[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Your meter is wrong - You care a great deal about what I have to say, otherwise you would not be responding - Idiot.[/quote]
I care a great deal about you raging, as it amuses me. Herp-a-derp.[/quote]
Good boy keep responding, later on we’ll play fetch (pats head).
[quote]forlife wrote:
my values integrity, and courage.
[/quote]
LMAO!
Thank you, I had a good belly laugh.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Enough people value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to keep people like you in check. We don’t need booby man stories in order to value these things, and we realize that cooperation is more likely to lead to them than conflict.[/quote]
Do a survey. Ask if they believe if rape is evil in of itself, despite human opinion. Ask them if they have inalieanable rights. We both know the survey isn’t even needed. It is we who keep people like you in check. You’d tear down the backbone of society, good and evil, belief in the existence of inalienable rights…ideas of faith. [/quote]You’re skating dangerously close to my (not really mine, but you know what I mean) doctrine of soveverign common grace whereby God restrains evil even in the thoroughly dead heathen like forlife =] lest they destroy the world before dinner time. Of course they refuse to acknowledge that it is the God they vociferously deny that is preventing them from extirpating everything and everyone they get in the same zip code with, but that’s what Romans 1 is all about after all.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
If I can’t disprove the divinity of their revelations, neither can you…[/quote]
But I haven’t tried to…[/quote]
Then how do you explain that their divine communication directly contradicts your own? Burying your head in the sand doesn’t make the logical conflict go away.
[/quote]
I don’t know that they had a ‘divine communication’ or if they chose to rebel from it. I know mine. You’re projecting YOUR experience and drawing conclusions as to what has happened with every single other person. I’m not.[/quote]
If you had a real divine communication, how is it logically possible for them to have had a real divine communication?
Are you saying that anyone that disagrees with you is either deluding himself about the divinity of his communication or is rebelling against that communication?
If not, how do you logically reconcile the discrepancy?[/quote]
Rebelling, lying, misapplying, whatever. That’s between God and man to sort out. I don’t project what MUST have transpired onto them. YOU’RE the one doing that.[/quote]
No dude, you’re not getting it.
My point is that these people are equally convinced that YOU are the one that is either rebelling, lying, or misapplying your so-called divine communication. Why does that matter? Because it demonstrates that none of you believers have a reliable method for knowing what is actually TRUE. You’re all convinced you are right and everyone else is wrong, even when people use the same holy book as you. And you’re too blind to realize that you are just as biased in your beliefs as they are.
This recent argument between Chris and Tiribulus on the divinity of the Catholic church is a classic example. Both are sincere, both are convinced god has told them the TRUTH, yet logically both cannot be right.
Whatever. I’m not going to belabor the point further.[/quote]
What’s the difference who is right or wrong? Why even bring this up? Do you think just by questioning who is right or wrong matters? The bottom line is YOU have no idea who is right and that does not reflect on anyones beliefs.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
but now I value them without fear of hellfire for falling short, or greed for eternal reward for blind obedience. [/quote]
Who cares what your motivation is? The goodness of those values don’t–as with any other value–exist as an objective thing. No motivation is ‘more good’ than the other. You might as well be prideful about having the Good favorite color.[/quote]
You keep acting as if unless Goodness exists as an objective thing (whatever that means), there’s no value to mankind in having morals.
Obviously, if that were the case then civil laws would have no benefits either. These laws are informed by values, but they don’t depend on those values existing in some supernatural form in order to exist or have relevance to men.[/quote]
Tell me forlife do you know where these “moral laws” came from?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Enough people value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to keep people like you in check. We don’t need booby man stories in order to value these things, and we realize that cooperation is more likely to lead to them than conflict.[/quote]
Do a survey. Ask if they believe if rape is evil in of itself, despite human opinion. Ask them if they have inalieanable rights. We both know the survey isn’t even needed. It is we who keep people like you in check. You’d tear down the backbone of society, good and evil, belief in the existence of inalienable rights…ideas of faith. [/quote]You’re skating dangerously close to my (not really mine, but you know what I mean) doctrine of soveverign common grace whereby God restrains evil even in the thoroughly dead heathen like forlife =] lest they destroy the world before dinner time. Of course they refuse to acknowledge that it is the God they vociferously deny that is preventing them from extirpating everything and everyone they get in the same zip code with, but that’s what Romans 1 is all about after all.
[/quote]
I’d have to think on that. Mostly, I simply wish to bring a few things to light.
There is an atheism that is so extreme in it’s opposition to God it can’t help but aspire to an eniterly faithless ‘humanity.’ See, in order to avoid having to treat the concept of “faith in god(s)” [I’m in talking-in-general mode] as a respectable topic, all faith, theistic or not, must be snuffed out. To give quarter to faith is to allow the survival of theism. Is is to make theists a legitimate ‘part of the discussion.’ And THAT cannot be tolerated. No, it just won’t do. Take note of the, well, sectarian disagreements which’ve recently taken place between a few atheists. One side in opposition to faith, the other ‘sect’ defending it’s necessary existence in human affairs.
Fortunately you can’t eradicate faith where there is even one man left to hope. And if you could, the world you’d be left with would be one in the most need of hope (faith).
[quote]Sloth wrote:
<<< One side in opposition to faith, the other ‘sect’ defending it’s necessary existence in human affairs. >>>[/quote]And all sides including yours in agreement that whatever else may be true the comprehensively sovereign, universally victorious God I preach cannot be it. Your point is taken my friend, but ya’ll are playin on the same Thomistic epistemological field which makes sense because the RCC rejects the doctrine of total depravity leaving you squarely on the same naturalistic autonomous foundation all children of Adam are born into.
I contend, as does the apostle Paul, that the dead in trespasses and sins are capable of no more than a secondarily accurate and formally true understanding of any fact whatever and the church does err in persisting in meeting them in their arena rather than telling them of the necessity of repentance and faith in the Son of God which will bring them into ours. [quote]Sloth wrote:Fortunately you can’t eradicate faith where there is even one man left to hope. And if you could, the world you’d be left with would be one in the most need of hope (faith).[/quote]God promised Abraham, in what may be the most extensive conversation between man and The LORD in all of scripture, that He would spare the city Sodom if there be found 10 righteous men therein. (Genesis 18)
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
my values integrity, and courage.
[/quote]
LMAO!
Thank you, I had a good belly laugh.[/quote]
This is another example of how you can be a twisted person simply because of your faith.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
So you’re saying you believe certain values are ‘good’ in and of themselves[/quote]
No, he can’t be. [/quote]
And that’s the kicker.[/quote]
Sure is. Pity you won’t understand the value of addressing a whole post instead of a couple sentences.[/quote]
Sloth, I gotta’ tell you man… Makavali has you pegged. You have a tendency to be myopic in your arguments and to isolate points from their context.
He may be an annoying twat at times, but this time he played you like a harp.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
So you’re saying you believe certain values are ‘good’ in and of themselves[/quote]
No, he can’t be. [/quote]
And that’s the kicker.[/quote]
Sure is. Pity you won’t understand the value of addressing a whole post instead of a couple sentences.[/quote]
Sloth, I gotta’ tell you man… Makavali has you pegged. You have a tendency to be myopic in your arguments and to isolate points from their context.
He may be an annoying twat at times, but this time he played you like a harp.
[/quote]
I’m not going to ignore someone just to turn around and discuss him at length. Now, if you have something specific, something you wish I’d go back and revisit, name it. As it is, I’ve put in plenty of time attempting to hit the high points while studying for a Chemistry and Biology final tomorrow. Did you know mitochondrial DNA is only inherited from the egg, instead of both gametes? 'Aint that something?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
So you’re saying you believe certain values are ‘good’ in and of themselves[/quote]
No, he can’t be. [/quote]
And that’s the kicker.[/quote]
Sure is. Pity you won’t understand the value of addressing a whole post instead of a couple sentences.[/quote]
Sloth, I gotta’ tell you man… Makavali has you pegged. You have a tendency to be myopic in your arguments and to isolate points from their context.
He may be an annoying twat at times, but this time he played you like a harp.
[/quote]
I’m not going to ignore someone just to turn around and discuss him at length. Now, if you have something specific, something you wish I’d go back and revisit, name it. As it is, I’ve put in plenty of time attempting to hit the high points while studying for a Chemistry and Biology final tomorrow. Did you know mitochondrial DNA is only inherited from the egg, instead of both gametes? 'Aint that something?[/quote]
That I did not know… did you spend any time looking at the discovery NASA made in Mono Lake? Now, there’s some cool shit… speaking of DNA.
Nah, I’m in your shoes. I only allot myself about half an hour on here each day right now. My classes are all online, and in the last class of the semester, shit is moving really rapidly. We’re covering 3 chapters of our textbook every week, and there is almost zero interaction with the instructor. I have to keep really disciplined to get everything done on time. I’m sittin’ on 96% right now, and I need to keep that kind of average to be competitive for an internship this summer… well, actually there are a lot out there in my field. It’s more about getting the right one.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
So you’re saying you believe certain values are ‘good’ in and of themselves[/quote]
No, he can’t be. [/quote]
And that’s the kicker.[/quote]
Sure is. Pity you won’t understand the value of addressing a whole post instead of a couple sentences.[/quote]
Sloth, I gotta’ tell you man… Makavali has you pegged. You have a tendency to be myopic in your arguments and to isolate points from their context.
He may be an annoying twat at times, but this time he played you like a harp.
[/quote]
I’m not going to ignore someone just to turn around and discuss him at length. Now, if you have something specific, something you wish I’d go back and revisit, name it. As it is, I’ve put in plenty of time attempting to hit the high points while studying for a Chemistry and Biology final tomorrow. Did you know mitochondrial DNA is only inherited from the egg, instead of both gametes? 'Aint that something?[/quote]
That I did not know… did you spend any time looking at the discovery NASA made in Mono Lake? Now, there’s some cool shit… speaking of DNA.
Nah, I’m in your shoes. I only allot myself about half an hour on here each day right now. My classes are all online, and in the last class of the semester, shit is moving really rapidly. We’re covering 3 chapters of our textbook every week, and there is almost zero interaction with the instructor. I have to keep really disciplined to get everything done on time. I’m sittin’ on 96% right now, and I need to keep that kind of average to be competitive for an internship this summer… well, actually there are a lot out there in my field. It’s more about getting the right one.
[/quote]
Am having a microbiology final on Wednesday and organic chemistry and Fields and Waves Final on Friday. What I read on that bacteria is that they kept it in a environment devoid of phosphorous and even though it can use arsenic it is hanging on to all the phosphorous it can and grows better when there is phosphorous around.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
That I did not know… did you spend any time looking at the discovery NASA made in Mono Lake? Now, there’s some cool shit… speaking of DNA.[/quote]
Yep. And we wrapped up the lecture this semester with DNA, Mendelian iheritance, chromosomal bases of inheritance, and finishing with transcription and translation from gene to protein. So, here I was newly schooled in DNA having a sugar-phosphate ‘backbone’, and bam! Kind of neat that this happened while I’m digging into the subject. You aware of the endosymbiotic theory as an explanation for the presence of mitochondria in eukaryotic cells? Probably so. But, if not, it’s a trip.
Your field? Is this for your writing? Or, is your writing something you’re pursuing outside of your field? Anyways, feeling good about tomorrow. I’ve done what I can as far as studying. Confident about the subjects, and rippin’ and roarin’ to get 'em done! Defintely looking foward to the short break in between semesters. Good luck to you.
Well, I tried to clean up that mess above. However, my edits aren’t going through. Sorry.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
<<< One side in opposition to faith, the other ‘sect’ defending it’s necessary existence in human affairs. >>>[/quote]And all sides including yours in agreement that whatever else may be true the comprehensively sovereign, universally victorious God I preach cannot be it. Your point is taken my friend, but ya’ll are playin on the same Thomistic epistemological field which makes sense because the RCC rejects the doctrine of total depravity leaving you squarely on the same naturalistic autonomous foundation all children of Adam are born into.
I contend, as does the apostle Paul, that the dead in trespasses and sins are capable of no more than a secondarily accurate and formally true understanding of any fact whatever and the church does err in persisting in meeting them in their arena rather than telling them of the necessity of repentance and faith in the Son of God which will bring them into ours. [quote]Sloth wrote:Fortunately you can’t eradicate faith where there is even one man left to hope. And if you could, the world you’d be left with would be one in the most need of hope (faith).[/quote]God promised Abraham, in what may be the most extensive conversation between man and The LORD in all of scripture, that He would spare the city Sodom if there be found 10 righteous men therein. (Genesis 18)
[/quote]
I have to admit Tirib, this time I’m just not following you bud. I’m turning my head this way and that, squinting my eyes, opening them wide, trying whatever I can think of to determine if you’re agreeing with, disagreeing with, or talking about something entirely different from me. Maybe it’s because I’m just tired and my eyes have had enough reading for the day. Not ignoring you though.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]wfifer wrote:
For all of you talking about reason, how are you missing the huge leap you’re taking there?
You can’t reason that you have the ability to reason.
Of course that line of thinking is a dead end, but it illustrates a point.
I’m not saying that I don’t value any particular philosophy over another, but I defy any one of you to come up with a bullet-proof defense of knowledge.[/quote]
I think I have a very solid response to this, but I would like you to clarify your point first. [/quote]
If you try to reduce what we know to the bare essentials, you’ll find yourself on a very slippery slope. Ultimately we all make some assumptions. We assume that we, ourselves, exist. We assume that we can trust our senses. We assume that we can reason. These are axioms without which we can draw no further conclusions.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Since no one will listen to the video I posted, I want to bring up a point that wfifer brought up that certainly applies to the materialist/naturalist, how does one account for rationality of their own mind when the atoms that compose one’s brain were put together by unguided processes or even know that their brain is made up of atoms.[/quote]
Sorry, I tend to post here and then immediately regret it. I hope to debate Kierkegaard and instead I get Kirk Cameron. It’s hard to discuss the nature of knowledge when everyone here already “knows what they know.” I think I addressed your point above. I tend to wonder whether examining our own minds is like trying to examine a telescope with said telescope. Is there a metaphorical mirror that would allow such reflection?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
That I did not know… did you spend any time looking at the discovery NASA made in Mono Lake? Now, there’s some cool shit… speaking of DNA.[/quote]
Yep. And we wrapped up the lecture this semester with DNA, Mendelian iheritance, chromosomal bases of inheritance, and finishing with transcription and translation from gene to protein. So, here I was newly schooled in DNA having a sugar-phosphate ‘backbone’, and bam! Kind of neat that this happened while I’m digging into the subject. You aware of the endosymbiotic theory as an explanation for the presence of mitochondria in eukaryotic cells? Probably so. But, if not, it’s a trip.
Your field? Is this for your writing? Or, is your writing something you’re pursuing outside of your field? Anyways, feeling good about tomorrow. I’ve done what I can as far as studying. Confident about the subjects, and rippin’ and roarin’ to get 'em done! Defintely looking foward to the short break in between semesters. Good luck to you.[/quote]
I’m gonna’ operate power plants!
It’s a very practical degree, but it’s kind of what I have to do since I put off college for most of my adult life. I’m hoping to build on it and get either a mechanical engineering or physics degree… ME would be a lot shorter, easier to convince a power company to keep me on part time and even pay for the degree… Physics = more interesting to me but a much longer degree path. And, it’s questionable whether or not the payoff would be worth the tuition at this point in my life.
[quote]wfifer wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]wfifer wrote:
For all of you talking about reason, how are you missing the huge leap you’re taking there?
You can’t reason that you have the ability to reason.
Of course that line of thinking is a dead end, but it illustrates a point.
I’m not saying that I don’t value any particular philosophy over another, but I defy any one of you to come up with a bullet-proof defense of knowledge.[/quote]
I think I have a very solid response to this, but I would like you to clarify your point first. [/quote]
If you try to reduce what we know to the bare essentials, you’ll find yourself on a very slippery slope. Ultimately we all make some assumptions. We assume that we, ourselves, exist. We assume that we can trust our senses. We assume that we can reason. These are axioms without which we can draw no further conclusions.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Since no one will listen to the video I posted, I want to bring up a point that wfifer brought up that certainly applies to the materialist/naturalist, how does one account for rationality of their own mind when the atoms that compose one’s brain were put together by unguided processes or even know that their brain is made up of atoms.[/quote]
Sorry, I tend to post here and then immediately regret it. I hope to debate Kierkegaard and instead I get Kirk Cameron. It’s hard to discuss the nature of knowledge when everyone here already “knows what they know.” I think I addressed your point above. I tend to wonder whether examining our own minds is like trying to examine a telescope with said telescope. Is there a metaphorical mirror that would allow such reflection? [/quote]
Odd… I posted a lengthy response to that video, and JSOZ hasn’t responded to it…, even though he has moved on with the thread.
On the assumption of our own existence, the veracity of our senses, and our ability to reason. There are essentially three ways that I am aware of, of treating these topics:
Work within the assumptions… because it is the best we have to work with. It is the most plausible scenario that our cognitive tools are both real and useful.
Seek out philosophical, spiritual, cognitive, etc… transcendence. This is obviously a popular trend in human history… more so in the Eastern traditions as it relates specifically to this topic.
Examine these things as thoroughly as possible from a scientific perspective. Penrose and Eccles (among others) have been examining the relationship between nerve impulse timing and our reaction times to stimulus… our brains’ treatment of disjointed visual stimulus, etc… There are a number of inconsistencies that may hold proofs to our consciousness, etc…
It is also entirely possible to trace the origins and evolution of cognition. To find comfort in this, though, requires that you be able to accept useful knowledge in stages. It’s not at all different from cosmology. At some point, you have to be able to accept the current level of progress in the field and work to build on it in reasonable steps… as opposed to demanding that an all-encompassing solution be available.
Demanding absolute knowledge is one way to wind up religious.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
my values integrity, and courage.
[/quote]
LMAO!
Thank you, I had a good belly laugh.[/quote]
This is another example of how you can be a twisted person simply because of your faith.[/quote]
I agree, but I don’t think forlife is quite as twisted as you, in most ways that is.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
my values integrity, and courage.
[/quote]
LMAO!
Thank you, I had a good belly laugh.[/quote]
Classic example of the personal attacks you’re famous for, which is why nobody takes you seriously.
Silly clown.