peer referenced papers in support of your thesis cite any rebuttals to those papers which exist in the literature Please note that your statements are self refuting. "dan christian comedy" vs "dimwitted for a committed believer" We will all wait anxiously for your reply here. Once again, why do you care about whether or not I am lieing? Why is this a value of yours? If I am a liar, on what basis do you judge me? And how do you prove I was not a science teacher, especially since I have posted the relevent documentation supporting my claim, while you offer no support for your contention. Do you know who Ken Blackwell is? His wife, Rosa, was my principle for 6 years. If you feel so inclined, check my claims out. "You can boo hoo and call it "unsupported" - whatever that means" It means Loki that nothing you say is ever supported by anything other than words. This has always been true of you. For some reason people often honor IQ over world view. Yet the Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom. This means you have no wisdom, you have nothing but decent wit and a vocabulary. Yet you are still a fool (no insult intended). Personally, I would like to see you wise up, but time is running out and I see no indication or willingness to change on your part. "coming from you I assume 'not written in a retarded Bible Science glossy 8-page magazine for children' - but anyone familiar with the science in question (such as marketing strategists and economists) knows that people committed to their beliefs are unable to reason that their beliefs are bullshit." It doesn't matter if they do or don't realize it. What matters is if their beliefs are really BS or not. Stating that the world revolves around the sun is bullshit and those who believe it cannot see their own fallacious reasoning is silly. And your arguments hold up about as well as that. You must demonstrate that those beliefs are unfounded, which you have not. I don't see anywhere that you have tried. Stating things like "anyone familiar with the science in question" is a foolish generalization for which you have no supporting documentation. It has the sound of an argument, but rings hollow to thinking people. Try making a coherant argument. "The more unrealistic the belief, the greater the need for self-delusion, the greater the denial, the more complicated the internal logic of cognitive dissonance." Now you add a qualifier, "unrealistic". This adjective helps your argument. But we still need to know why such and such a belief in question is actually "unrealistic". For example, I find abiogenesis to be an "unrealistic belief". I can back up my claim by citing numerous scientists who agree such as Sir Fred Hole, Dr. Dean Kenyon etc.. All were committed evolutionists who believed unrealistically that such a notion was possible. Neither do now (Hoyle of course is passed away). I can also review the probability studies with you, the origin of life experiements etc. which I think are clear that such a belief has no real merit. Yet my guess is that you will continue to believe in this, regardless of the soundness of my arguments because of your own self delusion. So in the case of abiogensis, you are a committed believer! Now I am more than willing to debate you on my debate tribe where you attempt to prove with supporting documentation that the bible is a fairy tale without any corroborative support.I would welcome the opportunity Loki. We can post this for all to see on tribe and let them judge who offers the best argument and who doesn't. My guess is you will not do this because you are not a details man. You don't like to get down and dirty. You are a hit and run artist. But the offer is open should you decide to take me up on it. "You were a *perfect* example, Dan, until J Leary came around. Now you're obsolete." who is J Leary? "We don't need you anymore and you should go now; Jason does a better job of being that symbol than you do - probably because he's not a liar." Yet you have demonstrated no lies in me. And neither do you have any basis for making moral judgments like this without first embrace biblical morality. What a quandary you are in? I don't know Jason, but from what I have seen so far, he doesn't hold to an evangelical christian position. So I can see why you would like him. That hardly proves that he is not a liar, or that I am. But my views are my own, and they are never obsolete. Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:02:20 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#482a7ade-8759-47a3-9627-99458f4900de Dan 2009-07-18T15:02:20Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#7333d273-0f0a-4dc8-9de8-063db2a48c6d >>you must borrow from Biblical Christianity's world view that a logical sentient Creator created the world as described in scripture<< "what?!? you've lost what little of your mind there was to begin with. You don't even know what you're typing out anymore; you're incoherent." you didn't demonstrate any incoherence here. "Deflect away, Dan. You can pretend all you like that there's something left to discuss - that you have anything authoritative left to say on this or any other topic, that you have interesting opinions, that you're not going to burn in the Lake of Fire when when your name is not found writ in the Book - but all that is settled." More borrowing from Christianity to make your non point Loki. Do you have no shame? Wait, don't answer that! "Trying to find some explanation for your own worthlessness within inept examination of the religion of another is pointless, evasive, doesn't impress God." All people have worth Loki, even you, though you squander it. Impressing God is not a worthy goal. Honoring him is. "You might have had some relevant input to contribute years ago - but now, you've nothing at all left to say, and so you thrill that Loki spares for you a little attention. Pathetic, and vile." so you really do think of yourself that highly huh? Amazing:-) Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:37:20 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#7333d273-0f0a-4dc8-9de8-063db2a48c6d Dan 2009-07-18T14:37:20Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#a966a3eb-e709-4af6-8868-c1ece7b278fe Committed believers are *pathologically* unable to perceive their own inability to reason - it's as true now as it was when you failed to comprehend it originally; psychiatrists and psychologists know the effect well - but you can't be held to too stern an account for it, as you are more than normally dimwitted for a committed believer in ridiculous fantasies, such as the "Dan is a science teacher" lie or the "Dan is a Christian" comedy. You can boo hoo and call it "unsupported" - whatever that means, coming from you I assume 'not written in a retarded Bible Science glossy 8-page magazine for children' - but anyone familiar with the science in question (such as marketing strategists and economists) knows that people committed to their beliefs are unable to reason that their beliefs are bullshit. The more unrealistic the belief, the greater the need for self-delusion, the greater the denial, the more complicated the internal logic of cognitive dissonance. You were a *perfect* example, Dan, until J Leary came around. Now you're obsolete. We don't need you anymore and you should go now; Jason does a better job of being that symbol than you do - probably because he's not a liar. Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:21:58 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#a966a3eb-e709-4af6-8868-c1ece7b278fe Lokifreign 2009-07-17T17:21:58Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#26057100-1003-4438-85d7-367db21ac1e0 You mistake natural disgust for some sort of emotional investment, likely because no one loves you, and because you're confused by peoples' feelings / lack thereof. >>you must borrow from Biblical Christianity's world view that a logical sentient Creator created the world as described in scripture<< what?!? you've lost what little of your mind there was to begin with. You don't even know what you're typing out anymore; you're incoherent. Deflect away, Dan. You can pretend all you like that there's something left to discuss - that you have anything authoritative left to say on this or any other topic, that you have interesting opinions, that you're not going to burn in the Lake of Fire when when your name is not found writ in the Book - but all that is settled. Trying to find some explanation for your own worthlessness within inept examination of the religion of another is pointless, evasive, doesn't impress God. You might have had some relevant input to contribute years ago - but now, you've nothing at all left to say, and so you thrill that Loki spares for you a little attention. Pathetic, and vile. Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:05:43 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#26057100-1003-4438-85d7-367db21ac1e0 Lokifreign 2009-07-17T17:05:43Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#56eaaa01-9994-4fe0-8aca-fc7216efc97c I read and replied to the last sentence. Go back and fact check yourself. Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:46:56 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#56eaaa01-9994-4fe0-8aca-fc7216efc97c Dan 2009-07-17T14:46:56Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#872638c4-86ea-4eb3-b891-0c547720bc64 Response : How do you know that human consciousness cannot be defined absolutely or objectively ? (If you make the facile sort of response that one fears you might that because we are subjective as humans ---then the question would be how do you know that the use of the right methodology when thoroughly applied wouldn't purge people of subjectivity as long as they are applying that methodology thoroughly ?) > JOHN POSTED :Talk about lateral thinking! RESPONSE: You love to do the switcharoo . It is you , John) that has been doing lateral thinking since near the beginning of the debate exchanges we have had . I have been trying to teach you careful, consistent, linear thinking (aka deductive logic) <Response: Will if beleifs have an idependent existence apart from us then they are NOT part of us not part of our identity .> JOHN ASKED :Why? RESPONSE : Because if they are independent then such ontological independence shos that they can exist without us .And to say that some item can exist without us and yet is somehow still part of us is a contradiction in terms ! JOHN POSTED :The problem is that we maintain an illusion of self, which is just that. RESPONSE: Please elaborate . <When a particular person discovers and expresses a belief they express a type that subsits already in the abstract (the network mentioned above) . The particular *act of expression* of a person expressing a belief is like a token of that type of belief> John Posted :Again just supporting what I have said. RESPONSE: How the does it support what you said ???? Response: How does the statement in the exceprt shown above support what you've said ? I hope you are NOT doing some weird postmodern 'thinking outside the box' thinking that has become so popular in this present weird era !> JOHN POSTED :You just explained how a belief or spirit moves from one person to another. RESPONSE: How in the world would that be the interpetation of what I posted above. What corner of la la land does the cogitation you do come from ? <He has written more at length on the topic and for me to do it the most comprehensive dissertation would take a heck of a lot of typing ! > JOHN POSTED : Its a redirection, a logical fallacy, if said authors made an argument worth a shit you should be able to at least repeat them, more then likely they simply said a bunch of stuff that you did not understand and therefore thought that it was intelligent. RESPONSE: It would take a lot of typing to paraphrase . To find enough of the relevant texts to make copy and paste might have well taken a lot of time and searching through websites and yours truly was too sleepy that afternioon or evening . Response: Within Christianity there are different theological and doctrinal factions which disagree with one another . A Lutheran , for example, is not going to have the same doctrine on all points as Southern Baptist , or a Pentecostal or a Wesleyan , or a member of the Moravian Bretheren . I've seen debates on the internet between the various factions of premillenialist dispensational theology (such as pre-tribulationists and post tribulationists who have often gotten quite hostile to the other factions (----even accusing the other factions within dispensational Protestantism of being something like emissaries of Satan and so on ) . So unless you posit that only the Christian sects whose members each and every one have identical beliefs on all points of doctrine then the example at the present time fails as an example of people whose individuality is somehow illusionary and are really ontologically the same entity. Granted in some era in the ages of ages they may indeed receive more of a unification , right now there being some "common denominator" of beliefs among Christians does not negate the individuality of the persons enough to make them LITERALLY one entity . > JOHN POSTED :No man made religion represents Christianity, it is the collection of people who truly love God and they are dispersed and hidden like leaven amongst the grain. RESPONSE: Does that group of people you reference include those who are in any noted sects who have various names ? <Response: NOT in light of the insights just mentioned> JOHN POSTED :I agree you have done more to support my arguments then to dispell them. RESPONSE : Specifically how ???? <Response: Words are symbolic patterns which are used to signify patterns of concept or in some cases individual concepts . In what sense are principles, logic , ect energy ? Do you maintain that they are energy in the same way as electricity , magnetism ect ? The term'energy' often gets used a lot in the present era to refer to any factor that causes an effect...but a more specific attempt at defining how you are using it is in order . Not merely a description but a definition . > JOHN POSTED :Yes, all energy is basically an intangible force know through its interactions. Take electricity for example an invisible force moves electrons from atom to atom. We can measure it based on the electrons, but the energy itself is intangible. Love is also an energy it is measured by the actions it creates in living things. Evolution is dependant on it. and at its base it is the same intangible invisible force that electricity is. E-MC^2 even matter is just another form of this intangible force. RESPONSE: So now you are equivocating with the word 'energy' ! . It figures that you would do that , since you engage in lateral thinking ! You take qualitatively different uses of the word energy ---applying to qualitatively different forces and then because they all use the same word energy gloss over the SEPARATE CONTEXTS in whcih the word is uded. You try to conflate the energy of willpower/ the energy of attention ---witht the completely separate context of energy like the electrical energy in the body ! Take a logic course partner . Equivocation in discourse is always wrong ! <Just because some item has some sort of effect on another item ...merely because one item has a causal relation with another item ---does NOT mean that the items are the same; neither does it mean that they are in any way part of each other. Consider the following example . When the wind blows across the sensors on a machine for measuring wind speed it has a causal effect on the machine that is registered by monitors on the machine , that does NOT mean that the wind is part of the machine, merely because it has some relation to it ! > JOHN POSTED :I don't see the comparison, if you can describe what exists of human consciousness after ideas, thoughts and feelings are removed then I would like to hear it. RESPONSE: A readiness to receive information . The pre-consciousness prior to thoughts , beleifs, and feelings are reflected in it is like unto a reflectiveness and a bare, waiting readiness . <I believe in God . Yet the belief in God, though understood by me, transcends me . > JOHN POSTED :Then perhaps you would consider the word of God: Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Gal 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, [doeth he it] by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. RESPONSE: How in the universe do you interpet those scriptures shown above to get to the notion that alleges that beliefs are part of the people that express them ? ? ? ? More lateral thinking from you ! Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:55:26 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#872638c4-86ea-4eb3-b891-0c547720bc64 Jason Leary 2009-07-16T21:55:26Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#754b91fa-2545-430a-b8d7-85b4115ad167 John: "if nothing spiritual exists then love is nothing more then a chemical reaction, which is certainly not worth dieing for, or even risking ones life for." That love is PURELY a chemical reaction (without spiritual significance) is iffy in itself - just because it is a chemical reaction doesn't mean that there isn't more to it without getting the spiritual involved (how about...emotional?). However, that it's not worth dying for or risking your life for is purely your opinion. I think, and I know I'm not alone in this, that love is DEFINITELY worth dying for (not in all situations, of course, but the most important to the given individual), with no hope/knowledge/expectation of any consciousness proceeding death (presuming of course, that the overall impact of your sacrifice would be beneficial). In fact, I'm not really sure what's so bad about that - if I'm not conscious, I can't feel, or think, or perceive anything. I can't even say it would suck not to feel good, because it wouldn't; I couldn't feel bad either. Depending on who you talk to, sacrificing your life isn't sacrificing much of anything at all. Everyone dies eventually anyway, and if there WAS an afterlife, than maybe it could be seen as an incredible sacrifice if you'd be doomed to eternal torture afterward, but if you were promised eternal paradise in return for "sacrificing" your life for someone else, well that's not much of a sacrifice at all. You're gaining a hell of a lot more than whoever you're "sacrificing" for. Stay tuned for a plot twist: Perhaps sacrificing one's life is only honorable in the case of those without family, friends, or people who care about them. If you were a loving husband, adoring father, trusted business partner, etc. and you sacrificed your life for another, you'd be leaving in your wake a great deal of grieving, pain, and further sacrifice at the hands of your loved ones to compensate for your absence. Perhaps our species only finds such sacrifice honorable so as to give those left behind something to be happy about, when really they've just lost an incredibly important and special person in their lives, oftentimes leaving them in debt, mental dis-ease, and creating unnecessary yet now unavoidable problems. It would only be honorable for someone without loved ones or an important job to sacrifice him/herself by serving the species in to ways: 1) preserving the life of a likely much more important person than themselves (family, job, etc.), and 2) eliminating themselves (a non-productive member of the species) from the gene pool, or at least eliminating their need for food, water and shelter, leaving it for a more productive member to partake of. When looking at it this way, self-sacrifice is only honorable when it is tied to instinctual benefit of the species, and a great deal more trouble, sacrifice and detriment when a productive member of the species selfishly takes their own life. Yes, I said selfishly - escaping this life either for the tranquility of eternal unconsciousness, or the pleasure of eternal paradise (or the comfort of another chance, as in reincarnation), and leaving pain, grief, debt, mental anguish, etc. in your wake is EXTREMELY selfish. Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:09:37 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#754b91fa-2545-430a-b8d7-85b4115ad167 Pinky 2009-07-16T18:09:37Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#a688801b-bc52-4b9b-b64a-b5ab72b24203 <I know that some animals OTHER than humans are ALSO capable of acting on "reason and logic" and not just biological instinct. So, yes? No? I'm not sure which > I would agree it is not a solely a human trait, but that was not my point, my point was that it doesn't matter if animals have a instinctive form of social morality, most of them can do no more then follow their instincts even if that instinct is detrimental to them as an individual. So given that people have the ability to choose based on logic, then what logic justifies self sacrifice, when the spiritual is not considered? if nothing spiritual exists then love is nothing more then a chemical reaction, which is certainly not worth dieing for, or even risking ones life for. Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:33:10 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#a688801b-bc52-4b9b-b64a-b5ab72b24203 John 2009-07-16T16:33:10Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#a68394e4-2990-4056-9bb8-8040a062f08c John: "would you agree that humans unlike animals have the ability to act on reason and logic and not simply at whims of their genetic coding?" I know that some animals OTHER than humans are ALSO capable of acting on "reason and logic" and not just biological instinct. So, yes? No? I'm not sure which answer better suits what you're looking for in that. Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:06:26 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#a68394e4-2990-4056-9bb8-8040a062f08c Pinky 2009-07-16T06:06:26Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#b5519d5e-a191-471c-b17f-d0cfaf2e4525 Response : How do you know that human consciousness cannot be defined absolutely or objectively ? (If you make the facile sort of response that one fears you might that because we are subjective as humans ---then the question would be how do you know that the use of the right methodology when thoroughly applied wouldn't purge people of subjectivity as long as they are applying that methodology thoroughly ?) > Talk about lateral thinking! <Response: Will if beleifs have an idependent existence apart from us then they are NOT part of us not part of our identity .> Why? The problem is that we maintain an illusion of self, which is just that. <When a particular person discovers and expresses a belief they express a type that subsits already in the abstract (the network mentioned above) . The particular *act of expression* of a person expressing a belief is like a token of that type of belief> John Posted :Again just supporting what I have said. Response: How does the statement in the exceprt shown above support what you've said ? I hope you are NOT doing some weird postmodern 'thinking outside the box' thinking that has become so popular in this present weird era !> You just explained how a belief or spirit moves from one person to another. <He has written more at length on the topic and for me to do it the most comprehensive dissertation would take a heck of a lot of typing ! > Its a redirection, a logical fallacy, if said authors made an argument worth a shit you should be able to at least repeat them, more then likely they simply said a bunch of stuff that you did not understand and therefore thought that it was intelligent. < Response: Within Christianity there are different theological and doctrinal factions which disagree with one another . A Lutheran , for example, is not going to have the same doctrine on all points as Southern Baptist , or a Pentecostal or a Wesleyan , or a member of the Moravian Bretheren . I've seen debates on the internet between the various factions of premillenialist dispensational theology (such as pre-tribulationists and post tribulationists who have often gotten quite hostile to the other factions (----even accusing the other factions within dispensational Protestantism of being something like emissaries of Satan and so on ) . So unless you posit that only the Christian sects whose members each and every one have identical beliefs on all points of doctrine then the example at the present time fails as an example of people whose individuality is somehow illusionary and are really ontologically the same entity. Granted in some era in the ages of ages they may indeed receive more of a unification , right now there being some "common denominator" of beliefs among Christians does not negate the individuality of the persons enough to make them LITERALLY one entity . > No man made religion represents Christianity, it is the collection of people who truly love God and they are dispersed and hidden like leaven amongst the grain. <Response: NOT in light of the insights just mentioned> I agree you have done more to support my arguments then to dispell them. <Response: Words are symbolic patterns which are used to signify patterns of concept or in some cases individual concepts . In what sense are principles, logic , ect energy ? Do you maintain that they are energy in the same way as electricity , magnetism ect ? The term'energy' often gets used a lot in the present era to refer to any factor that causes an effect...but a more specific attempt at defining how you are using it is in order . Not merely a description but a definition . > Yes, all energy is basically an intangible force know through its interactions. Take electricity for example an invisible force moves electrons from atom to atom. We can measure it based on the electrons, but the energy itself is intangible. Love is also an energy it is measured by the actions it creates in living things. Evolution is dependant on it. and at its base it is the same intangible invisible force that electricity is. E-MC^2 even matter is just another form of this intangible force. <Just because some item has some sort of effect on another item ...merely because one item has a causal relation with another item ---does NOT mean that the items are the same; neither does it mean that they are in any way part of each other. Consider the following example . When the wind blows across the sensors on a machine for measuring wind speed it has a causal effect on the machine that is registered by monitors on the machine , that does NOT mean that the wind is part of the machine, merely because it has some relation to it ! > I don't see the comparison, if you can describe what exists of human consciousness after ideas, thoughts and feelings are removed then I would like to hear it. <I believe in God . Yet the belief in God, though understood by me, transcends me . > Then perhaps you would consider the word of God: Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Gal 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, [doeth he it] by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. Thu, 16 Jul 2009 02:25:14 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#b5519d5e-a191-471c-b17f-d0cfaf2e4525 John 2009-07-16T02:25:14Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#ef51a38e-87e8-4e0e-8ea0-89bd3710f599 <John Poated :Its a working theory based on logic, that so far has no competeing models. Response: You've got to be joking. Lateral thinking/ equivocation is the height of ANTI-logic ! > There is nothing lateral about it, it is self evident like saying the sky is blue. <Response: Looks like I will have to post in the present thread the rebuttals I posted to those statements that you posted over at the Superbrain Forum message board as well as the original treatise debunking the ownership fallacy ! > LOL! I would think that you would be ashamed too, but okay. Thu, 16 Jul 2009 02:04:59 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#ef51a38e-87e8-4e0e-8ea0-89bd3710f599 John 2009-07-16T02:04:59Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#75efb185-d87b-4172-a85b-593012d007da <Then can we agree to disagree? Other social animals, with no spirituality, exhibit this communal self reward behavior just as easily as atheists. If you refuse to see that, fine. Just don't continue to try and fit me in your lonely little box anymore and we'll be peachy keen.> LOL! I think we have come full circle, would you agree that humans unlike animals have the ability to act on reason and logic and not simply at whims of their genetic coding? Thu, 16 Jul 2009 02:00:11 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#75efb185-d87b-4172-a85b-593012d007da John 2009-07-16T02:00:11Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#497d5614-6d0c-4ddd-9825-c000ef678721 If you're going to reply to me, you need to read what you're replying to. If you're not going to read what I have to say, then don't reply. If you want to reply, you'll need to read what you're replying to first. THAT would be a courtesy - anything else is rude. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise. Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:31:56 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#497d5614-6d0c-4ddd-9825-c000ef678721 Pinky 2009-07-16T00:31:56Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#3f29aea2-0bae-4342-bc12-0fed6c019ac7 I write what is important to me, if someone doesn't wish to read it they always have that right. I only let you know as a curtesy that I found it wearing and would not be reading it. Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:22:33 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#3f29aea2-0bae-4342-bc12-0fed6c019ac7 Dan 2009-07-15T20:22:33Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#e7ea0c77-c33a-4899-9a09-76d44dbc9c1e Dan: "I didn't bother to read this as it wearies the brain to read your illogic Pinky:" I can honestly say that I know EXACTLY what you mean. But wouldn't it be a damn shame if a pseudo-atheist like myself were to give you, a God-fearing Christian, more courtesy than you offer me? If I can wade through your bullshit you can sure as hell wade through mine. Take it like a man. Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:13:11 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#e7ea0c77-c33a-4899-9a09-76d44dbc9c1e Pinky 2009-07-15T20:13:11Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#ce7dea88-6240-46e2-88fa-c32ceb793f99 "You contend "Therefore, you have no basis for being "struck" by a person who values belief over love any more than you have a basis for judging any action, motive or conviction of any type." "Which is basically saying that you actually mean to insist, at this juncture, that you have found a logical reason why I should not judge you." You have stated it backwards. You have no reason to rely upon logic at all since you have no explanation for its existance. To argue that Love is more important than belief you must borrow from Biblical Christianity's world view that a logical sentient Creator created the world as described in scripture. This refutes your own position that the world was self created and you are the product of trillions of random mistakes. As such, you have no reason to rely upon any output of that mush you call your "brain". You have no basis to trust your senses and no real reason to know if my response to you is real or imagined, since all of this is based upon presuppositions which you have no basis for at all. I of course do, which is why I can say with conviction that you're nuts. "Hah! But I do, Dan; I judge you. You are an hypocritical moron and a liar." what does this mean to a person who rejects the bible? Answer, nothing at all. You have no basis for considering lieing bad, or truth telling good. You have no objective morality at all. So anything you say regarding values is suspect and can be dismissed, which I do. "You only *pretend* that belief is that important to you. You *have* no belief, though - no sincere belief in your professed mythologies, no belief in Christ, no love of God. If you had, you'd trust in your God, you'd abide in your Christ's word and act as a witness. You fail this *not* because you are wicked (beside the point), but because you are simply and innately hypocritical, cretinous, and dishonest." All meaningly words to an agnostic such as yourself who has no basis for judgment of any kind, no value system at all. You are simply attempting to steal from biblical morality to insult those who do have values and a basis for judgment. You are making a fool of yourself, but fortunately for you, there is no reason why this should matter. "That this is so is of great value to those of us who want to refer to the hypocrisy, idiocy, and dishonesty of the belief system you champion, so to you, sir, unlike so many of your variously retarded conspecifics, I extend the invitation to, by all means, keep yapping, dumbass. You're a more eloquent argument against monotheism than any committed atheist's speculative fictions." more useless rhetoric borrowed from Christianity. What possible meaning can "dishonesty" or "hypocrisy" have to an amoral person such as yourself? Why should a person who has an objective value system care what a person with none thinks about anything? You are a brute, a beast, guided by your instinct and innate selfishness and self preservation. To any degree that you trully value honesty, integrity and sound judgment, you must co-opt these values from my world view, which you so obviously reject! Your worlds are simply so much mumbling, meaningless, useless random responses like pavlovs dogs. >>All of your views are arbitrary and irrelevent. << "You should have that tattooed on your palm; you could hold it up to silence fools at like family reunions and stuff! =)" You seem riled Loki. Have I unnerved you? It was not my intention. I simply trying to point out what should be obvious to a bright fellow such as yourself. You ahve been defanged, so your venom is useless. Your world view is no better than that of the atheists who you have a love/hate relationship with. And like the atheist, you steal from Christianity relentlessly while pretending to reject it simultaneously. What could be more hypocritical than that?! Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:57:06 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#ce7dea88-6240-46e2-88fa-c32ceb793f99 Dan 2009-07-15T14:57:06Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#c8a14e7d-7edc-4881-b1ff-7b979dcbdc24 There are several points Dan . When you aren't too busy with circumstances off line you can reply in piecemeal installments if that is more convenient . Please when you get a chance take a shot at the questions . Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:34:36 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#c8a14e7d-7edc-4881-b1ff-7b979dcbdc24 Jason Leary 2009-07-15T05:34:36Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#39d3a6c9-6774-4359-88a8-ba41a0751c61 sorry Dan; you've failed to understand what you've read; please now stab yourself in the hand, or, at least, do hit yourself in the face; thank you in advance. You contend "Therefore, you have no basis for being "struck" by a person who values belief over love any more than you have a basis for judging any action, motive or conviction of any type." Which is basically saying that you actually mean to insist, at this juncture, that you have found a logical reason why I should not judge you. Hah! But I do, Dan; I judge you. You are an hypocritical moron and a liar. You only *pretend* that belief is that important to you. You *have* no belief, though - no sincere belief in your professed mythologies, no belief in Christ, no love of God. If you had, you'd trust in your God, you'd abide in your Christ's word and act as a witness. You fail this *not* because you are wicked (beside the point), but because you are simply and innately hypocritical, cretinous, and dishonest. That this is so is of great value to those of us who want to refer to the hypocrisy, idiocy, and dishonesty of the belief system you champion, so to you, sir, unlike so many of your variously retarded conspecifics, I extend the invitation to, by all means, keep yapping, dumbass. You're a more eloquent argument against monotheism than any committed atheist's speculative fictions. >>All of your views are arbitrary and irrelevent. << You should have that tattooed on your palm; you could hold it up to silence fools at like family reunions and stuff! =) Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:00:09 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#39d3a6c9-6774-4359-88a8-ba41a0751c61 Lokifreign 2009-07-15T05:00:09Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#62c4d743-0270-4f29-b326-3e53bd216176 My God Jason, Dan has children to take care of! Think about the children! Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:38:50 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#62c4d743-0270-4f29-b326-3e53bd216176 B-b 2009-07-14T23:38:50Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#34206986-38b8-4a73-bdc8-ae1d94582f03 summarize your point Jason, this much reading is absurd for those of us who have a life to live and enjoy a little diaologue from time to time. Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:56:51 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#34206986-38b8-4a73-bdc8-ae1d94582f03 Dan 2009-07-14T21:56:51Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#0a835451-4f1b-41dd-aedc-7af6c7446328 I didn't bother to read this as it wearies the brain to read your illogic Pinky: "P.S. Dan, I understand why it is more comfortable for you to define the world how you wish, but do you think it is more productive, or destructive behavior?" Here we are back to our starting point. We all view the world as we wish or through a prescribed world view. It is actually you who view it "as you wish" Pinky. And your view doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I accept the biblical view and have found it compatible with experience, with history, with science, with archeology and most importanly, with logic. You cannot hope to know anything without a biblical world view, which perhaps explains, why you are so confused. Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:54:34 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#0a835451-4f1b-41dd-aedc-7af6c7446328 Dan 2009-07-14T21:54:34Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#98e8ed09-4188-440d-97bf-154f5d96172e Those who believe that "belief" is more important than loving their neighbors and leaving judgment in the hands of their God strike me as frightened, silly little creatures, nurturing their fears on loathing, pretending to be something finer than what they clearly are." Dan Posted :How so? On what basis can you make a value judgment here, not being a committed believer to anything at all. By saying that Love is the most important thing, are you not borrowing from Christianity's moral precepts? Christians would not pit Love vs belief anyway, since they believe the man is incapable of agape love except through faith or belief in Christ as the starting point . Jason: Response: Was Cornelius the *not- yet -Christian* Roman centurian incapable of agape love , *before* he met Peter and converted ? If so then why did the angel in the book of acts tell him even BEFORE he was converted by Peter, that his 'almsdeeds had come up for a memorial before God ' [See Acts 10:4] DAN POSTED :Cornelius had exhibited faith in God up to the point of his limited understanding Jason. This does not contradict my point, RESPONSE: So BEFORE the conversion and baptism , Cornelius had a faith according to his limited understanding .So when he had that faith according to his limited understanding --back before he was converted , back when he was just doing almsdeeds for the Jews ---was that a *different sort* of faith than the sort of faith that brings salvation ? If so how can there be two sorts of faith one that saves and one that doesn't ? DAN POSTED : or the theological truth that there are "none righteous, none who seek for God, not even one". RESPONSE: Wouldn't the statement that 'there is none righteous , none who seek for God ' be best interpreted as hyperbole ? If you say no, then who was Isaiah talking about in Isaiah 57:1, when the author said , 'The righteous man perishes and no one ponders it ' ? Was the righteous man: who perishes in Isaiah 57:1, an exception to the verse that proposes that there is none righteous ? Was the author of the Old Testament Proverb mistaken (according to you Dan) when he wrote , ' when it goeth well with the righteous the city rejoiceth'? (Proverbs 11:10) Who is the righteous who the city rejoices over according to the proverb ? What is the city that rejoices when it goes well with the righteous ? If there is none righteous , none that seek for God, then does that notion also apply to the upright person(s) mentioned in Proverbs 11:6 where it is written , "that the righteousness of the upright shall deliver him " ? DAN POSTED : All of Corneliuses good works were as "filthy rags" to God. Nevertheless, he responded to the truth he had with faith and thus received more light, and eventually, salvation. RESPONSE: If the works of charity (aslmdeeds) were filthy rags then how could they please god enough to be "brought up for a memorial before God--even prior to when he was converted ? . "Were the wise men astrologers from Medio-Persia who according to the book of Matthew , brought gifts of frankincense and myrrh to the child Jesus , incapable of agape love since they had not joined a Christian church and lived before the Christian era ? If so then why were the gifts they gave to Jesus , acceptible to God ?" DAN POSTED :We don't know much about the wise men, but you are confusing two dispensations now. The Christian Church began After Jesus death and ascention, not before. It is very possible that the wise men were true believers in God, much like Abraham, whose faith "was reckoned to him as righteousness". RESPONSE : Dispensationalism has to be misattributed to the Bible by people who read in into the text, with that sort of "it's implied even if the scripture doesn't explicity say it" sort of phony routine ! The dispensationalist doctrine came from John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth bretheren, NOT from the teachings of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse in Luke--- which referred to the fall of Jersualem by Roman armies destrying it in AD 70 , nopr to any of Jesus other teachings . The weird rapture doctrine (a lynchpin of dispensationalist view of history) also misconstrues the teachings of St.Paul in 1st Thessalonians , when St.Paul refers to being caught up in the clouds to greet the Lord , the word apparently used in the original Greek is pneuma . In English language bibles, that term is often rendered by means of the English word "air" ---but pneuma was more often used in New Testament Greek to refer to spirit instead of physical air. So should the verse read 'caught up in the air ' or 'caught up in the spirit' ? Caught up in the spirit is a quite different sate of affairs then the notion that one day Christians will diappear from off the ground and then reappear to float around in the sky (the latter being the rapture doctrine) Likewise 'clouds' in ancient Jewish symbolism were metaphors for royal glory and majesty .To interpet the words writen by Paul that are predicated of an event that he expected to happen in his own lifetime , incidentally as involving a situation where Christians will one day be lifted into the stratosphere to float around on clouds of literal water vapor is an ignorant interpretation of the text ! Dispensational eschatology was NOT extant in Christianity among any of the teachings of the church fathers . Iraneaus , did apparently beleiving in a literal 1,000 year earthly Millenial reigh period, but he did not apparently advocate a rapture doctrine-- nor the doctrine that there were segmented periods of history of law and grace in the sense that Darby , C.I.Scofield, Charles Ryrie , or the weird, trash books of Tim La Haye , Thomas Ice and company do . Thomas Ice (along with the host of the weird Rapture Ready site) msconstrue the writings of the church fathers . Notably according to scholars they misconstrue the writings of Ephraem the Syrian by claiming that 'The gathering to Christ' phrasing that Ephraem used was allegedly a reference to a rapture , when apparently Ephraem applied the phrase NOT to a rapture , but , instead to a state of ethical transformation that was called beatitude in the early church . Let us take a closer look at the wise men --astrologers from the East that saw the "star" and came bringing gifts to the child Jesus. You affirm that it is possible that they were believers in God whose ' faith was reckoned to them as righteousness' . Then please answer the question directly: were the wise men already "in Christ" BEFORE the age of the church/ before the resurrection and ascention of Jesus . If the wise men who came to Jesus with gifts from the east were not 'in Christ' then could they have had faith in God that was counted as righteousness and yet have it WITHOUT also having pure, agape love at the time they demonstrated faith by giving gifts to Jesus ..? And if the pre-Christian wise men did not have pure, unselfish, agape love *at the time period* that they gave the gifts to the child Jesus, how could the act of them giving gifts to Jesus be acceptible to Jesus if the wise men did *not* have pure, unselfish, agape love as the motive for giving him gifts .? Could Jesus possibly be satisfied by getting gifts from someone who gave him gifts for some *other* motive , *other* than pure, UNselfish agape love ? DAN POSTED :"Rahab:" Same thing as above... " Though the epistle to the Hebrews lists her as one of faith ---it is doubtful that a pagan prostitute who was outside of the covenant people Israel would have had an elaborate doctrinal sort of explicit belief of a theological sort as say an evangelical Protestant might ." Highly doubtful in deed, nor was it necessary since again, the world was under the dispensation of the law. Yet as you mentioned, she was a person of faith. She no doubt was aware of the moving army of the Israelites and how God had conquered their enimies at every turn. With this knowledge, as well as prior knowledge perhaps of Abraham who once resided in Canaan, she could well have believed all that she had knowledge of. RESPONSE : (1) Did the sort of faith she had grant her salvation at that very moment she helped hide Joshua and his men ? (2) Did the faith she had at the moment of hiding Joshua and his men confer upon her the condition of being 'in Christ' even BEFORE she renounced the career as a prostitute or BEFORE she may have joined the Israelites in the sort of worship taught by Moses and the community of Israel ? (3) If during that supposed dispensation of law (if we were to for a moment try the premise that there was a separate dispensation of law different from grace) Rahab was *not* 'in Christ' , then the actions she did to help Joshua out by giving him shelter would have had (according to another premise you , Dan , support) to have been motivated by some other motive ....NOT motivated by any quality of pure, agape, unselfish love , right ? "Was Zaccheus: the tax collector in the book of Luke, incapable of agape love when having apaprently never met Jesus before he welcomed him into his home and before any baptism and/or conversion like the sort that go on in evangelical churches ---told Jesus." DAN POSTED :Yes, he was incapable of pure agape love prior to faith in God, just like all of the rest. And even after faith in God no man is completely pure in his love like Jesus as we are all marred by sin and selfishness. RESPONSE: Did Zaccheus have pure, agape love (A) when he expressed faith in God by telling Jesus ,'Lord the half of my goods I give to the poor , and if I have taken anything from any man by false accusation I restore him fourfold' OR (Z) did he have to wait till later after he prayed an evangelical sinners prayer to develop pure, agape love for others .? If you indicate that the answer is (Z), that he had to wait till after he prayed an evangelical "sinners prayer" to get pure,unselfish, agape love, then why did Jesus tell Zaccheus 'that salvation had come to this house' BEFORE he prayed any evangelical "sinners prayer" and Zaccheus was still back in the altruistic , love- your- fellow person approach ? ? ? ? 'Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor and if I have taken anything from any man by false accusation i restore him fourfold. ' ? " DAN POSTED :At this point there was a conversion in Zaccheus' life. He was transformed by Jesus and responded by doing the right thing for a change. RESPONSE : The conversion that is reported of Zaccheus, in Luke, is *not* the sort of conversion where a person prays the sort of sinners prayer that one finds in evangelical Bible tracts . That is certainly not to discount that sort of conversion, but the conversion of Zaccheus is quite *different* than that sort of evangelical conversion . Zaccheus makes the decision to change his life orientation towards extreme altruism which is the core of the way of Jesus ! To give another example , of the insight at stake, consider the young Jewish man came to Jesus ( also in the gospel of Luke) and asked 'what must I do to gain eternal life ?' and they discuss the commandment 'to love thy neighbor as thyself ' and the young man asks 'who is my neighbor? ' and Jesus tells him the story of the nice good Samaritan who helped out the poor man lying by the side of the rode who was robbed and left bleeding . When Jesus tells that young man tells the young man 'Go and do thou likewise ' (i.e. do what the Good Samaritan did and be the kind nice guy makes great effort to help out strangers with acts of kindness ) . If the young man took Jesus advice and acted on it *immediately* (after all , Jesus started the final sentence in the exchange with go ...as in 'Go and do thou likewise ) , and did NOT pray a sinners prayer before going out to find someone to do an act of kindness to , would the act of apparent kindness then fail to have pure , agape love as motive just because the young man, that talked to Jesus, had *not* prayed a sinners prayer before doing an act of kndness Were the people in the Old Testament which *did* faithfully carry out the commandment to love their neighbor and kept on following that commandment, considered by God as being 'in Christ' *while they were back in the Old Testament period* when they were following the commandment to love their neighbor ? If those people who faithfully followed the commandment to love their neighbor --along with loving God with all their heart/mind/soul/strength--- were 'not in Christ ' back during Old Testament period while they were following the commandment to love their neighbor --then specifically HOW did the sort of "love" that the faithful people of the Old Testament had differ from pure , agape love ?. If you were to postulate the weird notion I've heard that claims that noone in Old Testament time could thoroughly follow those ethical commands that were at the core of moral law (different from the mere ceremonial law which is replaced by grace unlike the moral law) and that such commands to love one's neighbor and so forth were just designed to show people that one cannot follow the moral law, until the later covenant of grace comes along , then chances are one would have a hard time explaing why Yahweh (God) according to Deuteronomy says to the Old Testament Jews about the Law given to Moses , 'I have set before you life and death a blessing and a curse .Choose life for thy and thy seed .' if there was How could they choose life by following the moral laws in the Old Testament era ---if it was impossible to follow the moral law prior to the new covenant of Dvine Grace coming along later ? Dan Posted :Nothing you have offered here discounts the fact that humans, outside of Christ, are capable of real, unselfish love. Response: Being in Christ , according to Jesus , is more of an ongoing continuum , instead of the "in group" model of fundamentalism . Hence Jesus likens the Kindgom of God to a man scattering seed on the ground where first you have the seed , and then the stalk, and then the full corn in the ear .Also in the parable of the swoer also in the gospel of Mark, he likens it to the action of a seed falling on different types of soil --that which falls on bad soil, either soild taht is hard or has thorns and thistles doesn't grow so well. But that seeds falls on good soil ; on soild that *already* has 'depth of earth' to receive it even *before* the seed comes to rest on ther soil --grows into a good harvest with plants: some twenty fold, some fifty fold and so on .That Jesus describes the seed of God as doing best on the soil that has * 'depth of earth' , instead of the soil that has 'no depth of earth ' is very telling . That Jesus uses the phrase 'depth of earth' and highlights as being the deciding factor in where the seed of God grows best discredits ...blows out of the water the weird notion of total depravity promoted by John Calvin , and by many fundamentalists . The good soil (being most likely a metaphor for the characteristic of the desire within people even *prior* to receiving the message of God (the seed) is a characteristic which can have the quality of *depth of earth* even before the seed of God is received . In the gospel , according to John , also the standing of being in Christ is described as being an ongoing continuum (a process) INSTEAD of the sort of "in group" which fundamentalists allege . Jesus likens himself to a vine and the process of being in him to being like a branch on that vine ...branches on a vine start off as small lobules or buds hardly noticeable and then grow over time . Jesus, in the gospel according to John , prays that all who become his disciples become one as he and his Father are one ---he phrases it in the future tense ---not as done deal but as something ongoing . (He prays 'not for the world' -- according to that text --but the most plausible interpretation is that Jesus --was affirming that he was NOT praying for the worldly system of mammon to be exalted ---instead of the interpretation offerred by some that alleges that he was supposedly disavowing that prayers be offered for all mankind) . Elsewhere in one of the synoptic gospels (Luke) , Jesus indicates that , ' A good man out of the good treasure bringeth forth from the treasure of his heart that which is good ..'(Luke 6:45 ) Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:52:13 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#98e8ed09-4188-440d-97bf-154f5d96172e Jason Leary 2009-07-14T18:52:13Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#d1df7b17-ff12-43a0-9663-74652242d8ff Wow. I don't even need to reply to that one, you even included the text I would have re-emphasized (after your bitching and bickering) right at the end. I wish arguing with you was always this easy. But, since you've taken care of my would-be next-step, I feel the need to do SOMETHING... I enjoy watching you foam at mouth when I feed you :) I don't see how it's useless to know that people defending a position as strongly as say, yourself, are so dedicated to their opinion that they are rendered completely oblivious to any fallacious arguments they use and any logic they defy...aside from perhaps not really being able to do anything about them. However, it is *useful* to know these things so we can fight against the early installment of the destructive cycle such "committed believers" participate in (more often than not): brainwash, brainwash, brainwash <--that's three generations right there. As demonstrated by the video I originally used as an example, the children involved in the Westboro Baptist Church are brainwashed into saying certain words, and connecting them in certain ways; there was also a VERY young girl singing the chorus of a song about anything BUT God's love. But the children don't understand the words they use, or what they're saying, or the signs they hold; the little girl singing isn't even sure of all the words coming out of her mouth and part of what she sings is just imitating the major sound(s) in some of the words because she doesn't know what they are. While the video showed these EXTREME signs of brainwashing, it's not always as easy to see it in other places, ESPECIALLY if the view that people are brainwashed into having is one that you share. Children may even appear to truly understand what they're saying, but children can be taught to repeat/memorize just about anything, ESPECIALLY at younger ages when they're still very receptive to learning language. They will understand it when they're older, but by then they simply don't have so much of a choice of whether to believe in it or not (even if they find it illogical) because they already "believed" it for so long before actually understanding it. Ties like that are not easily/often severed, which is why people (like "committed believers") use brainwashing as a very effective tactic (the catch: it's child abuse). That's why I personally feel it can be dangerous to introduce your children to anything too EARLY or too MUCH. Children should live a rich, full, indulgent life early on, in which they are exposed to a wide variety of stimuli, but if too much emphasis is put on any one thing, it can be very damaging to their personal (and vital) development of individuality, independence, logical thinking, and the ability to make decisions about themselves for themselves in the best interest of themselves. Just as you wouldn't let a 2yo play with an 8yo+ toy, there are things in this world children can (and should) WAIT to discover, and just as too much spinach can give you kidney stones, there are things in this world that may be very good for children but must have healthy limits applied to them. Oral hygiene is an incredibly important thing to instill in children. However, it would be unreasonable to try to teach them about brushing their teeth before they had any (too early), the same is true if you were to have them brush their teeth five times a day (too much). If you stayed consistent with this pattern, would they grow into adults with excellent, rigorous regimens of good oral hygiene? Sure! Would they (eventually) understand the importance of having to brush their teeth (and floss, etc.)? Sure! But could you have attained these results WITHOUT having to go to the extremes that you did, while ADDITIONALLY developing a sense of independence and responsibility by allowing them more freedom to discover the importance of it without having to beat it into them with such extreme repetition? Of course. P.S. Dan, I understand why it is more comfortable for you to define the world how you wish, but do you think it is more productive, or destructive behavior? Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:50:49 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#d1df7b17-ff12-43a0-9663-74652242d8ff Pinky 2009-07-14T18:50:49Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#3f88ffb9-1ec2-4d7d-86d5-083e7efa40a7 Loki: >>"Those who believe that "belief" is more important than loving their neighbors and leaving judgment in the hands of their God strike me as frightened, silly little creatures, nurturing their fears on loathing, pretending to be something finer than what they clearly are." Dan: How so?<< Loki: Thank you for providing a tireless anecdotal archetype to illustrate the observation, sir; now, slap yourself six times and *always* read what you're replying to *before* you reply to it, ass. Actually, I did read it, and my comment still stands. You are not an atheist, but you are a non believer in respect to the bible and you embrace an evolutionary world view. Therefore, you have no basis for being "struck" by a person who values belief over love any more than you have a basis for judging any action, motive or conviction of any type. All of your views are arbitrary and irrelevent. Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:58:45 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#3f88ffb9-1ec2-4d7d-86d5-083e7efa40a7 Dan 2009-07-14T15:58:45Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#e1cc5122-3a05-4e4b-8190-8227e7befa25 "Those who believe that "belief" is more important than loving their neighbors and leaving judgment in the hands of their God strike me as frightened, silly little creatures, nurturing their fears on loathing, pretending to be something finer than what they clearly are." Dan Posted :How so? On what basis can you make a value judgment here, not being a committed believer to anything at all. By saying that Love is the most important thing, are you not borrowing from Christianity's moral precepts? Christians would not pit Love vs belief anyway, since they believe the man is incapable of agape love except through faith or belief in Christ as the starting point . Jason: Response: Was Cornelius the *not- yet -Christian* Roman centurian incapable of agape love , *before* he met Peter and converted ? If so then why did the angel in the book of acts tell him even BEFORE he was converted by Peter, that his 'almsdeeds had come up for a memorial before God ' [See Acts 10:4] Cornelius had exhibited faith in God up to the point of his limited understanding Jason. This does not contradict my point, or the theological truth that there are "none righteous, none who seek for God, not even one". All of Corneliuses good works were as "filthy rags" to God. Nevertheless, he responded to the truth he had with faith and thus received more light, and eventually, salvation. "Were the wise men astrologers from Medio-Persia who according to the book of Matthew , brought gifts of frankincense and myrrh to the child Jesus , incapable of agape love since they had not joined a Christian church and lived before the Christian era ? If so then why were the gifts they gave to Jesus , acceptible to God ?" We don't know much about the wise men, but you are confusing two dispensations now. The Christian Church began After Jesus death and ascention, not before. It is very possible that the wise men were true believers in God, much like Abraham, whose faith "was reckoned to him as righteousness". "Rahab:" Same thing as above... " Though the epistle to the Hebrews lists her as one of faith ---it is doubtful that a pagan prostitute who was outside of the covenant people Israel would have had an elaborate doctrinal sort of explicit belief of a theological sort as say an evangelical Protestant might ." Highly doubtful in deed, nor was it necessary since again, the world was under the dispensation of the law. Yet as you mentioned, she was a person of faith. She no doubt was aware of the moving army of the Israelites and how God had conquered their enimies at every turn. With this knowledge, as well as prior knowledge perhaps of Abraham who once resided in Canaan, she could well have believed all that she had knowledge of. "Was Zaccheus: the tax collector in the book of Luke, incapable of agape love when having apaprently never met Jesus before he welcomed him into his home and before any baptism and/or conversion like the sort that go on in evangelical churches ---told Jesus." Yes, he was incapable of pure agape love prior to faith in God, just like all of the rest. And even after faith in God no man is completely pure in his love like Jesus as we are all marred by sin and selfishness. 'Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor and if I have taken anything from any man by false accusation i restore him fourfold. ' ? " At this point there was a conversion in Zaccheus' life. He was transformed by Jesus and responded by doing the right thing for a change. Nothing you have offered here discounts the fact that humans, outside of Christ, are capable of real, unselfish love. Yet you have missed the point completely anyway. As my point was that an atheist evolution believer has no basis to justify "love". It just isn't there. In an evolutionary world we do what serves the individual ultimately and we do not have any reason to expect agape love from our fellow man. So unbelief is self contradicted when they demand this of others or state that Love should be valued above hate or anything else. Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:12:28 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#e1cc5122-3a05-4e4b-8190-8227e7befa25 Dan 2009-07-14T15:12:28Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#74443073-6446-4d45-a336-7703bf43f6ef "Well, as I'VE stated, I'm not defending whatever Loki originally meant" On the contrary, this is exactly what you were doing and why I jumped in to begin with. You are a loki apologist which gets you into trouble because Loki doesn't make any sense much of the time. " because I can't know that for sure. I'm defending my own view, and have been since the beginning - your misinterpretation of that is not my fault, but I am glad to know you find my argument an obvious truth. That's a first." Your argument morphed into an obvious and I should add, useless, truth. It morphed about the time you realized that your prior argument was indefensible. Dan: "you have left Loki's statement in the dust and moved to a much more defensibile position after much back and forth." And again, I was never defending anyone's position but my own. If you decided to hear something different than I was saying to begin with (sorry, READ something different than I was TYPING - holy crap), and would rather claim that I've flip flopped my argument to make yourself feel more comfortable, that's on you Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:55:02 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#74443073-6446-4d45-a336-7703bf43f6ef Dan 2009-07-14T14:55:02Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#388d7799-fd99-45bc-99fe-f51bd7fad1f1 Response: If you support such a ridiculous claim then the burden of proof is upon you to vindicate such a claim . Remember the burden of proof is upon the person who makes a positive claim on some topic . Since you have made a positive claim the burden of prooof is upon you , John . > John Posted : I have no problem with that, but like many subjects of philosophy and spirituality there are no definitive tests. Not everything can be defined absolutely or objectively. Human consciousness for example can not be proven at all muchless defined objectively. Response : How do you know that human consciousness cannot be defined absolutely or objectively ? (If you make the facile sort of response that one fears you might that because we are subjective as humans ---then the question would be how do you know that the use of the right methodology when thoroughly applied wouldn't purge people of subjectivity as long as they are applying that methodology thoroughly ?) <Response: The burden of proof is upon you to proove that . The mind only reflects beliefs and other intangibles . It does *not* construct them . Beliefs are types that exist independently as independent networks of concepts ect. With true beliefs there is an orderly and sound connection between the concepts in the network that make up the belief. With false beleifs there is a disconnect or a lack of entailment in the network of concepts that make up the belief . > John Posted :I didn't say that the mind constructed them and your are supporting my statement that words are spirits. That ideas and beliefs have a life an existence apart from us. We are just vessels and collections of spirits. Response: Will if beleifs have an idependent existence apart from us then they are NOT part of us not part of our identity . <When a particular person discovers and expresses a belief they express a type that subsits already in the abstract (the network mentioned above) . The particular *act of expression* of a person expressing a belief is like a token of that type of belief> John Posted :Again just supporting what I have said. Response: How does the statement in the exceprt shown above support what you've said ? I hope you are NOT doing some weird postmodern 'thinking outside the box' thinking that has become so popular in this present weird era ! <(See the writings of philosopher Rudolf Carnap on tokens and types)> John Posted :Appeal to authority, if you can't make the argument stand up by yourself it ain't worth a shit. I'd love to debate Mr. Carnap if he was here. Response: It was not an appeal to authority. I was recommending that you read the writings of Carnap for a fulller exposition on the topic of tokens and types . He has written more at length on the topic and for me to do it the most comprehensive dissertation would take a heck of a lot of typing ! <Response : So to take that ridiculous premise to its required conclusions , if a person had a turn of mind where they disavowed all the beliefs , assertions , and so forth they formally supported then they would no longer be a person any more ? > John Posted :Not The same person, no, in Christianity we call this being born again. Response: I wasn't necessarily referring to someone having a religious conversion . I was probing the absurdity of someone claiming that the beliefs of a person are part of the person ---for if you take someone , say, for example in a totally secular context , a secularist Marxist who for some time fervently professed Marxism and then they become , say, a secular Ayn Rand supporting advocate of free market capitalism (and before say that were an atypical Marxist who happened to believe in a God , then they became an atheist advocate of free market capitalism . Given the premise that you support that claims beliefs are part of the person that espouses them ---that person who once professed Marxism would cease to be a person --cease to have an identity ! <Or if say, two seemingly separate people at the same time supported all of the same beliefs and assertions then the appearance that they are separate people is somehow only an illusion they are really the same person ? > John Posted :Now your catching on, True Christians are bound by one spirit, the holy spirit derived from the teachings of Jesus, we speak and act as one even though we may never have met. Of course no ones understanding an beliefs are exactly the same but close enough to make us nearly identical. Response: Within Christianity there are different theological and doctrinal factions which disagree with one another . A Lutheran , for example, is not going to have the same doctrine on all points as Southern Baptist , or a Pentecostal or a Wesleyan , or a member of the Moravian Bretheren . I've seen debates on the internet between the various factions of premillenialist dispensational theology (such as pre-tribulationists and post tribulationists who have often gotten quite hostile to the other factions (----even accusing the other factions within dispensational Protestantism of being something like emissaries of Satan and so on ) . So unless you posit that only the Christian sects whose members each and every one have identical beliefs on all points of doctrine then the example at the present time fails as an example of people whose individuality is somehow illusionary and are really ontologically the same entity. Granted in some era in the ages of ages they may indeed receive more of a unification , right now there being some "common denominator" of beliefs among Christians does not negate the individuality of the persons enough to make them LITERALLY one entity . Furthermore, even among the members of a sect that all decalre the exact same beliefs on all matters of doctrine might still have individuating beleifs on matters that are not seminal to "religious" affairs . One member of the sect , might, for example like the taste of orange marmalade. Another memebr of the sect might profess the belief that it tastes terrible ! Won't you fess up to how ridiculous the notion that the beliefs a person has are part of them is in light of such outlandish conclusions are required by such a premise ! > John Posted :Nope, all I have said is absolutely the truth, though I understand if it hard to grasp. Response: NOT in light of the insights just mentioned . <: Logos in the gospel of John chapter 1 verse 1 does not refer to a phonetic spoken word but rather to an organizxing principle ; an orderly message. Logos in John 1 verse 1 is apparently the root of the term 'logic' ! > John Posted :I don't disagree with you, I am use the term "words" rather loosely words are ideas in action traveling through communication messages, priniciples, logic, these things are an energy and have an existence all their own. Sure, some are lies some are truths. i Response: Words are symbolic patterns which are used to signify patterns of concept or in some cases individual concepts . In what sense are principles, logic , ect energy ? Do you maintain that they are energy in the same way as electricity , magnetism ect ? The term'energy' often gets used a lot in the present era to refer to any factor that causes an effect...but a more specific attempt at defining how you are using it is in order . Not merely a description but a definition . Furthermore, even if beliefs ect are some sort of energy that still would NOT necessarily mean that beliefs are part of the person that supports them . One of the core ways that lateral thinking fosters weird and wrongheaded conclusions is the tendency of lateral thinking to claim that just because some item has some sort of effect on another item ...or has a causal relation with another item that somehow warrants the weird conclusion that the two items are somehow the same or part of each other merely because they have some sort of relation however indirect . (In the present topic, the items in question are (A) beliefs and (Z) the person who supports them) Just because some item has some sort of effect on another item ...merely because one item has a causal relation with another item ---does NOT mean that the items are the same; neither does it mean that they are in any way part of each other. Consider the following example . When the wind blows across the sensors on a machine for measuring wind speed it has a causal effect on the machine that is registered by monitors on the machine , that does NOT mean that the wind is part of the machine, merely because it has some relation to it ! I believe in God . Yet the belief in God, though understood by me, transcends me . Tue, 14 Jul 2009 01:22:48 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#388d7799-fd99-45bc-99fe-f51bd7fad1f1 Jason Leary 2009-07-14T01:22:48Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#02c1e3b9-bfee-4aef-acf2-ad38ac3989c9 John: "No I don't disagree, I just understand that is a spiritual reward. To see a connection between yourself and your neighbor worthy of self sacrifice is a spiritual belief. Atheism doesn't support this. There is no connection between you and another meat bag accept for shared genes which are irrelevent to you as an individual who life and experiences are over when you die regardless if your gene pool is successful or not." Then can we agree to disagree? Other social animals, with no spirituality, exhibit this communal self reward behavior just as easily as atheists. If you refuse to see that, fine. Just don't continue to try and fit me in your lonely little box anymore and we'll be peachy keen. Mon, 13 Jul 2009 05:51:29 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#02c1e3b9-bfee-4aef-acf2-ad38ac3989c9 Pinky 2009-07-13T05:51:29Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#cd20019d-e1dd-4418-a2ca-e16f170568c8 <If 2 out of 10 scientists with an average IQ among them of 180 were totally fitting the stereotype of poor social skills and grooming, and if 2 out of 10 wall mart employees with an IQ of 100 had poor social skills and grooming then we might have a false correlation between brilliance and poor social skills/grooming/etc. For I have met a few scientists that were athletes in high school and college, good looking, fine social skills, and brilliant minds. But the vast majority of the scientists I've had the pleasure of knowing were somewhere in between, outside the exceptional intelligence for their profession just regular guys... needing some work in some areas of social skills or personal presentation but no more than any other random person you'd meet in any other profession. But yes, brilliant people can be fools. We are all fools some of the time, everyone. Especially when it comes to the important things in life that can never be quantified, measured, analyzed, etc. > Your also assuming that being a scientist implies a high IQ or working at walmart implies a low IQ. I've met people who worked at walmart that were smarter then me, and I have met scientist that were not too bright. Hell I've met taxi drivers that were absolutely brilliant, and psychotic. IQ is worthless indicator of correctness with regard to political and philosophical debate. My IQ tests at 185, how many people here consider my opinion to authoritative? Mon, 13 Jul 2009 02:07:11 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#cd20019d-e1dd-4418-a2ca-e16f170568c8 John 2009-07-13T02:07:11Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#42b343b9-5714-4b32-be70-2eaad7662ca9 perhaps, but the stereotype might work like "brave new world" in that it's there to make people who don't have the intellect of a scientist feel consoled that they at their level of intelligence have the right level, the best level, not too much or too little. This way nobody feels insecure. Not that I haven't met uber nerd scientist that ignores social skills and basic grooming, but I've met people in all education levels that lack social skills and have difficulty understanding the need for personal grooming or a whacked out sense of style. If 2 out of 10 scientists with an average IQ among them of 180 were totally fitting the stereotype of poor social skills and grooming, and if 2 out of 10 wall mart employees with an IQ of 100 had poor social skills and grooming then we might have a false correlation between brilliance and poor social skills/grooming/etc. For I have met a few scientists that were athletes in high school and college, good looking, fine social skills, and brilliant minds. But the vast majority of the scientists I've had the pleasure of knowing were somewhere in between, outside the exceptional intelligence for their profession just regular guys... needing some work in some areas of social skills or personal presentation but no more than any other random person you'd meet in any other profession. But yes, brilliant people can be fools. We are all fools some of the time, everyone. Especially when it comes to the important things in life that can never be quantified, measured, analyzed, etc. Sun, 12 Jul 2009 21:08:08 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#42b343b9-5714-4b32-be70-2eaad7662ca9 Bruecke Bautraeger 2009-07-12T21:08:08Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#a6f0980f-3690-4364-86ba-77741f213e45 THE OWNERSHIP FALLACY (The revised and extended text) The Ownership Fallacy is the ever so bizarre notion that presumes that a belief is part of a person who supports that belief, and from that false premise which claims that a belief is somehow part of a person.. then falsely presumes, therefore, if some person is single-minded in supporting a belief, that one can then (falsely) conclude that such a resolute, single minded person is somehow then allegedly supporting themself, or being selfish.. Alternately, one might also rightly describe the Fallacy as...The Ownership Fallacy : an ever so weird and pathetic notion..a notion which claims that if some person wants everyone else to believe what that person believes, that such a person who wants everyone to believe what they believe... is somehow allegedly selfish for desiring that others believe what they believe. Such a ridiculous and mind-boggling pathetic notion, which presumes thusly, is derived from a bizarre , fast and loose pattern of thinking called: lateral thinking . The Ownership Fallacy *wrongly presumes* that the beliefs that a person supports are part of a person's self , and concludes from such a *false* presumption, that if a person is seeking to single-minded serve some beliefs that they