101 Replies to “Now Is The Time At SDA When We Juxtapose!”

  1. “Now- if you have the stones- say what you are saying now to a Muslim. To his face. After all, all religions are the same, that being being primitive and silly.”
    Well, I don’t judge individuals based on collective identities so I can’t say how any one Muslim would react. Since many Muslims live in primitive societies, relative to North America, I would assume that they would likely have a primitive reaction. However, I have a Muslim friend who has lived in North America most his life and has no problem discussing such topics.

  2. You’re a real downer dude. Maybe you should finish your coffee first before posting!
    Posted by: andy at October 23, 2010 1:47 PM
    Well, Andy, I guess you are just special.

  3. Well, I suppose Catholic conservatives could also respond — in the name of “free expression” — with a perverted mocking depiction of one of the idols claimed by Left progressives. For example, a depiction of Black protestant minister Martin Luther King performing fallatio on a white stallion, or something along that line.
    But Catholics would never do that because they respect Martin Luther King for the same reason they respect nuns such as Mother Theresa. And if King were alive today there is no doubt that he would disassociate himself completely from the sex-obsessed progressive Left who attack Catholics and who pretend to represent what King stood for.

  4. Hey wait, I’ve got a better idea! How about a picture of Roman Polanski drugging and sodomizing a 13 year old Catholic girl?
    No, scratch that. Too close to reality.

  5. ricardo, good point. King would RUN away from the disgusting hustlers that the NAACP have become.
    On a brighter note, the older I get the more evidence I see that being a member of the “sex-obsessed progressive Left” is its own best punishment. These people are uniformly bitter, miserable creatures who live only for their hate.
    Sucks to be you, Lefties.

  6. Half of this thread reads like debates in Philosophy 1000. You know, before you get your first paper back and get taken down a few notches.

  7. Beagle, try doing the search in News instead of the Web.
    Posted by: Brian Mallard at October 23, 2010 9:53 AM ”
    ah, ok. so when I google news ‘muslims riot’ how many responses?
    one.
    big f’ing deal

  8. MLK was a registered Republican.
    Judge not a man by the colour of his skin but by the content of his character is, I submit, one of the central tenets of Christianity.
    What Sharpton, Jessee Jackson and Rev. Wright preach is something entirely different.

  9. http://www.existence-of-god.com/lord-liar-lunatic.html
    1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And we are writing these things so that our [1] joy may be complete. I John.

  12. I was going to respond to you, BTJ — you know? to something totally asinine that you said– but I thought better of it.
    Pi** off.

  13. I think BTJ is a windy, incoherent troll who should be ignored as much as possible.
    (BTW one reason brats like the guys at ZOO can’t cast lewd aspersions on important Muslim women is because there, um, aren’t any. I mean, there’s Mo’s wife no.1, the sugar-momma, and then another of his wives, the little girl, but otherwise…)

  14. “i think BTJ mixesup creating nature with tech-manipulation of elements&processes.”
    Go back and re-read. I never said anything about ‘creating’ nature, I said we ‘shape nature as we see fit’.
    ‘shape’ as in ‘manipulate’.
    “I was going to respond to you”
    Good, sounds like it wasn’t worth saying.

  16. Is Atheism Just an Emotional Crutch?
    “The first response to the view that belief in God is mere wishful thinking, then, is to point out that it is just as easy to argue that atheism is just an emotional crutch as it is to argue that belief in God is an emotional crutch.
    Belief in God has consequences; if one believes in God, then one must make a decision either to follow him or to oppose him. Anyone who believes that Christianity is true must either commit themselves to living out their faith, or set themselves in opposition to God. This choice can be hard to face, but by denying Christianity one can avoid having to face it. Atheism, then, offers an easy way out for those unable to deal with the reality of life with God.
    Some think that this view of atheism is correct, that atheists really are consciously aware of the existence of God but choose to rebel against him by professing unbelief. This is not my view. My point here is just that if Christianity can be rejected as irrational simply because some people find it comforting, then the same must be true of atheism. And if atheism cannot be dismissed in this way, as the atheist will surely hold, then neither can Christianity.”
    Same link as earlier post.
    Is digging through garbage to find “missed” recyclable’s an emotional crutch?

  18. “Belief in God has consequences; if one believes in God, then one must make a decision either to follow him or to oppose him.”
    Huh? Does God talk to you? How do you know if you are following him or opposing him?
    “Atheism, then, offers an easy way out for those unable to deal with the reality of life with God.”
    Assuming atheists are ‘unable to deal with the reality of life with God’…whatever that’s supposed to mean, rather than simply finding no rational reason to believe that God exists and that one can ‘follow’ him/her.
    “My point here is just that if Christianity can be rejected as irrational simply because some people find it comforting”
    It’s rejected as irrational because, by definition, it is irrational..that is, it relies on faith, rather than reason/rationalizing.

  19. @ SYF
    Rome does not speak for my tradition and we consider the Pope the Bishop of one city, that is the Pope is the Bishop of just Rome
    We meaning who?
    I can sense how frustrating it must be for you, but there are other options open for any human being’s search for the ultimate truth
    Like what? an Islam, perhaps?
    ……….
    Have you found inner peace with your rejection of the Church of Rome? Sure doesn’t sound like it.
    Syf, but the one who found perfect inner peace on earth can only be a saint,do you claim to be such a one?
    ****
    I wonder, Syf, did you learn to write such a drivel on your own or somebody taught you to do so.

  20. ah, ok. so when I google news ‘muslims riot’ how many responses?
    one.
    beagle
    Your google must have been on strike.
    “Muslim riots”:
    Results 1 – 17 of about 1,793,000

  22. Digging through garbage to find “missed’ recyclable’s is primitive – reminds me of apes picking nits off each other.
    You weren’t there BTJ you did not meet Jesus in the flesh; however, others were and wrote extensively about their experiences – their eyewitness accounts, and I’m not talking about just the disciples – historians alive at the time observations closely match those of the disciples. Even Pontus Pilate knew Jesus Christ was the real deal.
    BTW – BTJ – you exercise “faith” every single day – I assume you leave your home – it’s possible you could be hit by a bus or car whatever, if you drive you could easily be seriously injured or die in a car accident or even kill someone else. Someone could attack you or you could have a bad fall while riding your bike to reduce your carbon footprint – all these possibilities are based on reason – they happen everyday, yet you exercise “faith” that neither of these will happen to you and get in your car or walk/bike to your destination. Statistics tell us that accidents in the home are even more likely, so it’s not safe to stay there either, yet I assume you get out of bed each morning believing the day will end without incident.
    Christianity is built on reason and faith.

  23. Phantom and rzr have stated what I think, is the nub of this posting by Kate. Think what you will about the Catholic Church; there were no deaths as the direct result of this cowardly attack on the memory of a beautiful soul; Saint Mary. This lovely lady did not hurt anyone, she helped many. Why would she be attacked? As Abe Foreman said above ‘when you help someone they remember you the next time they need help’ – pretty standard in the ME! ME! generation. With this thought and the hypocrisy of ‘charities’ (including church charities) firmly in mind; the selfless dedication of a beautiful soul is fodder for ridicule, people wonder how anyone could be so blind and stupid.
    Like you Abe, I hate seeing kind, decent people used by rappistic fools. I wonder why they put up with it – are they morons? You see the decent Mom and Dad getting taken to the cleaners again and again by their ungrateful offspring, we see churches abrogating their moral responsibility to the words and rules of God; yet good , decent people still go to church and give the same irresponsible church money to peddle their pablum version of God’s word.
    The header, gracing this website, days it all in a nutshell ‘ Pleasing your enemies does not turn them into friends’. Conservative Canadians are notorious for taking their friends for granted after asking for, and getting help from their supporters (Kate’s support for Premier Wall comes to mind, as does Lyin’ Brian). When they run into trouble they go back to the well (as said by Abe Foreman); sometimes the well has run dry. The enemy wins by default, not on merit.
    Christianity is the same as Freedom and Independence and has the same needy egoists stomping around; trumping the good. I love God and Jesus Christ, I don’t love the church reps here on earth just because they claim to ‘speak the word of God’; those reps must earn respect just like any other man/woman. Sister Mary did earn my respect and I will consider those vile souls who have chosen to mock her in the same category as I place people who defend the hateful practices of mohameid. There is a Hell.
    Good discussion here. Thanks for posting this interesting jux, Kate.

  25. I don’t think we’re 100% sure on that one, batb. They’ll explain everything when we’re old enough.

  26. To no-one:
    Catholicism is based on faith and reason. It’s generally the Protestants who aren’t in it for the REASON parts. Anglicanism got rid of the “reason” component when the Tudors were still around.

  27. ‘Tis true, Black Mamba. It was ‘announced’ here about a year ago.
    Thanks No-one, ET and Jema54. Great points.
    Slightly related, I’ve noticed several places on the net that Christianity is being held responsible for the suicides of homosexual teens, in the ‘It Gets Better’ campaign.
    How do the lefties ignore the fact that homosexual are hung or beheaded by Muslims?
    A juxtaposition of sorts, eh?

  28. Black Mamba, you may be right.
    But did you notice in the shot with Kate and her beautiful schnauzer champion awhile back, that Kate had a wedding band on? I do think she’s married and if not to Lance, then to whom?

  29. BTJ – you didn’t say that we are a part of nature; you said
    “We ARE nature, nature is US.” That’s a pretty clear equivalence of the two.
    You then said: We have the ability to shape nature as we se”e fit because we are, on this planet, the product of the cumulative adaptations of this its CAS.”
    I disagree; we cannot shape nature; your example of processing oil is trivial. We cannot, for example, reshape the basic physical, chemical and biological principles and constants. We can transform natural materials into another material but we cannot move out of the basic principles of chemical and biological composition.
    I doubt very much that you have read Aristotle and Plato; you give no indication of any knowledge of their work. They talked about religion, by the way, i.e., the relation of the physical with the metaphysical and societal relations of men and morality – that’s ‘religion’.
    So, you obviously don’t know their work…and how it influenced, for example, great Christian scholars like Duns Scotus and Aquinas.
    No, religion is not just about faith; it rests on both faith and reason. You cannot, if you are an adult, and a human being, have the one without the other. Faith without reason is the mark of the slave. You must reason about the choices you make, the moral stances you take, the relations you have.
    No, religion is not a precursor to science. I strongly reject your view on this. Science, like religion, rests on both reason AND faith. Bet you didn’t know that! But a scientist must have faith both in the validity of the knowledge base developed by the ‘community of scholars’ (hey, you say you know Aristotle, so you ought to know what he means by this!)..and he must use his reason to analyze further implications of this knowledge.
    Religion focuses on the metaphysical and morality. Science focuses on the physical and the ethical. Both are really necessary in our human world.
    My definition of a ‘proper religion’ was, as I’m sure you know, one that had not been politicized (as has Islam).
    No, tribalism is not about interest groups; tribalism is a political mode of governance with two hereditary classes. Theocracy is a political mode of governance – and not akin to the Pope. You have a tendency to try to divert an argument to trivia as a tactic to avoid the basic discussion.
    No, religion is not ‘primitive by definition’. That’s a tautology. Explain what is primitive about religion. Your suggestion that it’s a precursor to science is, of course, incorrect.
    Of course we argue about marriage, because marriage is a societal and economic relation – and therefore, it must be debated and the community must come to a decision on what is acceptable, socially and economically, for that type of relation.

  30. ella – Kate is using google news. There are 0 results for “christians riot” in google news, and there is one result for “muslims riot” in google news — that result being a blog post.
    If you google.com for “christians riot” there are 7,000 results to 76,200 results for “muslims riot.”

  31. ET said: “You have a tendency to try to divert an argument to trivia as a tactic to avoid the basic discussion.”
    That’s because BJT’s an unlettered high schooler, in mind if not in fact. He actually said “Cost is artificial” to me on another thread.
    Thou casteth thy pearls before swine, ma’am.

  32. As a Christian, I wish to warn all Australian infidels that they may regret these diabolical actions. Or they may not. I don’t really know. I don’t really care.

  33. Jama54
    Many people are against the charities, among them church charities. Many people say, like you do, that “decent people still go to church and give the same irresponsible church money to peddle their pablum version of God’s word. ” but it is also these “irresponsible church” which helped many people during communist era in Europe. The same catholic priests and the same church you say is irresponsible. Without church there would be no Solidarity in Poland and there would still be a communist countries in eastern Europe.
    You people think only of churches here, of what MSM tells you church is doing. And do not look further then that.
    True, there are some bad apples in the church but so people can say about Canadian military or Tea Party in USA.
    It seems that majority of people here do not believe MSM when it writes that Tea Party is racist or that Canadian Military is criminal, why then do you believe that Church charities are irresponsible or that majority of priests are hypocrites.
    In one case – Tea party,military – MSM is certainly wrong, in another – catholic church, charities, the priests – it is surely right.
    Why?

  36. ella – I certainly did not mean ALL churches or ALL priests or all preachers. I realized that I did generalize when I reread my comment. I know many, many, good priests, churches and preachers; the bad often trump the good. Churches and Church reps are supposed to administer good works; when they do not, their bad is ten times as bad as those of regular people because the churches and church reps ask us to trust them because they speak the word of God. If the trust is broken, so are we.

  37. “Again, it’s the year 2010, I would hope that we have evolved socially enough to be able to have these discussions without using a 2000+ year old book.” bjt
    Son that book is the history of us evolving socially over the last 4000 years.
    Like it or not it is the Christian philosophy that has evolved to a point where you can have silly debates and not be imprisoned or worse.
    Since you obviously are a heathen, please share your great unifying philosophy so we can be truly amazed.

  39. “You weren’t there BTJ you did not meet Jesus in the flesh; however”
    No, but Jesus’ OWN words are in the bible and are some of the most misinterpreted parts of the book. When he talks of himself most people assume that he is some sort of superhuman, superior to any other man, not to be equaled, ever. In reality he talks of himself as a human being, as every man, and his words are meant to show others the path to his level of being.
    “historians alive at the time observations closely match those of the disciples. Even Pontus Pilate knew Jesus Christ was the real deal.”
    So what are you saying? Jesus really did walk on water? He really was some supernatural phenomenon?
    “you exercise “faith” every single day – I assume you leave your home – it’s possible you could be hit by a bus or car whatever, if you drive you could easily be seriously injured or die in a car accident or even kill someone else.”
    For one, I never said I didn’t exercise faith, or that it was wrong/inferior to do so. Secondly, how does the possibility of death mean that I practice faith? I walk around, drive, etc while rationalizing and reasoning…as in I look both ways, drive to the best of my ability, etc…that’s how I deal with the possibilities of harm, that and I don’t really think about it, why should I?
    “yet you exercise “faith” that neither of these will happen to you and get in your car or walk/bike to your destination.”
    No I don’t, I don’t go out thinking ‘I have faith that nothing will happen to me’…sh1t happens, if it does, it does…all I can do is be aware of my surroundings and use my rationalizing human brain to limit the possibility of harm.
    “There is a Hell.”
    Hell is here on earth, hell is a mind set.
    “”We ARE nature, nature is US.” That’s a pretty clear equivalence of the two.”
    What I meant is we are inextricably one with nature, not that we are equals. Would you like to continue arguing about what my thoughts are?
    “we cannot shape nature; your example of processing oil is trivial.”
    We can’t shape nature? What do you call mining materials, processing them, and turning them into a myriad of different substances and shapes. What do you call in-vitro fertilization, cloning, creating blood vessels from single cells, creating computers from silicon, metals, and plastic?
    Why is processing oil ‘trivial’? EXTREMELY weak rebuttal.
    “We cannot, for example, reshape the basic physical, chemical and biological principles and constants.”
    That would be completely changing nature, that would be creating our own form of nature. I never said we could alter the entire structure of the universe. I said we could ‘shape nature (implying working within the bounds of nature to manipulate it) as we see fit’
    “I doubt very much that you have read Aristotle and Plato”
    Are you calling me a liar? I’ve taken philosophy 101…read through a number of works including Aristotle and Plato, had group discussions, wrote essay’s, etc, etc.
    “the relation of the physical with the metaphysical and societal relations of men and morality – that’s ‘religion’.”
    Ah, I see what you’re trying to do…you’re trying to equate organized religion with your definition of ‘religion’, which encompasses the whole subject of metaphysics. Nice try.
    “No, religion is not just about faith; it rests on both faith and reason”
    Right, because believing that a man who lived 2000 years ago died and rose from the grave, walked on water, and turned water into wine. That a man split the red sea, that a man loaded two of each animal onto a boat and rode out a world wide flood is using ‘reason’.
    “You cannot, if you are an adult, and a human being, have the one without the other. ”
    Well, if you’re a human you MUST have the ability to reason…that’s what sets humans apart from animals. You can have reason without ‘faith’. I don’t have to have faith in gravity, I don’t have to have faith in the basic principles of physics…they ARE, I reason within those principles. An engineer doesn’t need faith to build a bridge, he needs to reason within the bounds of physics.
    “Faith without reason is the mark of the slave. You must reason about the choices you make, the moral stances you take, the relations you have.”
    Sure, I agree with your first statement. But you haven’t explained how reason relies on faith.
    “Science, like religion, rests on both reason AND faith.”
    Yes, but it relies MUCH more on reason. Religion does not rely on reason whatsoever. Please, give me an example of reasoning that is inherent in organized religion (not your definition of religion which seems to refer to any consideration of metaphysics).
    “But a scientist must have faith both in the validity of the knowledge base developed by the ‘community of scholars'”
    Must he? Is that not veering away from the point of science? Is science not meant to produce a method for rationalizing? It is very structured in it’s approach, relies on a universal language (math/statistics), and keeps a record which can be traced and reasoned. One can explore the knowledge base using his/her rational mind and come to his/her own conclusions, regardless of ‘faith’. It is the downfall of science when faith begins to enter the equation.
    “No, tribalism is not about interest groups; tribalism is a political mode of governance with two hereditary classes.”
    From the dictionary:
    Tribalism = A strong feeling of identity with and loyalty to one’s tribe or group.
    Interest Group = A group of persons working on behalf of or strongly supporting a particular cause
    “Theocracy is a political mode of governance – and not akin to the Pope. ”
    What is the ultimate form of governance? Would it not be governing how one should live their everyday life? What path one should take when making everyday decisions? The pope and Catholic Church guide people’s everyday decisions/lives..the only difference is the lack of physical force.
    “it must be debated and the community must come to a decision on what is acceptable, socially and economically, for that type of relation.”
    Ahhh, good old group think, collectivism, the majority rule. Are you an advocate of collectivism? I know you are, you remind me so much of Ellsworth Tooey.
    “Son that book is the history of us evolving socially over the last 4000 years.”
    Well, that would explain the snail like pace we’ve been moving socially.
    “Like it or not it is the Christian philosophy that has evolved to a point where you can have silly debates and not be imprisoned or worse.”
    Really? But the Christian faith used to imprison people or worse for starting a debate..and they weren’t silly debates either!
    My philosophy? Well that’s quite the question. I’ll start with this…everything in the universe is inextricably one..we are made up of atoms and subatomic particles that are identical to those across the universe. In this way there is no life and death, everything is infinite. Heaven and Hell are in the human being…hell is the state of entrapment within one’s own mind, heaven is the state of just being.

  41. btj- with regard to your equivalence of nature and man, I can only go by what you write – and that’s what you wrote. I’m not privy to your unwritten thoughts and ‘what you meant’.
    Equally, your statement that “we have the ability to shape nature as we see fit’ is not indicative of any awareness of constraints, has no hint of ‘implication of boundaries’.
    You have a habit of, when criticized, answering that ‘you meant to say it’..and the fault lies in the reader not ‘understanding’ the unwritten statements. Heh. That’s a basic Obama slithering tactic.
    Furthermore – a first year course in ‘the key people of philosophy’ and reading through ‘a number of works’ is hardly a knowledge of Aristotle or Plato and it is the height of arrogance to claim such. Your comments show that you haven’t read or analyzed either of them with any thoroughness.
    Your examples of ‘faith’ (walking on water etc) are ridiculous; they are not examples of faith but of the imagination. Faith means an awareness of continuity, it rests on a rejection of randomness. it enables the strength of a current action based on an anticipation of a continuity of one’s surroundings, of a continuity of the behaviour of the envt, and so on.
    Of course religion is about the metaphysical! What do you think it explores??? It’s about the metaphysical, which seeks answers to the experience of life, and about morality, which outlines the societal relations of man.
    I’ve no idea what you mean by ‘organized religion’ since your comments about religion define it only as a primitive and irrational mindset. Obviously, I can’t give an example of ‘reasoning’ within your [incorrect] definition since you’ve already removed reason from it.
    I’ve suggested that you check out the analysis of such scholars as Aristotle and in particular his Metaphysics, for examples of the use of reason in analyzing both the metaphysical and morality. You might try also Duns Scotus, a Christian scholastic, for the same issues: reason and morality. And there’s my favourite, Charles Peirce.
    No, science relies on faith in the knowledge base (that’s from Aristotle, whose works that you declare that you know)..because, “all learning is by means of premisses which are (either all of some of them) known before” (Bk I, Ch 9,30). And you work from within them, using the null hypothesis.
    Yes, of course you have to have faith in the nature of gravity and other principles and in the continuity of life. That’s called the ability to anticipate.
    I don’t think that you have defined FAITH and I suspect it must be rather similar to your unique and invalid definition of religion as a ‘primitive mindset’.
    There is no way that a single individual scientist can replicate and therefore prove the work of others, either before or in current work. Instead, the scientist must have faith in the rationale of the hypothesis of these other researchers and the validity and reliability of their data base.
    You are ignoring the hypothesis; statistics only refer to examples of the hypothesis – and if that hypothesis is invalid, then, many times, the statistics will not show this.
    I stand by my definition of tribalism; your simple dictionary definition is a circular definition (doesn’t define ‘tribe’). I doubt that you are aware of the different modes of political organization. Tribalism is a particular political mode based on two classes, both hereditary by kin filiation.
    I’ve no idea what you mean by the ‘ultimate form of governance’. I, myself, consider that the individual, as an adult, governs himself by the use of reason and morality. The Pope does not govern individual decisions; these are the choice of the individual.
    Our species functions both as an individual and within a collective. You don’t seem to understand this dyad. We operate within a collective because our knowledge base is not genetic but is learned; we learn it from the collective. That is why humans have language. Furthermore, our species, to deal with this ‘problem’ of a lack of innate knowledge, must nurture the young for a long period of time. This means that our species lives together, within a collective. That means that we must develop and use common rules of interaction, morality, economy etc. That includes marriage. I’m surprised that your ‘extensive’ reading of Aristotle and Plato didn’t lead you to some understanding of the relation between the individual and the collective.
    There is ‘no life and death’? Heh, and so you can walk on water and raise the dead! What imaginary world do you live in? Our universe, from the nanosecond of the Big Bang, moved from the infinite into the finite. All material units are finite. And slithering into a reductionism of ‘we are nothing but atoms’ ignores the nature of morphological reality. Ever heard about the Forms? Oh, I forgot – of course you have; you know Aristotle and Plato well.
    And statements like ‘heaven is the state of just being’ is meaningless New Age vapidity.

