If someone says they feel something to be true, but that they can't prove(like drinking a glass of poisen and not being hurt)would you take their word for it and drink too?
Mark 16:18
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
there are sick bastards in canada too.
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
If someone says they feel something to be true, but that they can't prove(like drinking a glass of poisen and not being hurt)would you take their word for it and drink too?
Mark 16:18
Quote from Free Thinker:
If someone says they feel something to be true, but that they can't prove(like drinking a glass of poisen and not being hurt)would you take their word for it and drink too?
Mark 16:18
The stakes are high, my feeling might be "no". But what's the reward, and if I don't get it, and I die, will I be disappointed?
Quote from stu:
I popped in as you describe it because you were being particularly hypocritical while making accusations of hypocrisy about another, and you canât hardly get more hypocritical than that, or can you?
Are you suggesting I shouldn't pop in?
I made 3 responses directly to your own 3 hypocritical points. You have not, as usual, dealt with any of them.
I have always argued that there are no reasons whatsoever to assume any God, and how all rationally based evidence that does exist, demonstrates a spectacular lacking and a complete unnecessariness for one anyway.
You have always been incapable of discerning any difference between that , and categorical statements that there is no God , which by the way is equally valid with claims that there is a God.
Itâs really you who mustn't understand the debate. Many times you have popped into threads out of the blue, sometimes in a laughable disguise as another alias trying to support you own silly comments. Often only to make some incoherent mumbling like here about how I make argument for multiple universes, which I never have, talking about abortion, when the thread is about animal welfare , making inaccurate and confused remarks about religion and some supernatural creator or other called God, then rather hypocritically again criticizing others for popping in to call out the nonsense you write.
Rationalizing human moral standards and ethics based on sound practical grounds is no longer, thank goodness , about the answers the usually hysterical feelings and emotions that come from fantasies of an imaginary magisterial superior authority in the sky, which you clearly like to assume the right to bring up.
But which are now remarkably more hypocritically⦠only your " possible answers "
Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say âsupernaturalâ) plan.â
- Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.
Stu - do you not comprehend english when a scientist explains it?
How can you keep denying there is evidence of design?
"Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.â
But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?
Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why."
http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
regarding the other garbage you just wrote...
lets go over this again...
are you admitting there could be a creator of the universe? yes or no.
if the answer is yes then you are back with the rational people.
Congrats because you sure do go off the deep end when someone says they believe in a Creator .. which you now admit could exist.
regarding responding to you when you claim to have called me a hypocrite.
apparently you called me a hypocrite for my responses to free thinker on this thread.
I explained that my responses were made in response to Free thinkers statement that God can only make perfect things. The response which you and free thinker did not like... was not even a belief of mine. Get it. I never thought God only made perfect things. I was explaining that even within Free Thinkers construct he was wrong. imo.
so you see you apparently called me a hypocrite for a hypothetical answer... in which I responded with hypothetical beliefs.
Why would i respond to something so sophomoric.
apparently you called me a hypocrite for my responses to free thinker on this thread.
I explained that my responses were made in response to Free thinkers statement that God can only make perfect things. The response which you and free thinker did not like... was not even a belief of mine. Get it. I never thought God only made perfect things. I was explaining that even within Free Thinkers construct he was wrong. imo.
so you see you apparently called me a hypocrite for a hypothetical answer... in which I responded with hypothetical beliefs.
Why would i respond to something so sophomoric.
Quote from jem:
Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say âsupernaturalâ) plan.â
- Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.
Stu - do you not comprehend english when a scientist explains it?
How can you keep denying there is evidence of design?
"Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London.
Blah blah blah.....
WTF Jem, the thread was about cruelty to animals and my response was to your hypocritical comments.
How the hell is some cut and paste about universes and your bullshit idea that must mean intelligent design, anything at all to do with this !?.
Be honest for once, you don't understand what the hell would constitute a sensible discussion at all, do you?
Quote from jem:
regarding responding to you when you claim to have called me a hypocrite.
apparently you called me a hypocrite for my responses to free thinker on this thread.
I explained that my responses were made in response to Free thinkers statement that God can only make perfect things. The response which you and free thinker did not like... was not even a belief of mine. Get it. I never thought God only made perfect things. I was explaining that even within Free Thinkers construct he was wrong. imo.
so you see you apparently called me a hypocrite for a hypothetical answer... in which I responded with hypothetical beliefs.
Why would i respond to something so sophomoric.
You were being hypocritical. I explained why.
Faffing around as usual, just like you do above, is not addressing the issue any. It's just faffing around.
I laid the points out for you 1.2.3. in response to your own, but all you've managed so far is to dodge and faff.
Why not try actually directly answering the points themselves for once.
Quote from stu:
WTF Jem, the thread was about cruelty to animals and my response was to your hypocritical comments.
How the hell is some cut and paste about universes and your bullshit idea that must mean intelligent design, anything at all to do with this !?.
Be honest for once, you don't understand what the hell would constitute a sensible discussion at all, do you?
Your ignorance is amusing considering you just proclaimed how rational you discussion of God has been.
All this bullshit about how rational you are, yet you skipped my question:
Does science allow for the possibility of a Creator of the universe... yes or no.
Quote from stu:
1. The real hypocrisy lies with those who like yourself will lash out at people for caring about the wellbeing of animals, just to make hysterical comments against abortion not based on any rationalization, but only their own distorted standards of morals and ethics found in the fictional ranting of a Biblical Bully Boy which itself issues forth cruel and despotic acts of murder and abortion.
Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up
2. I notice you did not address that point.
3. You hold a theological discussion? ... don't make me laugh.
Influences and stories about God the homicidal madman, who would blame eternally the whole of humanity for the actions of innocents, would be something any rational person and their DNA should be glad to be free of.
was this you big 1,2,3...
those aren't points their detritus.
there is nothing hysterical or hypocritical about asking a someone who gets upset about unwanted dogs being put down but does not get upset when unwanted human babies get put down.
Your response was the hysterical one.
In case you did not notice the Western world got a major part of the foundation of its law from the bible and churches.
Until recently you saw the 10 commandments in court rooms and it is still on the Supreme Court.
You still see bibles in courtrooms.
Judeo Christian values of the foundation of the Western culture.
You can take what you want out of the bible. But, you are one of the few who sees God as a homicidal mad man.
Good luck with your worldview.
Quote from jem:
was this you big 1,2,3...
those aren't points their detritus.
there is nothing hysterical or hypocritical about asking a someone who gets upset about unwanted dogs being put down but does not get upset when unwanted human babies get put down.
Your response was the hysterical one.
In case you did not notice the Western world got a major part of the foundation of its law from the bible and churches.
Until recently you saw the 10 commandments in court rooms and it is still on the Supreme Court.
You still see bibles in courtrooms.
Judeo Christian values of the foundation of the Western culture.
You can take what you want out of the bible. But, you are one of the few who sees God as a homicidal mad man.
Good luck with your worldview.
You're hysterical and irrational as ever I see.
Suffice it to say, it will no doubt be the hypocrisy of the religious like yourself that would never condemn the act of abortion which their own worshipful Grand Mufti committed in their story book, but nevertheless do, like yourself, shout so self-righteously and hysterically against abortion at the drop of a hat, whilst the faithful make law to allow abortion, in order they may have the option of it, but then excuse themselves for <strike>not</strike> living <strike>up</strike> down to their religion
Religion and morals. Two words that never belonged together.