support that, in doing so, they are, therefore, supposedly serving themself . Such a fallacy is based on lateral thinking, inasmuch as it presumes that if any item (such as a belief) has a relationship to a person's self --that somehow allegedly means that the item is then somehow part of the person's self---which is a ridiculous conclusion to derive . Just because some item has a relationship with a person's self, does * NOT* mean that such an item is in any way a part of a person's self . A belief can have a relationship with the self of a person who supports that belief--but the relationship is often an instrumental relationship where the person acts as a *mere instrument* for that belief . A person can, in acting as an instrument for a belief they support, maintain that the belief they support is totally superior to other contrary beliefs, and , yet , think of their personal self as NOT in any way superior at all, and be totally humble, understanding their personal self as merely having the role of a mere instrument for serving the belief , in expressing that belief and/or acting to serve it . Believing the belief one supports is superior to contrary beliefs is NOT in any way the same as believing one's personal self is superior to other people . There is NOTHING at all arrogant about believing that a belief one supports is superior to beliefs that are contrary to it--despite the bizarre propaganda that has become prevalent in recent decades that claims otherwise ! The Ownership Fallacy is aided and abbetted by the tendency of people in casual conversation to use figurative ownership terms like: "your", "my", "their", "our", "his", or "her"- and act as if they applied to intangibles like beliefs, concepts, principles, ideals and so on . If people realize that such ownership terms as 'your' as in expressions like "your beliefs", or 'their' as in expressions "their beliefs", are NOT to be taken literally they can help to avoid the ownership fallacy . The problem is apparently that many people take such expressions literally AS IF such intangibles were really part of the person that expresses and/or supports them , when they are NOT part of them . The Ownership Fallacy is also aided and abbetted by the tendency of people (who are influenced by lateral thinking) to equivocate the word 'want' --mixing two separate and very different usages of the word ' want' and talking *as if* such two very different usages of the word 'want ' were somehow the same --when they are NOT ! It is important as a clarification to present what is known as a *precising definition* as to what a belief is in terms of its categorical identity. A belief is: a network of representations or (in the case of false beliefs: mis-representations) which can reflect (in varying degrees) the affirmation or negations of propostions (propostions which are themselves, in turn, networks of concepts or metaconcepts) . Neither the beliefs nor the propositions that make up those beliefs, nor the concepts or meta-concepts that make up those propositions none of these items ...none of those... are in any way part of the person which expresses them ! As mentioned before, the ownership fallacy is a pattern of thought that equivocates between two separate uses of the word 'want' . One is the use of the word 'want' that refers a context of desiring something that involves self-aggrandizement (such as physical excitement of a hedonistic sort, or gaining some acclaim for oneself ) . The other use is a use of the word refers to a completely separate context of desiring that does NOT involve self-aggrandizement at all, and is often quite opposed to self-aggrandizing. But since both completely different sorts of contexts are referenced in the English language by the same word (the word 'want') , it is easy for the person who supports the bizarre pattern of thought called the Ownership fallacy to try and mix those COMPLETELY SEPARATE contexts for the use of the word 'want', and make goofy, ridiculous claims, like saying "Even the altruistic person who wants to help others without wanting anything in return , is selfish because they are doing what they want too if they want to be altruistic". <---That sort of goofy claim --popular as it is with the lateral thinking / postmodernist crowd , disregards that the specific type of wanting that the person who desires to help others only out of the desire to serve the principle to do so (and NOT for any acclaim; and NOT to feel good about themselves) is a *qualitatively different* kind of wanting then the person who wants that which is self-aggrandizing ! Thus we can see that the ownership fallacy is based on lazy equivocations which weirdly attempt to blur the distinction separating intangibles such as beliefs ect and the conscious agents which attempt to serve them or express them . Sun, 12 Jul 2009 05:50:13 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#a6f0980f-3690-4364-86ba-77741f213e45 Jason Leary 2009-07-12T05:50:13Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#95b5eb74-5227-452c-a3c3-2c1815efb2da John Posted :Ownership theory is definitely true. Response: If you support such a ridiculous claim then the burden of proof is upon you to vindicate such a claim . Remember the burden of proof is upon the person who makes a positive claim on some topic . Since you have made a positive claim the burden of prooof is upon you , John . John Posted : Words are spirits, Response: The burden of proof is on you , John , to vindicate that words are spirits . John Posted :What is a human being? flesh and blood? Am I half a man if I lose my legs? If Iam paraplegic and bed bound? Response: Well I'll telll you what a human being is NOT . A human being is not a collection of ideas, beliefs and assertions bound by name . John Posted :No a person is a collection of ideas, beliefs and assertions bound by name. Response: The burden of proof is upon you to proove that . The mind only reflects beliefs and other intangibles . It does *not* construct them . Beliefs are types that exist independently as independent networks of concepts ect. With true beliefs there is an orderly and sound connection between the concepts in the network that make up the belief. With false beleifs there is a disconnect or a lack of entailment in the network of concepts that make up the belief . When a particular person discovers and expresses a belief they express a type that subsits already in the abstract (the network mentioned above) . The particular *act of expression* of a person expressing a belief is like a token of that type of belief. (See the writings of philosopher Rudolf Carnap on tokens and types) . John Posted :So yes idea are apart of us. Response : So to take that ridiculous premise to its required conclusions , if a person had a turn of mind where they disavowed all the beliefs , assertions , and so forth they formally supported then they would no longer be a person any more ? Or if say, two seemingly separate people at the same time supported all of the same beleifs and assertions then the appearance that they are separate people is somehow only an illusion they are really the same person ? Won't you fess up to how ridiculous the notion that the beleifs a person has are part of them is in light of such outlandish conclusions are required by such a premise ! John Posted :Jesus was describe as the word of God incarnate. Response: Logos in the gospel of John chapter 1 verse 1 does not refer to a phonetic spoken word but rather to an organizxing principle ; an orderly message. Logos in John 1 verse 1 is apparently the root of the term 'logic' ! Sun, 12 Jul 2009 05:19:30 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#95b5eb74-5227-452c-a3c3-2c1815efb2da Jason Leary 2009-07-12T05:19:30Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#6dde8768-18ac-4752-8d90-c59455b873a4 When you claim that "there is no such thing as altruism , all behavior is done for a reward"---the burden of proof is on you , sir . Citing mere trends of so-called "psychology" , does not count as logical/ epistemic proof either !" > John Poated :Its a working theory based on logic, that so far has no competeing models. Response: You've got to be joking. Lateral thinking/ equivocation is the height of ANTI-logic ! <Response : Do you like Malvado assert that the ownership fallacy is an a okay pattern of thought ? > John Posted :Ownership theory is definitely true. Words are spirits, What is a human being? flesh and blood? Am I half a man if I lose my legs? If Iam paraplegic and bed bound? No a person is a collection of ideas, beliefs and assertions bound by name. So yes idea are apart of us . Response: Looks like I will have to post in the present thread the rebuttals I posted to those statements that you posted over at the Superbrain Forum message board as well as the original treatise debunking the ownership fallacy ! Sun, 12 Jul 2009 05:12:31 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#6dde8768-18ac-4752-8d90-c59455b873a4 Jason Leary 2009-07-12T05:12:31Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#360e5884-1f73-49cf-9f5b-8a9c0bbd7851 <taking into account that people can do things purely for a communal self reward (reward for their family, friends, society, race, country, species, etc.) instead of for a personal self reward (reward for that individual specifically). But you insist that people are more selfish than that. > No I don't disagree, I just understand that is a spiritual reward. To see a connection between yourself and your neighbor worthy of self sacrifice is a spiritual belief. Atheism doesn't support this. There is no connection between you and another meat bag accept for shared genes which are irrelevent to you as an individual who life and experiences are over when you die regardless if your gene pool is successful or not. Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:48:23 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#360e5884-1f73-49cf-9f5b-8a9c0bbd7851 John 2009-07-12T03:48:23Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#689210ae-3f31-4550-b9ba-5c1b3b186520 John: "You describe your reward as a side effect, but it is reward non the less, there are many rewards for such behavior, some social, some internal, we can do an act of kindness as a way of avoiding guilt, or to feel superior, for the effect that it has on the people around us. for many reasons. The thing that seperates a child of God from others is that they will keep their good deeds secret so no social reward is envolved only the reward that is internal and spiritual remains. The fact that you do not name or understand the spiritual reward you are seeking doesn't mean it isn't their. It is not unusual for us to behave unconciously. In fact very few of us are willing to understand and make conscious decisions." Sigh. Did I call it, or did I call it? This is why I avoided this argument in the first place and tried to reason with you in some degree by explaining that, sure, fine, everything that people do is for reward, but that you're not taking into account that people can do things purely for a communal self reward (reward for their family, friends, society, race, country, species, etc.) instead of for a personal self reward (reward for that individual specifically). But you insist that people are more selfish than that. Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:52:37 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#689210ae-3f31-4550-b9ba-5c1b3b186520 Pinky 2009-07-11T21:52:37Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#2ed3ec26-0b54-427d-9fde-62af21e991a0 < I'm not sure if it can really be called a theory, John. Conveniently, like much of religious "theory," it cannot be proven, nor entirely disproved so long as you stay stubborn. Motivation or intent of anything an individual does is something that can only be attested to by verbal testimony. > I concede that I can not think of a way of proving or disproving the point. And that is it is a matter of philosphy. <there are things I do day to day without any desire for personal gain or any thought to my own benefit whatsoever. In hindsight sure, a side effect is surely an uplifting feeling, or perhaps even an entirely unpredictable benefit in the sense of compensation from other people that no one could have foreseen clearly, but from the time I think to do it (or "make the sacrifice") until the time I actually execute it, no thought to the possibility of *personal* self gain occurs to me let alone the desire for it. My motivation/intent is PURELY in the interest of benefiting people outside myself. Regardless of whether it has any existence in the outcome, personal self gain was never a part of my intent or motivation for my "sacrifice." > You describe your reward as a side effect, but it is reward non the less, there are many rewards for such behavior, some social, some internal, we can do an act of kindness as a way of avoiding guilt, or to feel superior, for the effect that it has on the people around us. for many reasons. The thing that seperates a child of God from others is that they will keep their good deeds secret so no social reward is envolved only the reward that is internal and spiritual remains. The fact that you do not name or understand the spiritual reward you are seeking doesn't mean it isn't their. It is not unusual for us to behave unconciously. In fact very few of us are willing to understand and make conscious decisions. <It's terribly exhausting work trying to reason with someone like that, and I'm afraid Dan is using up most of my juice right now. > You called it! You can always get back to me Pinkers! I'll be around.;0) Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:35:13 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#2ed3ec26-0b54-427d-9fde-62af21e991a0 John 2009-07-11T19:35:13Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#feaef0a3-0494-4401-8038-d4fc0be59569 >> Perhaps we should really investigate what happened to him, Loki. << Same thing that happened to Arius, Malcolm X, Bruce Lee, Bill Hicks, and Jim Henson. Same thing that would happen to anyone who ever stopped being a lovable asshole and miraculously started really making a successful *point* of saying true things in public. Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:02:19 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#feaef0a3-0494-4401-8038-d4fc0be59569 Lokifreign 2009-07-11T19:02:19Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#ca7375fd-e2a9-4cca-ab69-8fc38594e22e >>"Those who believe that "belief" is more important than loving their neighbors and leaving judgment in the hands of their God strike me as frightened, silly little creatures, nurturing their fears on loathing, pretending to be something finer than what they clearly are." How so?<< Thank you for providing a tireless anecdotal archetype to illustrate the observation, sir; now, slap yourself six times and *always* read what you're replying to *before* you reply to it, ass. Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:59:22 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#ca7375fd-e2a9-4cca-ab69-8fc38594e22e Lokifreign 2009-07-11T18:59:22Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#20a75c4f-f055-43e8-b306-086b52362530 <When you claim that "there is no such thing as altruism , all behavior is done for a reward"---the burden of proof is on you , sir . Citing mere trends of so-called "psychology" , does not count as logical/ epistemic proof either !" > John: "Its a working theory based on logic, that so far has no competeing models." I'm not sure if it can really be called a theory, John. Conveniently, like much of religious "theory," it cannot be proven, nor entirely disproved so long as you stay stubborn. Motivation or intent of anything an individual does is something that can only be attested to by verbal testimony. As we have not mastered telepathy and such, there's no way we can truly *know* what motivates anyone to do anything beyond "reasonable" speculation or trusting what they claim, neither of which can be considered solid evidence or definite proof of much of anything. The only reason I can know for sure that you are wrong is because I don't have to trust anyone else's testimony to it - there are things I do day to day without any desire for personal gain or any thought to my own benefit whatsoever. In hindsight sure, a side effect is surely an uplifting feeling, or perhaps even an entirely unpredictable benefit in the sense of compensation from other people that no one could have foreseen clearly, but from the time I think to do it (or "make the sacrifice") until the time I actually execute it, no thought to the possibility of *personal* self gain occurs to me let alone the desire for it. My motivation/intent is PURELY in the interest of benefiting people outside myself. Regardless of whether it has any existence in the outcome, personal self gain was never a part of my intent or motivation for my "sacrifice." According to your claim, it doesn't matter whether I'm atheist, agnostic, theist, whatever, I shouldn't be capable of that - but I absolutely am. But I'm sure you're going to come up with some, "Well, it was still a subconscious motivation, just like you're subconsciously religious for being able to make moral choices!" or whatever other random justification you can pull out of your ass in order to boost your opinion and trump mine, which is why I haven't bothered making this argument, because you're stubborn, and would rather define evidence to support your claim, than to define your claim to be supported by the evidence. It's terribly exhausting work trying to reason with someone like that, and I'm afraid Dan is using up most of my juice right now. Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:24:51 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#20a75c4f-f055-43e8-b306-086b52362530 Pinky 2009-07-11T18:24:51Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#2a73b02a-bc3a-46c7-b510-f97f4f7e3e20 <When you claim that "there is no such thing as altruism , all behavior is done for a reward"---the burden of proof is on you , sir . Citing mere trends of so-called "psychology" , does not count as logical/ epistemic proof either !" > Its a working theory based on logic, that so far has no competeing models. <Response : Do you like Malvado assert that the ownership fallacy is an a okay pattern of thought ? > Ownership theory is definitely true. Words are spirits, What is a human being? flesh and blood? Am I half a man if I lose my legs? If Iam paraplegic and bed bound? No a person is a collection of ideas, beliefs and assertions bound by name. So yes idea are apart of us. Jesus was describe as the word of God incarnate. His teaching understood and absorbed is the holy spirit, and is immortal. Becoming one with the words and idea of Jesus is to become one with God and likewise immortal. Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:10:53 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#2a73b02a-bc3a-46c7-b510-f97f4f7e3e20 John 2009-07-11T17:10:53Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#d6722ee9-83d7-42de-9e30-b5ea84ea4efd When you claim that "there is no such thing as altruism , all behavior is done for a reward"---the burden of proof is on you , sir . Citing mere trends of so-called "psychology" , does not count as logical/ epistemic proof either !" Bob Posted : It's true, there is no such thing as altruism, even G-d is not altruistic, nor Jesus, they both get a reward out of it. Response : Do you like Malvado assert that the ownership fallacy is an a okay pattern of thought ? Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:47:05 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#d6722ee9-83d7-42de-9e30-b5ea84ea4efd Jason Leary 2009-07-11T16:47:05Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#cffe2858-c7ea-4ba1-9194-c4c746be683f "When you claim that "there is no such thing as altruism , all behavior is done for a reward"---the burden of proof is on you , sir . Citing mere trends of so-called "psychology" , does not count as logical/ epistemic proof either !" It's true, there is no such thing as altruism, even G-d is not altruistic, nor Jesus, they both get a reward out of it. WhoTF did Jason stalk to re-find this tribe? Sat, 11 Jul 2009 06:53:50 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#cffe2858-c7ea-4ba1-9194-c4c746be683f B-b 2009-07-11T06:53:50Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#6681f1e4-2413-49b5-a996-ec43e22eebd2 <Response: On the contrary, truly virtuous acts are done without any expectaion of reward neither inner nor outer reward but merely out of an intrinsic loyalty to ethical principle > John Posted :That is a reward, a spiritual one, one must be able to believe in that priniciple and it's importance and be reward by that belief. This is the same as believing in love, God, or spirit. all of these things are just manifestations of principles. Response: See the notes below that explain how seeking to manifest and contemplate such principles is NOT a reward in any literal sense of the word but something far grander and selfless . John Posted :Jesus was literal describe as the word of God incarnate. A living set of prinicples in the flesh. Response: Actually, if you research the etymology of New Testament Greek , in the original Greek of the gospel according to John (John 1:1) the term which loosely rendered in English by the term 'word' was the term 'logos' . En arche Logos---meaning ' In the beginning was the Logos '. The English rendering , 'in the beginning was the word' ---is not apparently the best translation of the original Greek . The term 'logos; in New Testament Greek was a term also apparently used by the Greek philosophers and philosophical poets like Heraclitus before the Gospel of John came to be . Logos ---is the root of the term 'logic' and means an organizing principle ---NOT a literal spoken word (not a literal verbal utterance with phonetic sound) . The term in New Testament Greek for an actual spoken word was NOT 'logos' , but 'rhema' . It was the abstract Divine Logos and NOT a literal spoken word, that became flesh and dwelt among us .[ See the writings of Justin Martyr , Origen and other early church fathers on the term logos and logos Christology ] . <Jesus taught that one should be altruistic / kind to others even one's enemies NOT to get *literally* interpreted crowns in some heaven after death , nor to escape an unplesant burning sensation in the afterlife ---but instead so that a person would 'be sons of your Father which is in heaven who 'maketh his sun to shine on the evil and the good and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust ' [see Matthew 6:10] > John Posted :There is no such thing as altruism, all behavior is done for reward. Response: Oh, geeze louise, not another person who supports that goofy, postmodern notion called the ownership fallacy .! Looks like I'm going to have to copy and post the treatise on the ownership fallacy here to try and disabuse you of that weird , false proposition . The ownership fallacy is based on a goofy, equivocal way of thinking called lateral thinking. Lateral thinking is the source of a lot of fallacies and wrongheaded thinking and has become quite popular in recent decades, unfortunately . When you claim that "there is no such thing as altruism , all behavior is done for a reward"---the burden of proof is on you , sir . Citing mere trends of so-called "psychology" , does not count as logical/ epistemic proof either ! John Posted :The thing about loving your neighbor and being self sacrificing that seperates the children of God is that it proves that they have their trust and hearts focused on spiritual rewards, not that no rewards exists. Response: IF and ONLY IF --you are using the term 'rewards' in the phrase 'spiritual rewards' in the most hyperbolic , figurative sense does such a turn of phrase pass inspection . The spiritual goal of loving one's neighbor and being self-sacrificing if it is truly earnest and virtuous , should be done with no motive of getting any sort of self-benefit / self-aggrandizement NOT even the tiniest bit , for doing so . And please, oh please do not , dear sir, make the weird equivocation or diversion that claims seeking a goal and seeking a reward are somehow necessarily the same!. Please do not do that lateral thinking goofiness that claims that because a reward is something a person desires and a goal is something that a person desires that somehow means that seeking a goal (even a self-sacrificing one) is somehow supposedly the same. That sort of fast and loose comparison is the epitome of ANTI-logic ! There is a *qualitative* difference in terms of the tenor of *volitional quality* that separates the context of someone have a desire that is self-directed from the completely separate context of a desire that is *other*- directed . (Be that other a separate conscious agent or an abstract quality of pure contemplation such as Beauty in itself, Justice in itself ect .) True virtue calls us to do good, NOT so we can have inner reward the feeling of satisfaction at having done good/self-esteem and all that mercenary tommyrot , but purely so that Duty is manifested ...so that good Qualities are manifested by requiste states of affairs that best as external circumstance may allow is in concord with such Qualities. Virtue calls that we do what is right even when one has NO feeling at all in doing so---even when one feels cold and mechanical while and after one has done what is right and has NO inner twinge of enjoyment or inner satisfaction , but merely because it is the right act to do ---out of NOT blind instinct but instead ethical principle . Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me. ____________ Mat 6:19 ¶ Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: Mat 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: Mat 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. ___________________ Response: When Jesus speaks of 'treasures' in the verses above (and elsewhere of 'rewards') it is most plausible to interpret such turns of phrase as hyperbolic, figurative expressions designed to achieve a kind of 'transvaluation' (for lack of a better word) where the audience would have an inkling of suspecting that there was some content worth desiring far more than items that large amounts of money could buy . Just like the story of the rich man and Lazarus ---where it would be ridiculous to interpret that story as a literal disclosure of a man in physical burning torment in the afterlife who would merely ask for only his toungue to be cooled if his whole afterlife "body" were on fire---the references to treasures in heaven should not be taken literally either but as symbolic disclosures of how the faculty of desire should be towards the ideatum of good spiritual qualities symbolized terms like 'treasures in heaven' that would be reflected by the minds of those that contemplate such spiritual qualities ! Jewish preaching in Jesus time was quite given to symbolic , figurative turns of phrase . <Moses also sought no reward for himself when in the book of numbers he manifested the virtue of ANTI-envy when after some of the Israelites saw those other than those Moses had appointed to be prophets giving prophetic words ---they came and told him how people who Moses had not appointed were prophecizing and told Moses to stop them ---and Moses rebuked those who wanted him to stop the "unathorized" people from prophecizing . > John Posted :I don't see how this has anything to do with reward, Moses expected God to judge people, and to justly compensate the righteous, as do all believers. Response: Whether or not Moses expected God to judge people and to compensate the righteous , is tangential to the import of the statement that Moses made, when Moses actually tried to DIS-courage vicarious envy .The propositional content of that particular statement by Moses was that envy (even vicarious envy) was wrong and that a state of affairs where the prophetic gift was shared with every single one of the Israelites and not merely those Moses appointed was a desirable state of affairs. That claim that Moses expected God to judge people and to compensate the righteous , was not the belief content / NOT the *propositional content* ...of the particular statement that Moses made in the book of Numbers that I quoted . Thus, unless you can find any verse *immediately* previous to it or *immediately* after in the chapter , you have no strictly exegetical grounds for interpreting that particular statement in the way you have. The most plausible interpretation of the statement in the book of Numbers was that Moses wished to convey a *self-effacing* sentiment that saw the role of prophet as NOT something to be coveted as matter of prestige , status and so on , but, instead, a state of affairs that he wished to share with all the Israelites ! That , sir, is an altruistic selfless outlook . <Immanuel Kant in the book 'The Metaphysics of Morals ' also highlights how virtue is acting out of an intrinsic desire to uphold principle --NOT to get some inner reward of self esteem , prestige in the afterlife , ect ... > John Posted :Your view of prestige in the afterlife is a strawman, no spiritual person seeks prestige, they seek spiritual growth and developement a maturity in being that is a reward, Response: On the contrary, it isn't a strawman at all . If one acknowledges a difference between a spiritual person and a person who is merely religious , in some less than superlative sense than a deeper spirituality would call for , then heck yeah there are unfortunately Fundamentalists and others who have an affinity for the sort of religious agenda they pursue out of mercenary desires ---such as the desire to get some sort of LITERALLY INTERPRETED crowns in the afterlife. Sat, 11 Jul 2009 06:33:18 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#6681f1e4-2413-49b5-a996-ec43e22eebd2 Jason Leary 2009-07-11T06:33:18Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#a5bbbc13-8b7e-4ddd-b71c-89df1c672e1c Dan: "If someone is completely disinterested in an issue, they may have some level of objectivity which those emotionally involved do not. But this is not similar to our starting point which was really about God, No God and world views." Ah, THIS is where you have become confused. I did use religion as my first example, Loki's initial reference was initiated by a religious theme, and I'm sure your preconceptions about the word "believer" being specifically tied to theism didn't help, but as I've defined and clarified SEVERAL times now, when *I* say "committed believer," it means someone who is "strongly dedicated" to a "particular view." Not necessarily religious, not necessarily theistic, not necessarily important, just a view. Like on the color of living room furniture, or marijuana, or "Family Guy," or polar bears. Dan: "as I stated above, you have moved away from the starting point to essentially stating the obvious." Well, as I'VE stated, I'm not defending whatever Loki originally meant, because I can't know that for sure. I'm defending my own view, and have been since the beginning - your misinterpretation of that is not my fault, but I am glad to know you find my argument an obvious truth. That's a first. Dan: "you have left Loki's statement in the dust and moved to a much more defensibile position after much back and forth." And again, I was never defending anyone's position but my own. If you decided to hear something different than I was saying to begin with (sorry, READ something different than I was TYPING - holy crap), and would rather claim that I've flip flopped my argument to make yourself feel more comfortable, that's on you. Sat, 11 Jul 2009 05:45:02 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#a5bbbc13-8b7e-4ddd-b71c-89df1c672e1c Pinky 2009-07-11T05:45:02Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#34205911-248c-48cd-a87c-1026c1d6afef <Response: On the contrary, truly virtuous acts are done without any expectaion of reward neither inner nor outer reward but merely out of an intrinsic loyalty to ethical principle > That is a reward, a spiritual one, one must be able to believe in that priniciple and it's importance and be reward by that belief. This is the same as believing in love, God, or spirit. all of these things are just manifestations of principles. Jesus was literal describe as the word of God incarnate. A living set of prinicples in the flesh. <Jesus taught that one should be altruistic / kind to others even one's enemies NOT to get *literally* interpreted crowns in some heaven after death , nor to escape an unplesant burning sensation in the afterlife ---but instead so that a person would 'be sons of your Father which is in heaven who 'maketh his sun to shine on the evil and the good and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust ' [see Matthew 6:10] > There is no such thing as altruism, all behavior is done for reward. The thing about loving your neighbor and being self sacrificing that seperates the children of God is that it proves that they have their trust and hearts focused on spiritual rewards, not that no rewards exists. Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me. ____________ Mat 6:19 ¶ Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: Mat 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: Mat 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. ___________________ <Moses also sought no reward for himself when in the book of numbers he manifested the virtue of ANTI-envy when after some of the Israelites saw those other than those Moses had appointed to be prophets giving prophetic words ---they came and told him how people who Moses had not appointed were prophecizing and told Moses to stop them ---and Moses rebuked those who wanted him to stop the "unathorized" people from prophecizing . > I don't see how this has anything to do with reward, Moses expected God to judge people, and to justly compensate the righteous, as do all believers. <Immanuel Kant in the book 'The Metaphysics of Morals ' also highlights how virtue is acting out of an intrinsic desire to uphold principle --NOT to get some inner reward of self esteem , prestige in the afterlife , ect ... > Your view of prestige in the afterlife is a strawman, no spiritual person seeks prestige, they seek spiritual growth and developement a maturity in being that is a reward, The reward of placing the value of intrinsic desire to uphold a prinicple is about as spiritual as you can get. Athiesm does not define principle as being anything more then a evolutionary trait designed to protect a gene pool, by the definition of atheism there is no reward or reason for valuing principle for an individual. Since there is no spirit there is no spiritual growth. There is no harm done to you by lieing, cheating, stealing, murdering, other then that which society can impose on you if you are caught. Sat, 11 Jul 2009 04:23:16 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#34205911-248c-48cd-a87c-1026c1d6afef John 2009-07-11T04:23:16Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#777d6651-06a6-47b0-8694-91802cbc4fbd John Posted :. All chosen behavior is done for a reward, some physical like money, food, etc. Some spiritual love, God, Darma. etc. Response: On the contrary, truly virtuous acts are done without any expectaion of reward neither inner nor outer reward but merely out of an intrinsic loyalty to ethical principle . That insight was at the core of the teaching of Jesus . Jesus taught that it was 'more blessed to give than to receive' . Jesus taught that one should be altruistic / kind to others even one's enemies NOT to get *literally* interpreted crowns in some heaven after death , nor to escape an unplesant burning sensation in the afterlife ---but instead so that a person would 'be sons of your Father which is in heaven who 'maketh his sun to shine on the evil and the good and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust ' [see Matthew 6:10] (To 'be sons of your Father' meaning to have the Father's characteristics as the goal , apparently ) Moses also sought no reward for himself when in the book of numbers he manifested the virtue of ANTI-envy when after some of the Israelites saw those other than those Moses had appointed to be prophets giving prophetic words ---they came and told him how people who Moses had not appointed were prophecizing and told Moses to stop them ---and Moses rebuked those who wanted him to stop the "unathorized" people from prophecizing . Moses, according to Numbers 11:29 , said to them , 'Enviest thou for my sake ? I would that all the Lord's people were prophets ' . The importance of the virtue of ANTI-envy (of deliberately rejecting any desire for envy) dovetails with what Plato said about the Creator in the book Timaeus , 'He was good and what is good has not a particle of envy in it ' . Immanuel Kant in the book 'The Metaphysics of Morals ' also highlights how virtue is acting out of an intrinsic desire to uphold principle --NOT to get some inner reward of self esteem , prestige in the afterlife , ect ... Sat, 11 Jul 2009 03:22:33 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#777d6651-06a6-47b0-8694-91802cbc4fbd Jason Leary 2009-07-11T03:22:33Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#dbef855e-ea3d-4a6b-b8d2-03b4e852f32d "Those who believe that "belief" is more important than loving their neighbors and leaving judgment in the hands of their God strike me as frightened, silly little creatures, nurturing their fears on loathing, pretending to be something finer than what they clearly are." Dan Posted :How so? On what basis can you make a value judgment here, not being a committed believer to anything at all. By saying that Love is the most important thing, are you not borrowing from Christianity's moral precepts? Christians would not pit Love vs belief anyway, since they believe the man is incapable of agape love except through faith or belief in Christ as the starting point . Response: Was Cornelius the *not- yet -Christian* Roman centurian incapable of agape love , *before* he met Peter and converted ? If so then why did the angel in the book of acts tell him even BEFORE he was converted by Peter, that his 'almsdeeds had come up for a memorial before God ' [See Acts 10:4] Were the wise men astrologers from Medio-Persia who according to the book of Matthew , brought gifts of frankincense and myrrh to the child Jesus , incapable of agape love since they had not joined a Christian church and lived before the Christian era ? If so then why were the gifts they gave to Jesus , acceptible to God ? Was Rahab: the harlot, in the book of Joshua, who was neither Jew nor Christian, incapable of agape love when she showed acts of mercey unto Joshua and his kinsmen ---when she hid them from those that sought to kill them ? {see [Joshua 2:1-24] Though the epistle to the Hebrews lists her as one of faith ---it is doubtful that a pagan prostitute who was outside of the covenant people Israel would have had an elaborate doctrinal sort of explicit belief of a theological sort as say an evangelical Protestant might . Was Zaccheus: the tax collector in the book of Luke, incapable of agape love when having apaprently never met Jesus before he welcomed him into his home and before any baptism and/or conversion like the sort that go on in evangelical churches ---told Jesus , 'Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor and if I have taken anything from any man by false accusation i restore him fourfold. ' ? Sat, 11 Jul 2009 02:48:25 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#dbef855e-ea3d-4a6b-b8d2-03b4e852f32d Jason Leary 2009-07-11T02:48:25Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#abca5dc2-af53-445c-84a4-486a574d3c72 <There is no reason a brilliant person can not also be a fukin fool. The two are not mutually exclusive any more than they must be simultaneously concurrent in the same person> In fact there is kind a precedent, stereo type of the nerd, the brilliant student who has spent so much time in the books that he has not learned even basic grooming and style didn't come from no where. It is pretty much expected that a brilliant scientist is a complete moron when it comes to virtually any other topic even simple social tasks. Sat, 11 Jul 2009 02:17:08 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#abca5dc2-af53-445c-84a4-486a574d3c72 John 2009-07-11T02:17:08Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#9134bc47-cead-4aa1-9e3b-e84eea747c42 "Descend into illogic? Sure, anyone can do that. However, being completely oblivious to having done so?" So you feel committed believers are oblivious to their illogic while committed non believers are well aware of their illogic and thus are lieing? Sounds plausible.... "A committed "enough" believer would have a strong enough attachment to their belief that (in this context) they hold in such high regard that they will dismiss opposing views outright even to the extent of using illogical argument without even being aware of this flaw, and may even find logical flaw in the opposing argument(s) that don't actually exist." Outside of the color of your furnature, what issues are we really talking about here? I am supposing, perhaps falsely, that we are talking about issues of a greater magnitude like, what is wrong with a person who posts a pic of herself naked, cupping her breasts. But let's not digress.... The issue, is whether the beliefs of the committed believer are sufficiently sound so as to be defensible logically and whether the believer has sufficient intellect to do so. That is pretty much it.... Dan: "But ignorance of a world view is not the same as not having one. We all have a world view, some revealled, some, like yours, self concocted, but we all have them." P: Incorrect. Ignorance of a worldview can be simply a misunderstanding of what it actually is, like you and atheism, for example. no comprendo.... P: However, "ignorance to the existence of" a world view means you simply don't even know it's there; this is why missionaries go to other countries to spread the word of Christ to people who have never heard of it. They are spreading *their* world view, the natives have one of their own prior to the missionarys landing. It is just irrational. "Someone who is ignorant to the existence of ALL world views, like someone who's never even really thought about any of it before (like small children, as I said before - up until when someone tries introducing one to them of course), wouldn't have any opinion about all those fabulous questions worldviews seek to answer (where did we come from? why are we here? what happens when we die? etc.), and thus would NOT have a worldview." Answers to those ultimate questions, while important, are not what is meant by a world view. A world view is a framework for filtering and applying knowledge of the world around us. Even if you don't subscribe to an "official" world view, or even realize that you have one, you still do. It is unavoidable because we are wired for it to function! We are all committed believers of one thing or another. We are all subject to fallacious reasoning and conversly to logical reasoning. Dan: "Therefore, to sum up, any argument about "committed believers" not being able to see their own illogic is fallacious as a general statement." P: I don't see how you came to this, other than ignoring what I've already said. I read what you stated and found that it doesnt hold up. Believers Are US. So the point which Loki made, and you are parroting in his conspicuous absence (Loki is a hit and run artist), is moot. It really is a emotional elitist argument mascarading as knowledge and wisdom. Dan: "To any degree that it bears a semblence of truth, it applies equally to all of us since we all hold to beliefs about the world around us which color our perceptions." P: The example I used referred specifically to religion, however "committed believer" can be used to describe anyone with a strong opinion about anything. Someone who feels strongly that marijuana should be legalized is a "committed believer," while someone who thinks marijuana should probably stay illegal, but wouldn't mind terribly or put up a big fuss if the laws changed would be a "believer, but NOT committed." If someone is completely disinterested in an issue, they may have some level of objectivity which those emotionally involved do not. But this is not similar to our starting point which was really about God, No God and world views. The circle of people who don't care about this issue is likely very small. Most people are committed theists for example and a small percentage are atheist or agnostic. P: "I don't know how I could be any more clear about this. " as I stated above, you have moved away from the starting point to essentially stating the obvious. P: I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize to Loki if I'm somehow drastically misunderstanding his own use of the term "committed believer," and would also like to stress that I am defining my own use of it and not his." Oh please, no more gushing to loki, you are making me sick...... But here again, you have left Loki's statement in the dust and moved to a much more defensibile position after much back and forth. Lets just let it rest here, in peace.... Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:37:55 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#9134bc47-cead-4aa1-9e3b-e84eea747c42 Dan 2009-07-10T21:37:55Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#5abc676a-712d-4ea2-9e96-c372bd7c73f2 There is no reason a brilliant person can not also be a fukin fool. The two are not mutually exclusive any more than they must be simultaneously concurrent in the same person. Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:53:23 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#5abc676a-712d-4ea2-9e96-c372bd7c73f2 ALLAH God of all 2009-07-10T20:53:23Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#4768cb55-49e3-4262-be00-664b6b263c96 <John: "All creatures have behavior all behavior exist because it delivers a reward or an expected reward." I still disagree with this, but I am trying to be nice and attempting to explain things in a language you can better understand. > I am still waiting, it's really quite simple, lets break it down to a simpler organism, an amobia can wait for food to come to it or it can expend energy and move around. It chooses to move, this choice is not random, it expects reward, it expects to find more food then when it was standing still, if that expectation becomes realized then the behavior will be reinforce and it will move again. Sure human behavior has a more complex variety of rewards but basically it is the same, all behavior seeks a reward. An amobia can sit in the sun and dry up or it can seek the shade and find comfort, it will seek the shade, because there is reward in doing so. People are no different. Now amobias are not very intelligent and they may choose to seek food in the sun rather then wait in the shade. They die following there instincts unable to logically mitigate the risks. People can do better then the amobia, in seeking reward, no human is going to willingly sacrifice themselves unless they are expecting a reward that outweighs the sacrifice.I don't disagree there could be instincts compelling them to sacrifice themselves, but if they reasoned that God does not exist and spiritual reward does not exist, then there is no logical reward left that can justify sacrificing ones life. <You're not paying attention. REGARDLESS of the origins or accuracy of religion, religious belief is not necessary for PERSONAL self-sacrifice if a person's desired reward is COMMUNAL self-benefit (in other words, benefit of one's family, community, race, species, etc.). So believing that sharing your lunch with someone so they will have something to eat (even though it might leave you a little hungrier), will result in a feeling of accomplishment, a closer bond with the other person, and perhaps for a more selfish individual the favor of a witness they hope to impress, means that said lunch-sharer is religious? None of those rewards are material, so you're saying they must be spiritual. How do you make this jump? > I haven't there isn't anything spiritual in those rewards, now a man that gives his last meal to another knowing full well that he himself will die without it, that man has a belief in something spiritual. The man you mentioned has plenty of reward for his behavior and his sacrifice is small. The man I meantioned has no material or physical reward that outways the sacrifice he is making unless you figure some kind of spiritual expectation. <No, really, it does. Seriously. I promise. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you can label it with whatever you want. What did you say about strawman, again? > Really it does is not a valid explination. I am waiting to hear how it does, I am all ears. <Yeah, see, here's the problem. You're either confusing religious belief with social awareness and concern, or...well, actually it looks like that's exactly what you're doing. > What is social awareness? The idea that my life is intertwined with the lives of other that we are bound by a common spirit and a common love which is the energy from which all life emmerges? No I am not confusing it, just not in denial about the spirituality of "social awareness" If you take away the spiritual, then we are just meat bags with no real reason to care about the meat bag next to us except that they may be able in some way be able to provide reward, and granted that will provide a form of self serving morality. Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:54:08 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#4768cb55-49e3-4262-be00-664b6b263c96 John 2009-07-10T04:54:08Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#872fb169-5b7a-4c77-a584-62c048b787eb I really don't know why I still bother sometimes. Dan: "So you are defining committed believer as a person who is obligated to a firm religious faith? Or to a person who is pledged to an ideal? Or to a person who holds fervently to certain ideals?" Fucking read: <<Hence, "committed believer" could be reasonably assumed to be "someone who is dedicated to their views.">> Dan: "Is Heated Debate a "religious forum"?" Fucking read: <<an often religious forum>> (especially with you around) Dan: "I suggest that a committed believer is no more or less likely to descend into illogic than a committed non believer, a free thinker or anyone else." Descend into illogic? Sure, anyone can do that. However, being completely oblivious to having done so? THAT'S what I'm addressing, here. "Believer" is meant to depict, in the context I am using it in (which you have failed to pick up on several times now), is someone who holds a view (which would include "non believers" within the context you used it). On matters which someone may not have an opinion (for instance, I personally don't have much of an opinion on the color of the furniture in my living room; if I were to have a discussion with someone about this, I would not be considered a "believer" because I really don't have a belief to hold myself to). "Committed" qualifies the belief that the "believer" holds as being dedicated, or more strongly held than just a casual view. A committed "enough" believer would have a strong enough attachment to their belief that (in this context) they hold in such high regard that they will dismiss opposing views outright even to the extent of using illogical argument without even being aware of this flaw, and may even find logical flaw in the opposing argument(s) that don't actually exist. Dan: "But ignorance of a world view is not the same as not having one. We all have a world view, some revealled, some, like yours, self concocted, but we all have them." Incorrect. Ignorance of a worldview can be simply a misunderstanding of what it actually is, like you and atheism, for example. However, "ignorance to the existence of" a world view means you simply don't even know it's there; this is why missionaries go to other countries to spread the word of Christ to people who have never heard of it. Someone who is ignorant to the existence of ALL world views, like someone who's never even really thought about any of it before (like small children, as I said before - up until when someone tries introducing one to them of course), wouldn't have any opinion about all those fabulous questions worldviews seek to answer (where did we come from? why are we here? what happens when we die? etc.), and thus would NOT have a worldview. Dan: "Therefore, to sum up, any argument about "committed believers" not being able to see their own illogic is fallacious as a general statement." I don't see how you came to this, other than ignoring what I've already said. Dan: "To any degree that it bears a semblence of truth, it applies equally to all of us since we all hold to beliefs about the world around us which color our perceptions." The example I used referred specifically to religion, however "committed believer" can be used to describe anyone with a strong opinion about anything. Someone who feels strongly that marijuana should be legalized is a "committed believer," while someone who thinks marijuana should probably stay illegal, but wouldn't mind terribly or put up a big fuss if the laws changed would be a "believer, but NOT committed. Someone who feels strongly that "Family Guy" is the funniest cartoon ever is a "committed believer," and someone who feels strongly that "Family Guy" is the worst cartoon they've ever seen would also be a "committed believer". Someone who feels strongly that polar bears couldn't possibly be any cuter than they already are is a "committed believer," while someone who knows about polar bears but doesn't really like them, dislike them, or have any kind of an opinion about them at all, would not be a "believer." I don't know how I could be any more clear about this. I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize to Loki if I'm somehow drastically misunderstanding his own use of the term "committed believer," and would also like to stress that I am defining my own use of it and not his. Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:13:39 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#872fb169-5b7a-4c77-a584-62c048b787eb Pinky 2009-07-10T03:13:39Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#c61d81fa-2d43-4280-a80e-9c383f8f0c47 "You're hearing what you want to hear." No, actually I don't hear anything. I am merely reading the words on my moniter which you have typed and quoting them nearly verbatum and in context. I would prefer that you be accurate and not exaggerate, yes. The adverb "almost" doesn't get you off the hook because we don't really know that this is true either. It may just be a perception of yours. I notice that you hear are "speaking for others", something you often attack me for. I guess you are not consistant. So you are defining committed believer as a person who is obligated to a firm religious faith? Or to a person who is pledged to an ideal? Or to a person who holds fervently to certain ideals? How does one of these definitions not include everybody? Even a so-called "free thinker" is pledged to the ideal that free thinking is better than revealled truth. Is this not a world view, a value judgment which cannot be proven to be true? I think so, yes. Is Heated Debate a "religious forum"? I was not aware of this. I guess I need to go back and read the description. I thought it was a no holds barred debate forum.... I suggest that a committed believer is no more or less likely to descend into illogic than a committed non believer, a free thinker or anyone else. Everyones statements should be evaluated independently of their professed beliefs to check for validity. For example, atheism is irrational, but athesits are not necessarily irrational in everything that they state. You Pinky are quite often inconsistant and irrational, but even you possess logical arguments on occasion, especially when you are not describing your confusing and self contradictory beliefs about the world. I read your post as a whole, and also dissected its parts because I wanted you to see that your own statements were both illogical, self contradictory and bigoted. I am not surprised that you don't understand this however.... "Someone may be uncommitted by means of: 1. ignorance to the existence of any world views, such as in the case of young children (or ignorance to the fact that different people believe they are true, which may leave the person in question to just assume they are all myth and meant to be so);" confusing sentence structure here. But ignorance of a world view is not the same as not having one. We all have a world view, some revealled, some, like yours, self concocted, but we all have them. And if we believe for example that the bible is a myth and the biosphere we see today transmutated over millions of years from one single cell, we might be tempted to think that those who are "committed believers" have fallacious reasoning because they do not. But holding to popular opinions is not sound logic or rational thinking in and of itself. (I use this just as an example since I am attacked daily for my unpopular views but seldom do my opponents possess the wherewithal to either rebut my positions or advance an argument for their own convictions). " 2. apathy to world views, or a lack of understanding for the importance of them and thus avoidance of them... I'm sure there's more but that's all I can scrape off the top of my head at the moment." I contend that it is impossible to avoid world views and that even those who believe in the unimportance of world views are, in fact, expressing one. Therefore, to sum up, any argument about "committed believers" not being able to see their own illogic is fallacious as a general statement. To any degree that it bears a semblence of truth, it applies equally to all of us since we all hold to beliefs about the world around us which color our perceptions. Logic is more or less a science, and a persons statements should be evaluated for logical flaws, irrespective of what kind of believer they may be. And no Kimberly, you do not speak for "everyone" "always" , not ever! Fri, 10 Jul 2009 02:05:45 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#c61d81fa-2d43-4280-a80e-9c383f8f0c47 Dan 2009-07-10T02:05:45Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#c89df9d3-6326-4494-9021-58b686fad09d Dan: "your contention that EVERY committed believer" You're hearing what you want to hear. I clearly specified early off "a committed ENOUGH believer to be unable to perceive..." (caps purely for emphasis). My sentences to follow were continuing the same theme and the same situation. Would you prefer that I muddled up my speech with continuous, monotonous "committed *enough* believer" qualifiers so as not to confuse you so much? Dan: "ALWAYS fails to perceive" Again, earlier qualification as a running theme throughout the sentences thereafter: "at least one of the people arguing at least one of the sides is ALMOST always..." (again, caps purely for emphasis. You even quoted both of these yourself. How did you miss this? Dan: "You also fail to define "committed believer"" I'm so sorry. I thought this would be more obvious too. I have included Miriam-Webster's relevant definitions: com·mit verb com·mit·ted; com·mit·ting 2: to obligate or pledge oneself believe verb 1 a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts> 3: to hold an opinion : think <I believe so>transitive verb 1 a: to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports> <you wouldn't believe how long it took> b: to accept the word or evidence of <I believe you> <couldn't believe my ears> 2: to hold as an opinion : suppose <I believe it will rain soon> — be·liev·er noun Hence, "committed believer" could be reasonably assumed to be "someone who is dedicated to their views." In this particular context, I specified religion ("an often religious forum (like this one)"), and I also added the qualifier "enough" (as I previously referenced), indicating that not ALL "committed believers" are guilty of ignorance to their own faults of logic, but only if they are "committed ENOUGH", or "dedicated" enough, thereby blinding them to any time they might use logical fallacy EVEN WHEN SUCH A FALLACY IS POINTED OUT TO THEM. If you were to actually read my post as a whole, and not in itty bits by itty bits, I imagine things *might* become a bit clearer to you. Dan: "or how what qualifies the observer as uncommitted to any world view" Someone may be uncommitted by means of: 1. ignorance to the existence of any world views, such as in the case of young children (or ignorance to the fact that different people believe they are true, which may leave the person in question to just assume they are all myth and meant to be so); 2. apathy to world views, or a lack of understanding for the importance of them and thus avoidance of them... I'm sure there's more but that's all I can scrape off the top of my head at the moment. Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:21:30 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#c89df9d3-6326-4494-9021-58b686fad09d Pinky 2009-07-09T22:21:30Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#ab2af764-7adf-4cbf-a38f-fa9795c5c428 "Those who believe that "belief" is more important than loving their neighbors and leaving judgment in the hands of their God strike me as frightened, silly little creatures, nurturing their fears on loathing, pretending to be something finer than what they clearly are." How so? On what basis can you make a value judgment here, not being a committed believer to anything at all. By saying that Love is the most important thing, are you not borrowing from Christianity's moral precepts? Christians would not pit Love vs belief anyway, since they believe the man is incapable of agape love except through faith or belief in Christ as the starting point. Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:01:12 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#ab2af764-7adf-4cbf-a38f-fa9795c5c428 Dan 2009-07-09T19:01:12Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#9448540a-d56d-4c60-91f5-77cf8e988478 as I said, Loki's comment was unsupported and left unexplained. It was worded as a general statement. In addition, all people are "committed believers" of one variety or another. Sure, sometimes we can see the holes in anothers argument because we have a different vantage point than they do, but Loki likes to position himself as a person who holds no bias and is completely unfettered by a world view. And this is of course, false. "Whenever two people argue on an often religious forum (like this one), at least one of the people arguing at least one of the sides is almost always a committed enough believer to be unable to perceive their own inability to reason." Your statement is no better worded than is Loki's, so you have committed a lokiism. A persons illogic on a issue can be rightly pointed out, but sweeping general statements like this one are fallacious, thus self contradicting. "Everyone who ISN'T arguing the committed believer's point can see it, and if there's a reasonable enough person arguing the committed believer's point, even S/HE will see it." More sweeping generalizations. Be careful of words like "everyone" and "always" etc. "This is true of EVERY committed believer arguing, no matter how many there are or how many sides are being argued. All it takes is a little active field work, and a little silent observation." again, you are arguing against your own position here by using illogic to support your contention that EVERY committed believer ALWAYS fails to perceive their own ability to reason. You also fail to define "committed believer" or how what qualifies the observer as uncommitted to any world view, which I assert all are. So while I freely admit that all people have bias, and those biases affect how a person reasons, I do not see any reason to embrace your view that all "committed believers" (whatever this designation means) are any different from those who are "uncommitted" (whatever this designation implies). None of these statements are themselves rooted in logic, they are lokiisms. But since Loki is some kind of superhero to you, it is not surpising that you cannot see the illogic in his statement (does this mean you are a committed believer?). Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:41:30 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#9448540a-d56d-4c60-91f5-77cf8e988478 Dan 2009-07-09T18:41:30Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#e90507b7-fba2-4d70-9747-7f9ec1722485 atheist OR a free thinker is what I said two different options not one Not all atheists are free thinkers, not all free thinkers are atheists. However all free thinkers are in one sense or another.... skeptics of what they are told they should believe. Not all atheists are skeptics, but some arrive at atheism through the process of skepticism. You cannot lump together atheists as a group without schisms, factions, and individualism anymore than you can lump together all of christendom. Free thinkers in general are rare, most people are sheep by choice, if they lose faith in one thing they freak out and desperately search another thing to blindly follow. If atheism wins some people over the more popular forms of it will give people other things to blindly follow because that's what people want... not to think for themselves. To think for themselves may make them feel a sense of responsibility for their lives they don't want to have. I consider myself a free thinking person, I am an agnostic, but I'd much rather keep company with another free thinking person who is of a faith I don't believe in or have political points of view I disagree with... knowing that they are freely choosing to believe what they want and taking responsibility for their own conclusions... than I would keeping company with a person who just follows along and just happens to share many points of view in common with myself. Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:50:32 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#e90507b7-fba2-4d70-9747-7f9ec1722485 Bruecke Bautraeger 2009-07-09T17:50:32Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#9cb51315-5e22-45b7-82db-fbca5e99cac3 There's a great deal of support for that statement, Dan - but it's no wonder you can't see it. Whenever two people argue on an often religious forum (like this one), at least one of the people arguing at least one of the sides is almost always a committed enough believer to be unable to perceive their own inability to reason. Everyone who ISN'T arguing the committed believer's point can see it, and if there's a reasonable enough person arguing the committed believer's point, even S/HE will see it. This is true of EVERY committed believer arguing, no matter how many there are or how many sides are being argued. All it takes is a little active field work, and a little silent observation. There's a good example of committed believers being completely oblivious to their own...well, just watch it (arguably, only ONE committed believer - the kids don't even know what they're talking about). There's even silent commentary written on the screen in case you have trouble seeing it (I'm speaking specifically of 2:45 through 5:03): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqvewouaGWw&feature=fvw Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:03:20 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#9cb51315-5e22-45b7-82db-fbca5e99cac3 Pinky 2009-07-09T17:03:20Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#f62cdb67-d2c3-4054-a802-e802ad5e1f58 "committed believers are unable to perceive their own inability to reason; it's equally true of atheists and theists." This statement is unsupported. We shall call it a "lokiism". Every person has a world view through which they filter information. You sit in no ivory tower above it all in this respect. While I disdain the illogic of the atheist, I find that they are far and away, more rational that you on matters not directly related to their delusion. Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:05:59 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#f62cdb67-d2c3-4054-a802-e802ad5e1f58 Dan 2009-07-09T16:05:59Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#9186e514-ea94-4f48-b262-967ba08520fd committed believers are unable to perceive their own inability to reason; it's equally true of atheists and theists. Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:33:43 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#9186e514-ea94-4f48-b262-967ba08520fd Lokifreign 2009-07-09T11:33:43Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#a76c8344-9798-4c38-a0b6-a24f91045909 >So to an honest person Jesus is either / or " Bullshit. Study up on it before you make a fool of yourself again. Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:30:51 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#a76c8344-9798-4c38-a0b6-a24f91045909 Lokifreign 2009-07-09T11:30:51Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#68f671f2-c973-4e87-a7d6-26bc4e817861 John: "Now your changing the subject, what I said has nothing to do with the origin of religion, or even the truth of it." You're not paying attention. REGARDLESS of the origins or accuracy of religion, religious belief is not necessary for PERSONAL self-sacrifice if a person's desired reward is COMMUNAL self-benefit (in other words, benefit of one's family, community, race, species, etc.). John: "All creatures have behavior all behavior exist because it delivers a reward or an expected reward." I still disagree with this, but I am trying to be nice and attempting to explain things in a language you can better understand. John: "What is the expected reward for self sacrificing behavior? That expectation can only come from a belief in something spiritual. Whether or not that spiritual thing is real or not is immaterial but is material is that the person sacrificing themselves believes it. A person who gives without material return is enjoying a spiritual reward, and believes in it or else they would not do it." So believing that sharing your lunch with someone so they will have something to eat (even though it might leave you a little hungrier), will result in a feeling of accomplishment, a closer bond with the other person, and perhaps for a more selfish individual the favor of a witness they hope to impress, means that said lunch-sharer is religious? None of those rewards are material, so you're saying they must be spiritual. How do you make this jump? John: "Atheism by definition does not provide such a reward" No, really, it does. Seriously. I promise. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you can label it with whatever you want. What did you say about strawman, again? John: "therefore self sacrificing behavior either is not done by Atheist or it is not done with conscious awareness of their own beliefs in the spiritual." Yeah, see, here's the problem. You're either confusing religious belief with social awareness and concern, or...well, actually it looks like that's exactly what you're doing. Thu, 09 Jul 2009 03:30:33 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#68f671f2-c973-4e87-a7d6-26bc4e817861 Pinky 2009-07-09T03:30:33Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#c286a7b4-489b-4f13-b906-2352478a1d46 Now your changing the subject, what I said has nothing to do with the origin of religion, or even the truth of it. All creatures have behavior all behavior exist because it delivers a reward or an expected reward. What is the expected reward for self sacrificing behavior? That expectation can only come from a belief in something spiritual. Whether or not that spiritual thing is real or not is immaterial but is material is that the person sacrificing themselves believes it. A person who gives without material return is enjoying a spiritual reward, and believes in it or else they would not do it. Atheism by definition does not provide such a reward therefore self sacrificing behavior either is not done by Atheist or it is not done with conscious awareness of their own beliefs in the spiritual. Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:03:04 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#c286a7b4-489b-4f13-b906-2352478a1d46 John 2009-07-09T02:03:04Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#c73d5d3f-0db8-4fe1-a580-73a97b49ec36 are pathetic irrational losers. (this was complete this sentence wasn't it?) Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:20:33 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#c73d5d3f-0db8-4fe1-a580-73a97b49ec36 Dan 2009-07-08T19:20:33Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#f65be136-77d9-4697-9521-862b1157ab72 John: "your conclusion is a nonsequitor, based on your strawman of Religious people. First I agree with everything you have said with regard to morality, without religion morality is self serving." Non sequitur? Really? Well that's more than I can say for you, but there you go. That was my single, simply put, logically argued opposition and you twist it around. You defend that people only ever do something for reward - in the case of religious people, in AT LEAST religious terms (if not more, or even everything for some people), that would be the favor of a deity or an eternal paradise (especially in the absence of any more earthly reward), would it not? So I'm not sure where my strawman is. Without someone INFORMING you of some otherwise undetectable being watching your every move and judging you upon your choices, you would not likely ever come to the conclusion on your own (it would still be possible, but just highly unlikely - and even more unlikely to conclude a currently existing major religion like Christianity or Islam if you take detail into account). Little children don't think up Santa Clause on their own without hearing something about him somewhere first. True, early man came up with gods and religion before anyone was there to tell him; the idea of gods started with explaining thunder and lightening, death, natural disasters, the differences between night and day...the things earlier people didn't understand, couldn't explain, and many of them were probably afraid of. We don't have so much of that anymore; the questions we have found the answers to and the inquiries we can explain away are much more numerous, and our yet unanswerable questions are much more complex, less likely to come up (and do so less often) in everyday life for the average Joe, and those that do we can easily apply logic to and reach a PROBABLE answer even if we don't have a definite one. Also, I never promoted the bullshit idea that nonreligious morality is exclusively self-serving. I gave a few examples last time, but perhaps you twisted those too. Alright, *new approach*. Self-serving works on two separate levels: there is the individual, personal self that the obsessive serving of would lead to accusations of greed; there is also the communal, highly instinctual (in social animals) more FAMILIAL self that the obsessive serving of would lead to accusations of altruism. The latter of these two is just as instinctual in every human individual, no matter their religion or lack thereof, and invariably leads the "selfless" acts even to an extreme of self-sacrifice. On a side note, how self-righteous of you to think you can read the hearts of others based on ANYTHING. Isn't that God's territory? The whole "judging" thing? Seriously, I ALMOST think I prefer the "atheists/heathens can't do good because whenever they do good it's for the wrong reasons" kind of people to you, John. Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:57:09 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#f65be136-77d9-4697-9521-862b1157ab72 Pinky 2009-07-08T17:57:09Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#78fc840e-38e2-4d07-af16-493de884eb64 LEARNED KNOWLEDGE is to REASON as: FORK + PENNY = PAIN is to ELECTRICITY, as: BROKEN RULE = ANGRY DEITY is to ??? The difference here is that religious people only understand that these (angry deity / unpleasant afterlife) are undesirable outcomes because others have taught them so; alternatively, the child's understanding of being electrocuted by sticking a metal object in an outlet is reached naturally without anyone having to explain it. > your conclusion is a nonsequitor, based on your strawman of Religious people. First I agree with everything you have said with regard to morality, without religion morality is self serving. Don't stick your finger in a light socket or you will get burned. Stick your finger in a light socket to save a stranger that could never repay you even in the face of negative social reaction, that type of morality is not self serving. It requires a belief in something more then what the material world can deliver, i.e. consequences beyond the pain of burning and the response of society. This is a very logical and simple to understand point of view, one that is based on some basic assumptions. 1. We human beings have the ability to choose our behavior and do not react according to instinct alone. 2. All behavior is chosen at some level, conscious or unconscious, we are not merely passengers acting without consideration. 3. All chosen behavior is done for a reward, some physical like money, food, etc. Some spiritual love, God, Darma. etc. If one truly does not believe in God or any spiritual reward then logically their morality would be a subset, one that is self serving and materialistic. Whether or not morality exists in instinct is immaterial, unless your going to argue that we are unable to make logical choices against instinct. Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:16:52 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#78fc840e-38e2-4d07-af16-493de884eb64 John 2009-07-08T17:16:52Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#ff0a2ccb-c67d-40ac-91d5-22d33d229a8c Let scientist turn grass into milk, I think the cows should be given the noble prize. Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:54:17 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#ff0a2ccb-c67d-40ac-91d5-22d33d229a8c Nityananda 2009-07-08T13:54:17Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#19e5b33b-fa43-4de0-81b0-c22fc9dfe78e John: "Translation if she had any logical arguments against what I have said she would use them, but doesn't so ad hominem suffices." Not that I don't appreciate you speaking for me, but I'm going to have to correct you. Better to stick with speaking for yourself, and maybe people you have an intimate enough relationship with to reasonably predict and understand them on at least a general basis. John, you've shown on other occasions, in different discussions, in different ways, that you are (to varying extents) capable of at least acknowledging a reasonable standpoint EVEN if you don't personally agree with it. However, your argument here isn't based on logic in any way, shape, or form. I can't give you any examples of why, because it simply doesn't even come close - there's absolutely nothing I could pull out of what you're blabbering here to relate to any school or pseudo-school of logic, even just to clarify that it DOESN'T fit. If this were a circle chart, one circle would be labeled "logic", one circle would be labeled "John's argument", and they would be on opposite sides of the projector with no overlap whatsoever. How am I supposed to concoct a logical argument against one that doesn't even defy it - it simply exists completely exclusively and independent of it. It would be like...if thought patterns were food, and logical ideas were vegetables, your viewpoint would be pork fat. But sure - just because you asked so nicely, I'll make this one attempt at nailing jelly to a tree: Albeit the (sense of) morality that humans exhibit would be different today had we not invented/developed religion. It's clear by examining different cultures and societies that different religions tend to inspire (generally similar, but still) very different concepts of morality when you get into the nitty gritty. Because of this I'll grant you that had we never started worshiping the answers we attributed to the questions we otherwise couldn't answer, modern morality would likely be comparably different, as are the various senses of morality between different cultures really are today (generally the same, but specifically different). Because the religious have been such an overwhelming majority for such a long time, inspiring societies at a political, educational, and other levels as a result, even those without religion are unavoidably influenced by religious concepts of morality. So, we can easily assume that modern morality would likely be different than it is had it not been so greatly controlled by religion for such a prolonged amount of time. However, "good" and "evil" are purely religious terms. Without religion's influence on morality, it would probably be more of a conflict between "beneficial" and "detrimental." Any 2yo with a penny and access to a light socket will quickly learn that it is "detrimental" to combine the two, thus making the alternative (abstaining from such a combination) "beneficial." S/he may not understand why (electrical current, closed circuits, grounding...those are all much too complicated for a 2yo to comprehend, but the kid will understand that it is undesirable), just as many religious people will follow the rules in their holy book without knowing a greater purpose behind it. They believe that it angers their deity and/or will reserve a place for them in an unimaginably unpleasant eternal afterlife, but do not comprehend the finer workings of this deity or afterlife. Let's try this more visual comparison: LEARNED KNOWLEDGE is to REASON as: FORK + PENNY = PAIN is to ELECTRICITY, as: BROKEN RULE = ANGRY DEITY is to ??? The difference here is that religious people only understand that these (angry deity / unpleasant afterlife) are undesirable outcomes because others have taught them so; alternatively, the child's understanding of being electrocuted by sticking a metal object in an outlet is reached naturally without anyone having to explain it. By means of this natural, instinctual learning process we can easily reason some of the more basic modern concepts of morality without having to reference religion in any way. By regarding the value in material objects because of the convenience and luxuries that it provides us, we can reason that stealing would be DETRIMENTAL to others by inconveniencing them and lowering their quality of life. Because we are a social species we are able to learn how helpful it is when others support us physically, mentally, emotionally, etc., which allows us to reason that it would be BENEFICIAL to assist others as well. By experiencing a sense of loss and remorse for dead loved ones, and simply the hassle that it creates monetarily, we can reason that it would be DETRIMENTAL to end the lives of others because of the pain it will cause others both emotionally and financially. (Yes, I realize there's so much more I can say about all of those, but I've written quite a bit already.) Seriously, it's just that fucking simple. Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:37:47 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#19e5b33b-fa43-4de0-81b0-c22fc9dfe78e Pinky 2009-07-08T09:37:47Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#4eaf1aab-b19f-43f4-931c-5736b52f3c94 <Guilty as charged. If I truly believed there was any hope of John being able to approach this particular argument with an objective sense of reason and logic, I'd have a different approach. Truth is, I have no hope for him, and (perhaps unreasonably of me, and to anyone who views it that way I apologize) thus I opted to relieve myself of pent-up disappointment in people who think similarly to him by making clear my offense to John's disgusting prejudice. > Translation if she had any logical arguments against what I have said she would use them, but doesn't so ad hominem suffices. Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:47:32 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#4eaf1aab-b19f-43f4-931c-5736b52f3c94 John 2009-07-08T01:47:32Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#47c81f46-7b91-458b-9aea-49be62e3846e Dr. D: "Accusing someone of arrogance in a theological argument is ad hominem." Guilty as charged. If I truly believed there was any hope of John being able to approach this particular argument with an objective sense of reason and logic, I'd have a different approach. Truth is, I have no hope for him, and (perhaps unreasonably of me, and to anyone who views it that way I apologize) thus I opted to relieve myself of pent-up disappointment in people who think similarly to him by making clear my offense to John's disgusting prejudice. Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:55:02 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#47c81f46-7b91-458b-9aea-49be62e3846e Pinky 2009-07-01T17:55:02Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#cf2bf6ab-7578-4545-8694-2765a4fd9ca0 Being arrogant is not the same as being factually correct. Accusing someone of arrogance in a theological argument is ad hominem. Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:38:09 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#cf2bf6ab-7578-4545-8694-2765a4fd9ca0 Dr.Diarrhea 2009-07-01T14:38:09Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#c1c0bd90-bac0-49c8-81cd-4eeeb1508846 John: "There is a certain undeniable arrogance about being right, I 'll own that." If you were right, there would be no need or reason for being offensive. <<arrogance offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride>> Always a sure sign of lying - either to an audience or to oneself. Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:34:17 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#c1c0bd90-bac0-49c8-81cd-4eeeb1508846 Pinky 2009-07-01T06:34:17Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#df921aef-dcf5-4a45-a5e8-d0952f1ddfa7 <It is MY opinion that such extremism (as you've shown us here) reeks of egotism and arrogance, and anyone who can't smell it is holding their breath. The sick thing is, dogma puts gas masks at its followers' disposal, and many people don't even fucking realize they're wearing one. John being my case-in-point. > There is a certain undeniable arrogance about being right, I 'll own that. Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:22:52 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#df921aef-dcf5-4a45-a5e8-d0952f1ddfa7 John 2009-07-01T03:22:52Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#3664b8f8-65d9-4784-bec0-cc2ab771647d That *is* the trillion dollar question, isn't it? Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:09:57 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#3664b8f8-65d9-4784-bec0-cc2ab771647d Pinky 2009-06-30T20:09:57Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#b94b56bb-ecd3-4a07-ab9f-f068a6ca2dc8 It's sad, but this line of reasoning rather disqualifies John from the "one of the intelligent ones" pool. Back to the nut-jar, J; sorry - your early promise was ruined by weird uncritical beliefs married to untenable "philosophy" and circular logic. What *is* it with the believers and their untenable "philosophies" and dog-chase-tail logic? Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:03:15 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#b94b56bb-ecd3-4a07-ab9f-f068a6ca2dc8 Lokifreign 2009-06-30T19:03:15Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#8d9b957f-441e-487f-8bc8-58a5c87924da John: "It may be rude but it is true none the less." No, I'm sorry. You're making up your own definition for something here, be it "atheist," or "god," or "Christian," or whatever. If you were leaving it at that, you'd be fine, but you are taking it farther by either defining objective concepts, or conflictingly subjective people/places/things, with your own personally subjective definitions. DOES NOT COMPUTE. You are more than welcome to your subjective opinions - we all have them - but when you start calling your subjective opinion an objective fact, well - that's exactly what I speak out against, in more specific terms than just "extremism." It is MY opinion that such extremism (as you've shown us here) reeks of egotism and arrogance, and anyone who can't smell it is holding their breath. The sick thing is, dogma puts gas masks at its followers' disposal, and many people don't even fucking realize they're wearing one. John being my case-in-point. Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:24:26 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#8d9b957f-441e-487f-8bc8-58a5c87924da Pinky 2009-06-29T20:24:26Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#274c9db8-dd6e-4641-8975-7b7293bb8fe3 <I find no problem with this statement all on it's own. Anyone can define god however they so choose, however, when you then add more detailed and/or exclusive qualifiers such as names, personalities, religious favoritism, etc., you sacrifice your right to portray your personal god model upon others. The fact that you cannot see this for the intrusive, discriminatory fantasy that it is - well, you're only fooling yourself. Telling people what they are and are not as if you know them better than they know themselves - especially when such personal and extreme judgments are made ONLINE - wow, that's just really fucking rude. Even if you find it a positive, beneficial or favorable stereotype (blacks are good athletes, Asians are good at math, Jews are good with money, etc.), it's still a stereotype, and it's still wrong. ?> It may be rude but it is true none the less. You are what you do, one can claim be a straight man, however if you spend hours a day sucking cock , your claim will fall on deaf ears. If you claim to be an Athiest, yet spend your time doing good for others, then your claim is without merit. Of course this falls on many people because the "Claim" of atheism is a matter of denial, a way of avoiding classification with certain groups or affiliation with other groups, not a real way of life. Accept that is for a few sociopaths like Cheney, Bush or Hitler. Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:54:32 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#274c9db8-dd6e-4641-8975-7b7293bb8fe3 John 2009-06-29T17:54:32Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#19bff90c-b290-4675-a5d3-59ff7ad11340 John: "Adam a "love of humanity" is God." I find no problem with this statement all on it's own. Anyone can define god however they so choose, however, when you then add more detailed and/or exclusive qualifiers such as names, personalities, religious favoritism, etc., you sacrifice your right to portray your personal god model upon others. The fact that you cannot see this for the intrusive, discriminatory fantasy that it is - well, you're only fooling yourself. Telling people what they are and are not as if you know them better than they know themselves - especially when such personal and extreme judgments are made ONLINE - wow, that's just really fucking rude. Even if you find it a positive, beneficial or favorable stereotype (blacks are good athletes, Asians are good at math, Jews are good with money, etc.), it's still a stereotype, and it's still wrong. Mon, 29 Jun 2009 03:48:40 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#19bff90c-b290-4675-a5d3-59ff7ad11340 Pinky 2009-06-29T03:48:40Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#c94374c5-3fe0-4574-99cb-0542bc2bd10d <Ha!Ha! I KNOW there isnt any GOD. What my actions reveal is a love of HUMANITY> Adam a "love of humanity" is God. As long as you put that above your own needs you are not say in your heart that there is no God, quite the opposite every good deed is worshiping at the true alter of God, welcome brother Christian! Mon, 29 Jun 2009 03:16:07 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#c94374c5-3fe0-4574-99cb-0542bc2bd10d John 2009-06-29T03:16:07Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#5ae32536-9e17-40fa-9e37-4cc4eac4bc10 John <<<The point of the verse is that if in your heart your really believed that there is no God then you would not be able to do those things. Your action reveal a love for God, you can deny it all you want the proof is there.>>> Ha!Ha! I KNOW there isnt any GOD. What my actions reveal is a love of HUMANITY. Fuck GOD! That is just a bullshit myth conjured from mans imagination. What has been proven is that the psalm is bullshit lies just like so much of the rest of that book. I participate in many online religious forums and to this day NONE of them can account for the three totally different acounts of Jesus resurrection. If in fact those scriptures were the "inspired" word of GOD, then this GOD inspires people to lie. Because two of the stories HAVE TO BE FALSE. And those liars are major characters in that book. So until you can clear up this fact, that book is trash and totally useless for factual reference regarding TRUTH. <<<Strawman, for a Christian an atheist is reinforcement, like hanging out with the ugly kid to feel better about yourself, or the stupid kid to feel smarter.>>> FINALLY your true colors come shining through! You have been honest here with us and yourself to explain the narcissistic attitude you Christian Occultists really have. You really believe you are better than an Atheist. You even express judgement of what kids are ugly and which ones are pretty, which ones are smart and which ones are stupid as though you have had years of practice pronouncing these judgements. Then you admit to having utilized those judgements in the past to elevate yourself. Ha!Ha! What a pathetic fucking display of self righteous ignorance. Trust me when I say I want nothing at all to do with the GOD that compels you to act so sickeningly phagocytic. And the Jesus you claim to worship would puke on you if he knew how you have perverted his teachings to accomplish such self righteous indignation. Geez, talkin about your PROOF!Ha!Ha! Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:28:25 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#5ae32536-9e17-40fa-9e37-4cc4eac4bc10 Adam 2009-06-29T00:28:25Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#fb712edb-1e76-463e-8856-e97144bc8963 What frightens me is that they actually *believe* that no one who doesn't believe in their weird totem *can* do/be good for its own sake. I'd say it "proves" they're dangerously psychopathic, but then that would be rude, wouldn't it? I tend to shy from absolutist statements, but, no one who actually believes this way deserves to be taken seriously. No one who actually thinks it *could* be true merits authority. Best off if we smile at them, nod, and stab the silent alarm button repeatedly. Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:46:42 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#fb712edb-1e76-463e-8856-e97144bc8963 Lokifreign 2009-06-28T19:46:42Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#1cf80647-0d54-40ad-be55-ef97b88e0827 John: "Your action reveal a love for God, you can deny it all you want the proof is there." Religious folk use the word "proof" in very strange ways. They either need to learn the actual meaning, or come up with their own word for what they're trying to say. Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:24:33 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#1cf80647-0d54-40ad-be55-ef97b88e0827 Pinky 2009-06-28T13:24:33Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#c6da4213-75ca-40dc-ae10-ccc3656592e0 <Religious belief is difficult for people who question things. I firmly think that religiosity and conservativism are frequently bedmates because they both have a kind of mental inflexibility in support of established order. Love the lie..... Atheists are the pariahs of America..christan fundies can somewhat tolerate others who at least belive, but an athiest blows the whole thing open and horrifies them, that someone could live without ANY religion. It's a tough choice to make, but fuck them..why should I cowtow to a bunch of superstitious, poorly educated fucktards who are afraid of the dark? > Strawman, for a Christian an atheist is reinforcement, like hanging out with the ugly kid to feel better about yourself, or the stupid kid to feel smarter. Sun, 28 Jun 2009 04:08:20 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#c6da4213-75ca-40dc-ae10-ccc3656592e0 John 2009-06-28T04:08:20Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#b78c4927-9042-4136-81bf-60fde93a57d2 <am one of "THE FOOLS" referred to in the verse because I say there is no GOD. But I take care of an 84yr old Pentecostal woman, I volunteer to help when the hurricanes hit, I take care of the 16 cats we have because the 84yr old woman loves them, I love my family unconditionally and show it through the things I do for them, I look after my 65yr old mother who is still having to work and scrape by with the tiny fixed income they pay her for my stepdad who was in the "Battle of the Bulge" and only allow her to make $1100 dollars A MONTH...How can the writer of this psalm make the things I do in life "abominable"? If a GOD existed, would it say these things I do are bad just because I do not believe the message it sent through a bunch of zealotous fabricators? Or would it insist that I stop doing these things until I can admit GOD exists? It is my contention that this verse is full of shit on the basis that lack of belief CAN NOT make a good deed "abominable". And to say that ALL non-believers do bad things is a crock of crap! It just proves the malicious intent of the writer to incite prejudice against anyone who doesnt believe. > The point of the verse is that if in your heart your really believed that there is no God then you would not be able to do those things. Your action reveal a love for God, you can deny it all you want the proof is there. Sun, 28 Jun 2009 04:04:39 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#b78c4927-9042-4136-81bf-60fde93a57d2 John 2009-06-28T04:04:39Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#219e72fb-b252-4131-b633-c4afc58eb477 Religion is an evolutionary meme that gave advantage to tribal groups survival, but it is severly limited by our physical perspective and our needs as humans. We never needed to know that the earth is round and revolves around the sun to help us hunt down wooly mammoth, but we DID need to predict the seasons to grow crops, so we worshiped the sun and plotted it's movements from observation so we could eventually learn when to plant and when to store.. Wittgenstein was famous for an exchange he made with a friend...he asked why, for all of history, humans belived the sun went around the earth..his friend replied "Because it appears to"...then Wittgenstein asked "Oh...well, what would it have looked like if the earth was rotatng?".....point is, it would have looked exactly the same. So why place humans at the center and presuppose it is the sun that is moving? Because we construct narratives around our own perspectives, with ourselves at the center of it all. Religion led to the development of cultural identity and kin groups which in turn lead to the widespread development of regional languages across larger distances...it was the development of large scale political economy...but it's unecessary now, like the appendix..it's a hangover. Dawkins, currently the most popular atheist thanks to his "God Delusion" book, likens religion to a moth flying into a flame. People wonder why a moth would do this, but they don't look at the evolutionary developments of the moth..the moth and many other nocturnal flying insects navigate by the light of the moon to go from food source to nest..they see the light and their little brains go "head take left at light and head straight" by instinct..then they end up getting burned..but nobody thinks about the billions of moths who DON't fly into flames and are doing very well...they are responding according to their evolutionary impulses which work very well in most circumstances, but can be suicidal in contexts beyond their understanding. They would avoid flames if they knew what flames were but it's beyond their ability to conceptualize or understand...religion is much the same..an evolutionary impulse that was at once useful but is also dangerous in the modern world outside of the contexts for which it developed. Galileo was locked up for a reason...his evidence contradicted dogma. The same is happening today with evolution..it's like someone is suggesting the earth goes around the sun..this throws belief systems into question and is thought of as a threat. Athiesm is a threat, evolution is a threat, science is a threat to the basic instinct of the unthinking person who has had dogma drilled into them since childhood. Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:47:12 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#219e72fb-b252-4131-b633-c4afc58eb477 Dr.Diarrhea 2009-06-27T19:47:12Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#122f8fcc-8c98-433c-b963-166af37374d9 "Religious belief is difficult for people who question things. I firmly think that religiosity and conservativism are frequently bedmates because they both have a kind of mental inflexibility in support of established order. Love the lie....." Very well worded. I think that religion was crafted to help us evolve, but almost immediately it got taken in the most crude literal way. Take for instance the stance about sex only for the making of children: people generally have a lot of sex anyway, enough to flood the world with kids. If one look at this admonition as being a tack taken to *reduce* the output of progeny sufficiently that we would not have ended up with this massively overpopulated world, one can see its worth. But then one has to question why it is that certain sects are so hung up on the wastage of gametes. Looks to be because they didn't understand what was going on, scientifically. But immediately this got used to repress, to control others' bodies, when really it might have just been some advice to "go easy", so as to not snuff ourselves out and ruin this world by producing so many human beings. But no, religious conservatives can never view these things moderately, only in the most severest manner. Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:33:20 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#122f8fcc-8c98-433c-b963-166af37374d9 B-b 2009-06-27T17:33:20Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#b2002e6b-1c9b-42cd-885f-e8141eeb7bb1 Well said. Atheism takes a certain existential courage..courage to reject the easy yet irrational comforts of a simple universal narrative to alleviate the terror..some people go through an arduous process to arrive there, but for others it comes naturally. I myself was an atheist as a child, despite practicing Jewish parents. It never rung true with me..not necessarily Judaism, but the very idea of an ominpotent being. And I remember as a child wondering what I was doing wrong that everyone around me seemed to get. When I told my parents I did not believe, they said they did not really belive EITHER, but were too afraid of "turing their back on their people"...so their whole identity was wrapped up in being Jews, but they though the religious aspects were bullshit..until someone died or got married. I couldn't swallow the cultural identity bit any more than I could the God concept, so dumped them booth as a kid. Religious belief is difficult for people who question things. I firmly think that religiosity and conservativism are frequently bedmates because they both have a kind of mental inflexibility in support of established order. Love the lie..... Atheists are the pariahs of America..christan fundies can somewhat tolerate others who at least belive, but an athiest blows the whole thing open and horrifies them, that someone could live without ANY religion. It's a tough choice to make, but fuck them..why should I cowtow to a bunch of superstitious, poorly educated fucktards who are afraid of the dark? Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:40:34 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#b2002e6b-1c9b-42cd-885f-e8141eeb7bb1 Dr.Diarrhea 2009-06-27T02:40:34Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#da0a4b97-6d8d-4acb-8b1a-0be38e0c7be0 What is God? What does the verse imply God is? What aspect of his existence are we exhorted to believe in? I will say this: don't believe he's a human being; that's the worst possible thing you could do. Look what happened when people needs Jesus to be the Messiah, it got written that he said he was the "son of God". But these days to some (many) Christians he *is* God. Like I say, not good, at all. Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:55:54 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#da0a4b97-6d8d-4acb-8b1a-0be38e0c7be0 B-b 2009-06-26T22:55:54Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#51a9f292-15d8-47b7-95ac-cf4e8f3f6f42 John <<<Psa 14:1 [[To the chief Musician, [A Psalm] of David.]] The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good. I disagree the video implies that Psalm 24:1 refers to Athiest, it does not, as I stated above if you read the verse it claims that those whose say in their hearts that there is no God are fools and that none of those people do any good but rather abominable works. So according to the verse the people who " in their hearts" say that there is no God are known by their works, not by their claim of belief or disbelief. This verse applies equally to Theist and Atheist. and to be honest I have met more theist then atheist that fit this definition.>>> I agree that the blanketing coverage in this verse is inclusive of Atheists and theists alike. But I must laugh at the audacity of the writer. Not only is it obvious that he is biased and prejudiced regarding "belief", but he is also stupid enough to hyperbolize ALL non-believers as not doing ANYTHING GOOD. As though they do nothing but "abominable" works. Now, before I am corrected let me say that I understand that the blanketing statements in this verse concerns works and deeds done "IN THE EYES OF GOD". But then I must ask, when are loving kind deeds done by non-believers looked at as "abominable" just because they do not believe the MEN who said it exists? For example, I am one of "THE FOOLS" referred to in the verse because I say there is no GOD. But I take care of an 84yr old Pentecostal woman, I volunteer to help when the hurricanes hit, I take care of the 16 cats we have because the 84yr old woman loves them, I love my family unconditionally and show it through the things I do for them, I look after my 65yr old mother who is still having to work and scrape by with the tiny fixed income they pay her for my stepdad who was in the "Battle of the Bulge" and only allow her to make $1100 dollars A MONTH...How can the writer of this psalm make the things I do in life "abominable"? If a GOD existed, would it say these things I do are bad just because I do not believe the message it sent through a bunch of zealotous fabricators? Or would it insist that I stop doing these things until I can admit GOD exists? It is my contention that this verse is full of shit on the basis that lack of belief CAN NOT make a good deed "abominable". And to say that ALL non-believers do bad things is a crock of crap! It just proves the malicious intent of the writer to incite prejudice against anyone who doesnt believe. Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:07:21 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#51a9f292-15d8-47b7-95ac-cf4e8f3f6f42 Adam 2009-06-26T22:07:21Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#27afc3dc-7c1c-4d30-a7d0-fb6e1adc9118 John: "So to an honest person Jesus is either as he taught, the messiah, the first born of God. or Jesus is a liar." Or, Heaven forbid, somebody who wrote about him fucked up. Or who knows, a slip in translation here or there could have changed a great deal - even punctuation can completely change the meaning of a sentence. Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:59:17 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#27afc3dc-7c1c-4d30-a7d0-fb6e1adc9118 Pinky 2009-06-26T16:59:17Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#05d892cf-c321-4663-a787-5bc7cd19be54 <Those who believe that "belief" is more important than loving their neighbors and leaving judgment in the hands of their God strike me as frightened, silly little creatures, nurturing their fears on loathing, pretending to be something finer than what they clearly are. > A nonsequitor, your conclusion has nothing to with observing an obvious lie. If a man is a prophet then what he teaches comes from God, if he teaches a lie then he is not a prophet. So to an honest person Jesus is either as he taught, the messiah, the first born of God. or Jesus is a liar. Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:03:56 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#05d892cf-c321-4663-a787-5bc7cd19be54 John 2009-06-26T02:03:56Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#663784f4-2aab-42a6-98c1-b4e5060d3c1b <this is not a coherent rebuttal of anything; it's just kerygmatic mumbling and reliance on old poetry as some sort of observable 'truth', much like your above appeal to scripture as a basis for calling others "liar". > I disagree the video implies that Psalm 24:1 refers to Athiest, it does not, as I stated above if you read the verse it claims that those whose say in their hearts that there is no God are fools and that none of those people do any good but rather abominable works. So according to the verse the people who " in their hearts" say that there is no God are known by their works, not by their claim of belief or disbelief. This verse applies equally to Theist and Atheist. and to be honest I have met more theist then atheist that fit this definition. And I made a valid point about the poor choice of logic, it seems that most atheist defenses are little more then logical fallacies as is this one. Psa 14:1 [[To the chief Musician, [A Psalm] of David.]] The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good. Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:01:09 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#663784f4-2aab-42a6-98c1-b4e5060d3c1b John 2009-06-26T02:01:09Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#486dfd82-0bc9-43e6-95ab-16ea5acceeee <I doubt that this particualr video will convince anybody to become an atheist or free thinker.> that is an oxymoron, aside from Catholism, I can't think of another religion more against free thinking then Atheism. Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:52:45 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#486dfd82-0bc9-43e6-95ab-16ea5acceeee John 2009-06-26T01:52:45Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#dcb996fc-cebe-4fcf-8326-8e6e942e6efb this is not a coherent rebuttal of anything; it's just kerygmatic mumbling and reliance on old poetry as some sort of observable 'truth', much like your above appeal to scripture as a basis for calling others "liar". Shame on you. Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:25:50 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#dcb996fc-cebe-4fcf-8326-8e6e942e6efb Lokifreign 2009-06-25T22:25:50Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#3c0f340b-13df-4388-91e1-9e684b1262e5 I've always thought it was interesting how that version of his teachings utterly contradicts his core doctrine, but hey: knock yourself out if you think "the Son of Man" is best interpreted by Roman emperors and/or the Nicean council - both of which murdered anyone that cogently disagreed with them. Those who believe that "belief" is more important than loving their neighbors and leaving judgment in the hands of their God strike me as frightened, silly little creatures, nurturing their fears on loathing, pretending to be something finer than what they clearly are. Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:21:59 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#3c0f340b-13df-4388-91e1-9e684b1262e5 Lokifreign 2009-06-25T22:21:59Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#6a6bc065-fac0-4ddd-a4f7-7c1bd913d8a7 <Looki Muslims belive Jesus was a prophet. But not the son of God, Nor God. They do not consider themselves Christians, nor stand under that banner. > Any one who says that reveals themselves to be liars, because Jesus taught that he was the son of God and the path for mans redemption. If that is not the case, then he was a liar, a corrupt individual. So there is no way he could be a prophet unless what he taught was true. Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:27:20 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#6a6bc065-fac0-4ddd-a4f7-7c1bd913d8a7 John 2009-06-25T17:27:20Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#3cde0e3a-e989-470d-b1d8-5cf7f45167d2 Two things this is basically a logical fallacy appeal to authority, and a a bad one at that. None of the people mentioned have any expertise in philosophy or religion. It is not in anyway reasonable to assume that because some one is accomplished and intelligent that they know anything about a given subject, I would not go to Carl Sagan with questions about a brain tumor for instance, I would however have asked him about a particular star or celestial body. So over all this video only shows the lack of logic that exists in Athiest defense. Secondly Psalms 14:1 does not refer to people who claim to be athiest it refers to those who "In there hearts" have said that there is no God, the evidence of that is not from their mouth but in their action which are described as abominable. This verse applies to those that do evil and yet claim a faith in God. It could apply to those that are Atheist and do evil, but not to those that do not do evil. Read it again: Psa 14:1 [[To the chief Musician, [A Psalm] of David.]] The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good. Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:24:01 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#3cde0e3a-e989-470d-b1d8-5cf7f45167d2 John 2009-06-25T17:24:01Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#4c3ab03d-98af-4577-b134-38bb67eefa3a "So, why did the people surrounding ancient Israel insist on a Messiah?" They were too lazy to learn the Qabalah, to look intensely at the Tree of Life. Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:56:56 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#4c3ab03d-98af-4577-b134-38bb67eefa3a B-b 2009-06-24T17:56:56Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#63fe3f9b-929e-47db-a3f6-fbdb5d9ebf8d Perhaps we should really investigate what happened to him, Loki. I don't think most are willing to understand these sorts of metaphysics, but if we did a good job, together we could kill this Christian ideal of Satan. I'm out to do this. We can then understand why Christians are so insistent that reality be shrunk down so that they can worship a man in the flesh as God forever. They (Christians) want to get rid of their sins. Samael is the Deceiver, in Qabalistic terms. This is the averse side of Hod, the sephirah of the mind. Virtue of Hod: Truth, Vice: Falsehood; I would add deception, deceit. So, Christians have a very strong belief in the Devil and Hell. Moreso than an immaterial God. They figure it is fine to sin repeatedly, and yet still feel they gain "grace", yet they are judgmental and unforgiving to others that don't believe as they do. Forgiveness only within the limited scope of their cult. Many Christians are solidly for warfare, for those dropped bomb or ours in the Middle East. Why? That warfare makes them comfortable, brings them ease, and cheap gasoline. So, why did the people surrounding ancient Israel insist on a Messiah? They refused to follow the Vices and Virtues of the Tree of Life. They had no time for it, they eschewed intellectual discovery in favor of the physical pleasures. Yet they knew that this growing reservoir of their sin was creating ever more havoc around them. So they insisted on this man to take on their sins, and as every person continues to give in, this patchwork Satan gets a bit stronger, a bit more devious. Now, why do they say that Jesus gave forgiveness for all time by his sacrifice, yet Hell still exists, and we are near achieving Hell on this Earth? Why, because these people are really the most inveterate materialists, want to give up the world, but can't manage it, never will be able to, require its destruction to escape it, and it all comes down to their greed. I could go on. Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:54:52 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#63fe3f9b-929e-47db-a3f6-fbdb5d9ebf8d B-b 2009-06-24T17:54:52Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#ef568c94-853f-48d8-8455-2d0d3ab5596a Looki Muslims belive Jesus was a prophet. But not the son of God, Nor God. They do not consider themselves Christians, nor stand under that banner. I must agree with them, in that there may well of been a man named Jesus who walked this earth, but he was a mortal, and not the son of god, or even God himself.! y body is a temple, and anyone who wants to enter has to fall to my feet, and start praying. Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:02:16 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#ef568c94-853f-48d8-8455-2d0d3ab5596a Pattison 2009-06-24T01:02:16Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#e0f96b07-f4aa-41e6-be8f-9964cdb6d271 >>all religions and religus people who belive in Jesus are christians<< Entirely incorrect. Muslims believe in Jesus, Cao Dai adherents, Essenes, and a host of other faith-oriented schools. I "believe" in Jesus, myself, as a matter of fact, in that I accept what history is credible with regard to the past existence of Yahashua bin "Joseph". Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:23:53 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#e0f96b07-f4aa-41e6-be8f-9964cdb6d271 Lokifreign 2009-06-24T00:23:53Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#99248a35-5d83-4322-9c6a-6ac615c6b214 Looki but all religions and religus people who belive in Jesus are christians, it doesn't belong to one group of people who go to church, or one religion. Mind you the Pope has state Catholicism is the only true Christan church, and many would say Mormons are not christmas, Yet they have Jesus bane in their name: The Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter day saints. But I have found many atheists to be more christian like, than many who stand under the banner of being a christian. Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:16:10 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#99248a35-5d83-4322-9c6a-6ac615c6b214 Pattison 2009-06-24T00:16:10Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#207f8d68-5d5b-4e85-bf1a-90f44939849b >>find atheist and pseudo scientific language to spread lies supported by atheist philosophy (distorted) and science taken out of context to do a better job at supporting the lies people already want to make themselves believe given to them by their religious leaders... and do it better.<< That's precisely the tenor of the attempts by most atheist apology. The *attempt* is made to do it better. Science doesn't support a/theist assertions, in any case. >>Atheism ... hasn't reached the hypothetical low of rhetoric that you find above to promote itself. << ? Hmm. No; I disagree. I don't see the grade, the distinction, all that clearly, really. Lies are lies. Not all of them are net bad... but that's surely another topic altogether. Prejudice is prejudice. A "professor's" prejudiced rhetoric is not more beautiful to me than that of the Muslim next door that swears that all white people are unloved of God. Hooray for Bautraeger! Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:30:01 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#207f8d68-5d5b-4e85-bf1a-90f44939849b Lokifreign 2009-06-23T23:30:01Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#c8552f68-bbbd-4273-a032-68580cd26ff9 Atheists were cooler and far more useful to society before they started founding a church. _________ well, there is a kind of strength that comes from people working together in lock step than they might have as separate individuals. Of course to do that, leadership and interpretation gets handed over, One cannot function as a body and be an organ in it, and have every part function as a separate brain. To make atheism function organizationally more like a religion and seek to proselytize it and grow in the way someone like Sam Harris might be inclined towards... it may indeed take on many of the same excesses as a movement as any religion the criticize. For instance, my observation that people don't want to think for themselves and like comforting lies. If those atheists who wish to evangelize their atheism become more concerned with that goal than the promotion of free thinking.... all they really need to do is find atheist and pseudo scientific language to spread lies supported by atheist philosophy (distorted) and science taken out of context to do a better job at supporting the lies people already want to make themselves believe given to them by their religious leaders... and do it better. For instance, the science of evolution and the forays into Eugenics of the past created among Nazis a notion of race theory which seemed to satisfy many Germans more for a time than religious arguements for supporting racial and ethnic superiority. Now, if I wanted (for instance) to distort science and promote atheism then, rather than taking away ignorance people want to keep, I could for instance say that we all know that pure bred dogs go stupid and develop behavioral issues, that mixed breed dogs are smarter, that hybrid plants are hardier than particular overbred strains. That in America there is a melting pot of different ethnicities from around the world, different races, all intermarrying and creating offspring stronger for being of mixed national and racial origin which make us smarter than people of pure national and racial origin wherever they come from. Thus Americans are genetically superior, not as one race but as a mixed hybrid race and the next stage of human evolution. It's been found also that Americans have a higher prevalence of the "risk taking gene". We don't merely get the benefit of a mixed gene pool making us stronger and more adaptable, the act of people coming to America was something only the genetically inclined to vision and bravery to follow their visions and risk all to go to a strange land could do. The inferior who just wished and talked about leaving but were afraid to, or contented themselves to what they knew in their lands remained behind in Europe and elsewhere, our benefit was that we not only got a great mix from everywhere of every race and nationality but that we got those with the most guts and a can-do spirit down to their very genes. The countries they came from actually lost that part of their gene pool to us, further weakening themselves, any spirit of the pioneer in these countries lost from within if they had empires they became corrupt, impoverished, and crumbled. We will soon attract and absorb in masse the best and the brightest from India and China that have come here to make their fortunes, ensuring a future boon as a new race eventually emerges of every corner of the globe. I would then say that the cultural and religious influences from our places of origin were created by people who were inferior, their gene pools kept too small by their religious and racial prohibitions against breeding with any but their own kind. That America needs to leave behind those faiths, those cultures, because in us is the ability to innovate and invent, has history has shown... unlike any in the world before us. However that ability to do so has been hobbled by the lagging influence of cultures and spirituality that was from a defective and inbred gene pool, holding us back, we've re-interpreted various religions and cultural practices brought here rather than wiped the slate clean. What we need is to renounce all former religion, all former culture, including the ones we've reinterpreted, and start from scratch with a new culture that reflects our stronger and smarter hybrid genetic legacy. To do so we will shine above the world as a beacon of enlightenment, and for the good of the rest of the world become it's natural leader again. There, that kind of lies I just gave you the example of above idiots who blindly follow Christianity now without even reading their own bible will buy into because it strokes their ego, sense of nationalism, sense of purpose, gives them a reason to think of themselves as a "we" with all of the features and feelings that religion will give them but could very well be a form of atheism. Atheism is founding a church, but it hasn't reached the hypothetical low of rhetoric that you find above to promote itself. What it doesn't realize is that anything short of reaching such a low they will not effectively evangelize anyone except for an educated minority. It has to divorce itself from basic concepts of atheists in the past, of principles found with "ethical humanism", if it is to be embraced by people who cheer for whatever belief they embraced whether born with or converted to not because they really understand it... but more for because they feel the we they do about it because it is like their football team... their team... and they will cheer and support like fans in football or any team sport often do because they want to be on the side that is winning. Above all to spread and proselytize atheism (or any ism) effectively all comforting lies must take this into account to be popular and grow that they are the "Winners" that people who believe in what they say will be winners too. It's all image, not substance. To see that happen to atheism would be a damned shame, I would actually prefer to be a snob and keep it to the educated poor, professors, the well educated in general, the privileged. To win more people over to atheism, the mass of people, you have to give them a form of atheism that they would WANT. And when it comes right down to it what most average people want it's actually pretty ugly. Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:22:33 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#c8552f68-bbbd-4273-a032-68580cd26ff9 Bruecke Bautraeger 2009-06-23T16:22:33Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#3f1112a7-f080-495f-b967-9fd923de1987 Nietzsche's a tough act to follow---not only a gifted writer but a world-class philologist with a vast knowledge of history. They don't make atheists like that anymore.... Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:40:11 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#3f1112a7-f080-495f-b967-9fd923de1987 Thomist 2009-06-23T15:40:11Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#840b1954-9d61-44bf-8d87-ec274f510799 Atheists should learn the difference between "Christianity" and "religion" and "religious institution". These are all discrete terms, each with a separate meaning. That, and should just accept that they'll *never* be the popular choice - especially not as long as its rhetoric is couched in the most prejudiced terms, its nondisprovable assertions are insisted on by the biggest assholes, and its conclusions are ultimately devoid of value to the individual. Atheists were cooler and far more useful to society before they started founding a church. Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:05:49 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#840b1954-9d61-44bf-8d87-ec274f510799 Lokifreign 2009-06-23T15:05:49Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#bd2cab1f-93fa-4126-8426-15283109ec28 I think you are right about how actually reading the Bible can turn people against the religion being promoted by that book. I think that is one of the reasons that the Catholic Church does not encourage reading the Bible, but instead takes select parts of it that enforces Catholic dogma. I doubt that this particualr video will convince anybody to become an atheist or free thinker. I think deconversions are a process that involves many events and experiences that lead to a questioning of religious belief. Things like this video or the movie "Religulous" can help to validate doubt once that process has begun. Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:53:14 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#bd2cab1f-93fa-4126-8426-15283109ec28 Hummingbird 2009-06-23T14:53:14Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#8aba654b-1591-4d23-8407-80f4b00a91a5 It's a line of argument I've heard before, it's slick, effective, well done... but There needs to be another line of argument, for arguments towards skepticism (whether atheism or agnosticism) to be more effective. Americans in some sense have a mistrust of people smarter or more talented than themselves, as much as they like the benefits that come to them from people who are smarter, they cannot relate. Showing them lists of people who they can't possibly relate to who are atheists or close enough to it isn't going to make it easy for them to perceive their own lives, the majority of which are working poor and with a high school education. What is missing is an atheist figure who can play working class hero, a skeptic who can appear homespun and voice the message of skepticism in language and deeds working class people can relate to and imagine as reflecting them. For in truth, most people who identify themselves as Christian live in a state of ignorance, not only of science and reality but also of their own religion that they claim to know. They say that the Bible is the most owned and least read of books. Reading the bible carefully more than anything caused me to doubt, and I don't think it's any accident that back in a time when the Bible was once required reading in a person's schooling in early America was there a larger percentage of people in power who were decidedly secular, humanistic, deists, etc. Most people do not want to read, see it as a chore rather than a pleasure, the average reading level of most Americans is at a sixth grade vocabulary. I mean, Christians not even knowing what they believe or making up their own convenient rationalizations and interpretations to excuse whatever they personally want to do and receive "grace" anyway is a source of frustration for christian theologians and even well read pastors who have some knowledge. I don't know if there is a way to lead the willfully ignorant into knowledge of any kind, as pastors have tried to get people in all kinds of fundamentalist denominations for years to live by the word and read their bibles and yet so very few christians actually do and the more popular Evangelical ministers, such as Joel Olsteen take wide departures from scripture and interpret the bible to be nothing more than a Tony Robins-ish plan for earthly success by pulling on the bootstraps harder with a forced smile and a hallelujah from one's lips. Real Christianity as the Amish and their like may practice it most fully of any denominations, and actually do what they preach is not convenient, the adherence do not walk around in ignorance of the scripture they believe in, if it is a lie it's not a lie that is fully comforting and demands a commitment from those who believe in it that average Christians do. I doubt those who say they are christian but continually remain ignorant of what Christianity is will abandon ignorance for skepticism and embrace atheism or agnosticism either. Some people want to be lied to, you stop lying to them and they get angry and demand a new leader that will lie to them again. Many people are like children, they fear the freedom for themselves and for others, when you give it to them they aren't happy... they just freak out and start looking for meaning and self definition to restrict their sense of freedom and possibilities. At the risk of sounding the the elitist I actually am at heart, enlightened skepticism and free thinking for the masses is not very likely, people want to be led around and let others do the thinking for them and will follow blindly whether it's a religious leader or a bolshevic party member in an atheist state... because they don't want the responsibility of thinking for themselves and choosing their own lives. It's mental laziness really for which there is no remedy. However, I've reflected on it and actually I realize that the best way to promote atheism is to make the Bible mandatory reading in public schools just as it had once been, and have the children know it through and through. People would either have to embrace it, or dismiss it, but not believe in it anymore in ignorance. I know this is a radical position for a skeptic to take, it would actually put me on the side of those who wish to erode the barriers of church and state and bring the bible into the public school class... not to mention impose upon and alienate people of minority religions unfairly. But really, knowledge of the bible will make more people into atheists than anything we can argue. Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:41:11 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#8aba654b-1591-4d23-8407-80f4b00a91a5 Bruecke Bautraeger 2009-06-23T14:41:11Z http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#2f1c8d95-814d-4229-9222-f8e37d65f9cb http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:08:30 GMT http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/8b352439-c855-4b2a-803d-3ceb0f18cce4#2f1c8d95-814d-4229-9222-f8e37d65f9cb Hummingbird 2009-06-16T15:08:30Z