  42. “we are made up of atoms and subatomic particles that are identical to those across the universe.”
    Fair enough. But until we can answer where those little buggers came from then both sides of the question are just guessing.
    As for everything being infinite well even the big boom theory works against that. But other then those two points not a bad Philosophy.

  43. Well then congrats, Lance and Kate! 🙂
    I can sense male hearts shattering all over the righty blogosphere.

  44. But what makes this story different is that Kathleen Folden, bless her heart, entered the gallery, broke into the artwork with a crowbar and ripped it to pieces. She didn’t really destroy the art, since it was one of several prints, but she did express a rebuttal of sorts to the constant artistic besmirching of Jesus.

  45. Perhaps another explanation of why the Archdiocese of Sydney [George Pell] finds the Saint Boobs portrayal “disgusting” —
    // It was also an annus horribilis for Sydney’s Archbishop George Pell. First, ambushed by 60 Minutes over allegations that he attempted to bribe a victim of clerical sexual abuse to keep quiet; then the subject of a complaint of a sexual advance at an altar boy camp forty years ago. //
    Anyway, there’s sacrilege & there’s sacrilege —     Cardinal Pell and Sister Anne Derwin
    with Mary MacKillop gold and silver coins    .

  46. “”we have the ability to shape nature as we see fit’ is not indicative of any awareness of constraints, has no hint of ‘implication of boundaries’.”
    I’m sorry, I assumed I was conversing with a rational person. Shape = manipulate…if I had said he have the ability to CREATE nature, or TRANSCEND nature, or MAKE OUR OWN RULES OVER NATURE then sure.
    “You have a habit of, when criticized, answering that ‘you meant to say it”
    I might say that you have a habit of construing your own interpretation of my words in order to fit your own argument.
    “a first year course in ‘the key people of philosophy’ and reading through ‘a number of works’ is hardly a knowledge of Aristotle or Plato and it is the height of arrogance to claim such.”
    Oh, my bad…I didn’t know that by ‘have you read Plato and Aristotle’ you meant ‘are you expertly versed in their works, having spent an inordinate amount of time studying them’. You should be more clear next time…or maybe I should just be “privy to your unwritten thoughts and ‘what you meant'”.
    “Your examples of ‘faith’ (walking on water etc) are ridiculous; they are not examples of faith but of the imagination.”
    Huh? But it says so right in the bible! People take this as the truth…is that not faith?!
    “Faith means an awareness of continuity, it rests on a rejection of randomness.”
    No, that’s reason. Reason rests on the knowledge of the continuity of such things as physics.
    From the dictionary:
    Faith = belief that is not based on proof; Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence; strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
    Reason = An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence; The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence; To determine or conclude by logical thinking
    “it enables the strength of a current action based on an anticipation of a continuity of one’s surroundings, of a continuity of the behaviour of the envt, and so on.”
    No, it is REASONING that enables strength in continuity. If I’m building a bridge, and make a current action based on my REASONING of the laws of physics, thats all I need. I don’t need to have faith that the world won’t suddenly turn on it’s head fundamentally changing the laws of physics…I reason that such a case is infinitely improbable, if I even consider such nonsense at all. Even if it were to happen, I have no control over it so there is no point in considering.
    “Of course religion is about the metaphysical!”
    I didn’t say otherwise, again, you twist my words. I said that your definition of religion seems to equate it entirely with metaphysics…as in they are one and the same. Organized religion is far from a simple thought experiment into the metaphysical.
    “I’ve no idea what you mean by ‘organized religion'”
    Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Mormonism etc, etc.
