The Gospel

lostnick3 said:
as individuals we have free choice.
Click to expand...

I would argue that is somewhat idealised. Our choices are limited in many ways.

it as a collective where the free part of choice starts to cost us. we as a collective can feed the world or not. but it all comes down to a individuals free choice.
Click to expand...

Again I would argue that is somewhat idealised. We may not as a collective really want to feed the world. We benefit somewhat from keeping most of the world in poverty so we can live in luxury.

why else would a intelligent species cause or try to cause its own extinction.
Click to expand...

I always like to use the phrase:

"People are intelligent; humans are dumb."
 
cyborg said:
I would argue that is somewhat idealised. Our choices are limited in many ways.

*no they are not you have a choice to say yes or no

Again I would argue that is somewhat idealised. We may not as a collective really want to feed the world. We benefit somewhat from keeping most of the world in poverty so we can live in luxury.

*feeding the world was an example

I always like to use the phrase:

"People are intelligent; humans are dumb."
Click to expand...

*i thought cliché's were points off the discussion

* my replies
 
*no they are not you have a choice to say yes or no
Click to expand...

Not all choices can be answered yes or no.
Not all choices have only two alternatives.
Not all choices which affect you are given to you to make.

It's generally bad to over-generalize. Tends to poke holes in arguments rather quickly.
 
delphi_ote said:
then my "imaginary" friend skeptically speaking then can be proven or disproven
Click to expand...
Then prove your imaginary friend's existence. Until you do so, there's no difference between your higher power and the millions of other imaginary creatures humanity has concocted over the years.
 
lostnick3 said:
as individuals we have free choice. it as a collective where the free part of choice starts to cost us. we as a collective can feed the world or not. but it all comes down to a individuals free choice. why else would a intelligent species cause or try to cause its own extinction.
Click to expand...
More appeals to emotion. You're explaining why you want to believe. None of this is evidence for what you believe.

I want to believe I have a million dollars. In your three class system, I would become one of the very rich! Nobody can disprove the existence of my million dollars, and skeptically speaking it can be proven or disproven. As soon as I first thought about my million dollars, wasn't that my million dollars' way of tapping me on the shoulder and saying, "Hello. I'm in your bank account. The rest is up to you?" It all comes down to individuals' free choice. Isn't my world so bland and sad without a million dollars? If I didn't have a million dollars, why else would humanity try to destroy itself? It seems obvious that I should have a million dollors.

I just wrote a check for a million dollars, do you think I should go cash it? Your "logic" so far indicates you're on your way to the bank.
 
lostnick3 said:
Some times a cigar is just a cigar. S. Freud
Click to expand...

Funny you should use that quote. When someone pointed out to Freud that since he claimed cigars are phallic symbols, they asked if Freud's cigar smoking was an expression of supressed homosexuality.

You see, rather than admit his theory was flawed, he made a magical exception just for cigars.

There's a parralel I'm trying to draw here...
 
judging by the last posts it was back the the library, looks like time to start the circle of mental masturbation again.

lets start my day with Thomas Aquinas "first cause," a "prime mover,"a "great orderer" which men call God.
the "first cause" was not defined as that which started things off "in the beginning." rather it was the ultimate sustaining cause operating now and as long as causation continues. that it is not possible to prove by philosophical argument that the universe did in fact have a beginning. plagiarized and paraphrased (badly) randomhouse encyclopedia.

there can be no right or wrong, good or bad or righteous or evil without God.

as the missionary's said to the pacific islanders "We have given you the word of God your no longer pagans now your heathens" would this statement apply to skeptic's also?

to the poster curious about the Freud quote. in that context it meant i was done for the night and off to other pursuits. so here's another bone for you.

"Civilization began the the first time an angry person cast a word instead of a rock" S. Freud
 
UrsulaV said:
I'm wondering that myself. What did anything in your post have to do with hypothetical fallen seraphim having wings?
Click to expand...

absolutely nothing. we seem to be down a Jesus fan or two (1.7?) also . you appear the only one asking questions about lab project X6n. there is the slightest possibility i got excited and missed a point or two. the problem i often have is i live in a small cabin in the middle of nowhere that has no phone at this time. and most of my philosophy and religion books are there in that library, its the place i like to put things like that into perspective. i also have house in the city that i bought not to long ago to keep the ol' lady and kids off my butt that also has a library. so depending on what i want to look up or study the source material is in the other library. one of Murphy's laws.
 
lostnick3 said:
judging by the last posts it was back the the library, looks like time to start the circle of mental masturbation again.

lets start my day with Thomas Aquinas "first cause," a "prime mover,"a "great orderer" which men call God.
the "first cause" was not defined as that which started things off "in the beginning." rather it was the ultimate sustaining cause operating now and as long as causation continues. that it is not possible to prove by philosophical argument that the universe did in fact have a beginning. plagiarized and paraphrased (badly) randomhouse encyclopedia.

there can be no right or wrong, good or bad or righteous or evil without God.

as the missionary's said to the pacific islanders "We have given you the word of God your no longer pagans now your heathens" would this statement apply to skeptic's also?

to the poster curious about the Freud quote. in that context it meant i was done for the night and off to other pursuits. so here's another bone for you.

"Civilization began the the first time an angry person cast a word instead of a rock" S. Freud
Click to expand...
What the hell are you on about now? Please write in complete sentences if you expect anyone to understand what you're saying. What little of that gibberish is remotely comprehensible seems utterly divorced from the subject at hand. It seems like you're more or less raving incoherently because the existence of your imaginary friend has been challenged.
 
Delphi_toe said:
What the hell are you on about now? Please write in complete sentences if you expect anyone to understand what you're saying. What little of that gibberish is remotely comprehensible seems utterly divorced from the subject at hand. It seems like you're more or less raving incoherently because the existence of your imaginary friend has been challenged.
Click to expand...

more or less.

i have never claimed to be literate.

St.Thomas Aquinas has been mentioned in this thread before. he maintained that it was not possible to prove by philosophical argument that the universe did in fact have a beginning.

the missionary gibberish was a cheap shot at atheists in general, you in particular.
 
lostnick3 said:
and they are...
Click to expand...

Well, granted that I'm a moral* and godless being, I'd say they're the morality I am demonstrating by not, for example, burying dismembered hobos under my house.

I admit, a day of watching me not doing bad things would be pretty boring, but I'm happy to demonstrate a godless morality in action any time you care to watch.


*well, reasonably moral. I used to pirate Amiga software when I was a teenager.
 
Whatever I determine them to be.
Click to expand...

And if society disagrees with you?

Morality just doesn't make sense without a social context and whether the reasons are well-formed or not the majority is going to determine what right and wrong, good and bad is. Then probably fight about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom