Z10s God argument

[frank grimes]

I guess 10,000 + posts points that fact out

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from nitro:
You know, am I the only one that sees the changes in Z10?

It seems so.

What further fascinates me is that, while you guys don't think you have had an effect on his thinking, I think you have!!!!! I think many of the debates with the many good thinkers on ET affects us all - mostly for the better.

I'm not sure what makes you say this. Some change in the tone in which Z posts? I haven't noticed it. I have yet to detect one shred of humility or forbearance or self-examination in any of Z's posts. He loves to incite and his main aim is to provoke reactions so that his personna is in the spotlight here on ET Chat.

This latest statement, the one you quoted, is a perfect example of Z's brand of assertion. It is, indeed, pure assertion, with not even an attempt at defining the terms being used.

BTW, there is no question in my mind that what he is saying now is correct and is at the core of modern philosophy.

The idea that scientific belief involves assumptions and ideological premises which might be considered analogous to those which underpin religious belief is intriguing. Anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the developments in, for example, theoretical physics in the past 40 years, knows that findings in that field have called into question the most basic tenets of the empirical method, our notions of causality and the nature of matter. I think this is a great debate to have and I would welcome it... with anyone other than this troll, who is incapable of anything resembling an exchange of ideas. Check his earlier threads. When confronted with the contradictions in his positions, he starts by telling people that they are 'stupid', that their arguments are 'stupid', and that only he makes the decision whether or not to respond to questions based on his statements. In his Darwinism thread, he called people 'stupid' about 30 times, in different ways, all using the word 'stupid'. He then moves on to claiming TOU violations. The, as hap says, he drops all pretense and simply flames those who question his assertions.

His latest thread re: the story about the news crew who tried to plant a 'Muslim-looking' person in the crowd at a NASCAR race is a perfect example of the kind of inflammatory, intellectually dishonest material that this individual specializes in. He is a discredit to the left.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from nitro:

You know, am I the only one that sees the changes in Z10?

By the way.... just check his response to my first post in this thread. I have asked him maybe 20 times to clarify statements he has made re: his evocation of Nazism, his comments regarding pedophilic attacks on fellow ET members, his recantation of his statements regarding the origin of man on earth, and many others. His response here?

To ask me for the 30th time to provide the citations. Anyone who has read through Z's threads knows that I have cited these threads multiple times. When something is inconvenient for Z, he does the easy thing - he ignores it, and proceeds as if it doesn't exist.

And he calls me a little boy, just for good measure.

And this is the person with whom you suggest we engage in debate?

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from frank grimes:

I guess 10,000 + posts points that fact out

Almost 11,000.

And that's just since '04, and but one of his guises.

If the internet didn't exist, Zzzzz would explode from the lack of an outlet to spew all the pent-up drivel.

Or he'd go postal and be the guy you read about killing 20 people at a fast food restaurant.

Zzzz should be thankful to Al Gore for inventing the Net. Perhaps he is, and that is why he defends Gore and the Left so such extremes.

 

[saxon]

Quote from nitro:

You know, am I the only one that sees the changes in Z10? Are you all blind? You still attack, where no attack is warranted?

While I agree with you that Z10 was a slithering snake in the way he presented his thoughts in the past, where no one could really understand what he was saying, I no longer feel that is the case, at least not in his description given above of science being a kind of faith.

Changes?? Well, Z10's posts are a study in consistency lately. But between the lines of that obsession that I often criticize, I sometimes detect a soul on an honest spiritual quest. (who am i to judge).

It gets tiring to try to make sense of a world gone mad...or to come to the realization that humanity today is the final product of millions of years of brutality, and devotion to survival and self interest.

Much easier to divide the world into something humans can easily understand...like team A, and team B. Team A is good. Team B is bad. Sounds childish; but it is simple and relieves stress...and what the fuck. Sorry to say, it is the easy way out.

sax

PS. nitro...you wanna become a monk? i know a great place in minnesota were i spent a number of years considering that option.

they are always looking for new "vocations".

(a good crew, really.)

 

[nitro]

This is an encapsulation of what I mean. It is a post I made elsewhere. I don't know if you understand what I am getting at, especially the last sentence of my reply:

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

...Oh, and if you had an internal life of the type I speak of, you would know that real rigorous honesty has to do with being honest with oneself and the relationship with one's own spirituality, and has nothing at all to do with relationships with others.....

Quote from nitro:
This is the message of God if there ever was one, but the Ego is too powerful for most men. There is a hierarchy of emotional power...

One thing about this line of reasoning thought Z10. Gandi confronted the British empire at the turn of the century and won through peace and humlity. It is unlikely that such an approach would have worked against Hitler.

If the devil in fact is a fallen angel, and evil does exist, these quailities in us that makes us ugly are as necessary as those that makes us beautiful. While the agressive preditorial qualities in us may not be "God" given, millions of years of evolution has shaped us so, and have likely saved us from Hitlers. But the day is coming where these very same qualities are our very own worst enemy. Strange dualities everywhere...

I do agree though that we are coming to an age where we must rein in our arrogance, for those qualities that we so admire and hold in high esteem like courage bravery strength agression etc will be our own undoing in a nuclear world.

In a strange way, those that cannot deal with you on ET, is an example of this failing for many of us each and every day.

To me, the most important message of God is a self-evident one: If I (meaning God) exist, so by my very existence must my dual - evil - exist. And EVERY man on this planet is capable of both. Only GOD can exist as a "soliton wave" - singularly defined by good.

I think this is the answer that all of humanity is striving to come to terms with, not only intellectually, but how to evolve towards a state where it can effectively deal with evil without humanity itself being engulfed by it. Beauty can sometimes confront evil [think Ghandi], but sometimes only evil means can confront evil [think Hitler.] I think we do a pretty good job of it for the most part, but need to get better, much better at it, at trying the beauty part first.

nitro

 

[nononsense]

Quote from traderNik:

You only need to review Z's long Darwinism threads to understand that his positions are informed by faith. It is pointless to attempt any sort of dialectic with a religious mystic.

Take the statement above. The key to the statement is the phrase 'which shows'. If you read this carefully, it is clear that there is no logical reason to relate the material which precedes this phrase with what follows it. Let us say that we could confirm that there has been no change in something called 'human nature' in many thousands of years. Let us further assume that there is some way of defining 'the inner side of human life'. How on earth would our evaluation of certain as-yet unchanged aspects of 'human nature' be proof that science can't ever change 'inner life'. In the first place, the scientific revolution may as well have started yesterday, in epochal terms. There is no way for us, today, to evaluate the effect of science on 'the inner side of human life'. Get back to me in 10,000 or 20,000 years and let's see what effect science has had on 'the inner side of human life'.

Z argued in one of his threads that since the lifespan of humans had not changed since the emergence of homo sapiens, Darwinism was disproved (biblical lifespans somehow set aside). It was suggested that human lifespans may indeed change in the long term, over many tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Z gave no response. It's clear that Z's faith delimits the potential effects of social and physical evolution. This seems to be confirmed by his latest statement. Statements like this make it impossible for us to engage Z in meaningful debate about science, religion, or anything else.

The most interesting thing, however, is this. In more general terms, notice how Z characterizes this as an 'argument'. Z uses terminology that is academic in nature; ironically, although he derides science at every turn, he wants his arguments to be received in the same way as a purely empirical argument. But in the statement above, there is nothing but the purest form of assertion. What exactly is 'the inner side of human life'? Only Z's definitions need apply - the whole system of thought is self-contained.

Remember, this is the same guy who said that the earth is exactly 1,945,867,549 years old. It was suggested that it might be 1,845,867,548 years old, but this idea was rejected by Z. He also said that the origin of human life on earth was when 'magistrates were materialized out of pure potentiality'. When pressed to explain this seemingly bizarre statement, he later recanted.

As you talk a lot about it, even sauced up with 'science', please tell us:
WHAT IS TIME?

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from nononsense:

As you talk a lot about it, even sauced up with 'science', please tell us:
WHAT IS TIME?

huh???