    “No, science relies on faith in the knowledge base”
    No, it doesn’t. Any good researcher doesn’t just rely on faith in his predecessors, he uses his own reasoning to confirm that prior knowledge can be reasoned. He may find that some prior knowledge does not fit his reasoning, and may go on to attempt to reason an alternative conclusion.
    You don’t just blindly accept science, you develop a knowledge of it with reason, and expand upon that reasoning.
    “Yes, of course you have to have faith in the nature of gravity and other principles and in the continuity of life.”
    No, you don’t. I can reason that gravity exists and isn’t going anywhere. I can reason that if gravity does go somewhere, there is nothing I can do about it. Reasoning defines the laws of physics, reasoning concludes that they are continuous since there is no evidence to the contrary.
    “There is no way that a single individual scientist can replicate and therefore prove the work of others ”
    WHAT?! Is part of the scientific method not that an experiment must be REPLICABLE? You are SERIOUSLY straying from the rules of science.
    “I stand by my definition of tribalism; your simple dictionary definition is a circular definition”
    Of course, head straight for the ‘simple dictionary’ argument. You could argue against any one by saying that any relevant term cannot be defined by anyone but yourself.
    Tribe = A unit of sociopolitical organization consisting of a number of families, clans, or other groups who share a common ancestry and culture and among whom leadership is typically neither formalized nor permanent.;A group of people sharing an occupation, interest, or habit
    How is your very narrow definition of tribalism any more valid? How in the hell did you come to the conclusion that tribalism means a mode of governance with two hereditary classes? Sounds more like a Monarchy. I’ve never heard of your definition of tribalism…pretty easy to be right when you decide what the meaning of words are isn’t it?
    “I’ve no idea what you mean by the ‘ultimate form of governance’. I, myself, consider that the individual, as an adult, governs himself by the use of reason and morality.”
    Exactly, it is a form of governance when faith in the Pope’s words replaces the use of reason by the individual.
    “The Pope does not govern individual decisions; these are the choice of the individual.”
    Which is why I said it was by choice, people place the Pope as their ultimate governance (replacing their own reasoning) by choice.
    “We operate within a collective because our knowledge base is not genetic but is learned; we learn it from the collective.”
    Yes, it is learned by the individual, from the works of other individuals. There is no collective brain…only a collection of the products of individual brains.
    “This means that our species lives together, within a collective.”
    I don’t deny this, what I deem as wrong is the power of the collective majority to rule the individual.
    “I’m surprised that your ‘extensive’ reading of Aristotle and Plato”
    I’m sorry, I think you’ve misquoted me…where did I use the word ‘extensive’?
    “There is ‘no life and death’? Heh, and so you can walk on water and raise the dead! ”
    I didn’t say that physical bodies do not die, I said, much like energy, life is neither created, nor destroyed. The universe is infinite and it’s potential for life is equally so.
    “moved from the infinite into the finite”
    ??? I beg to disagree.
    “And statements like ‘heaven is the state of just being’ is meaningless New Age vapidity.”
    Heaven is the state of NOT being in hell, it is the state of release from the entrapment of one’s mind. It is simply being, without being ruled by the constant stream of thought that the ever so powerful human mind produces.
    Are your thoughts you? Or are you the being who perceives your thoughts?

  47. Could we stop feeding this troll? Seriously. Its getting out of hand.
    I know, I’ve been feeding it too, but now I’m stopping. Pinkie swear I’ll never feed it again.

  50. How did batb know this thing, when the rest of us were sure Kate was available for the right man? Guess she found the right man.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation