RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (304) < ... 287 288 289 290 291 [292] 293 294 295 296 297 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2017,10:30   

Quote
20
kairosfocusAugust 16, 2017 at 8:30 am
Folks,

Back in some contact, still busy with matters tied to bereavement. Let me say, I have been personally present at a lucid state beatific vision and conversation on passing.

I note, morality is pivotal, indeed take out something objective behind conscience and the voice that urges to truth and right in reasoning, speaking and acting is in effect assigned delusional status.

Not just morality but rationality collapses.

A coherent woldview must be one in which morality is not a delusion, including that conscience is a compass. So, the world root must be an is that grounds ought.

As I have pointed out there is just one serious candidate, the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the responsible, reasonable service of doing good in accord with our evident nature. Such a serious candidate NB will either be impossible as a square circle is, or else is actual, framework to any world existing. Just as no world is possible without distinct contrast thus two-ness. And much more that a light duty keyboard is too little for.

Nothing in that is about irrational fear of punishment, though shame on exposure of wrong is in itself sometimes sharply painful. So, I think some projections on ethical theism by those who reject it, need to be reconsidered. Where cold anger is just as objectionable as hot, cold anger coming out in snide contempt and insistence on dismissive, denigratory caricatures of the other. Too many self-declared atheists I have dealt with over the years are characterised by that sort of cold anger and I think some reconsideration is in order.

So, let us refactor the discussion.

KF


The Return of the Derp King

   
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2017,10:32   

UD is on MDT time.

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1199
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2017,10:47   

Quote
I note, morality is pivotal, indeed take out something objective behind conscience and the voice that urges to truth and right in reasoning, speaking and acting is in effect assigned delusional status


I wonder if Gaulin would be good enough to translate this for us.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2017,10:53   

If the spelling and punctuation weren't fine I'd assume he was drunk.

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1121
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2017,12:52   

His second sentence claims that without objective morality, the morality we have would be delusional. This from the same man who claims to have beatific visions and the ability to talk to the dead.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4784
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2017,13:39   

Oh, anybody can talk to the dead. The problem is getting a reply back.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2017,18:48   

Quote
1
john_a_designerAugust 16, 2017 at 11:47 am
The universe was created instantaneously, which means that everything the world would become was in some sense potentially seeded right at the beginning. There was no plan or purpose behind that?

The purpose of an acorn is to become an oak tree. The purpose of a fertilized human egg is to become a person. If there is purpose there (with oak trees and human beings) isn’t there purpose for the universe as a whole?

The universe did not just come into being for no reason. Who would be foolish enough to defend such a view?
 
Quote

2
Truth Will Set You FreeAugust 16, 2017 at 12:58 pm
What amazes me is the certainty with which a/mats proclaim “no design” and “no purpose,” as if they know enough to make such a declaration. Agnosticism is, of course, a far more intelligent position than atheism or materialism.
 
Quote

3
john_a_designerAugust 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm
For the life of me, I don’t see how atheistic naturalists/materialists can explain how the universe was created instantaneously. For some reason they keep missing that “little fact.”
 
Quote

4
Truth Will Set You FreeAugust 16, 2017 at 2:25 pm
Created instantaneously out of nothing. Not Lawrence Krauss’s quantum equilibrium version of nothing, but really nothing…as in NO THING.

Also, created instantaneously with the potential to give rise to everything in the universe.

It takes great faith to be an atheist.
It's like a dorm-room bong-hitting bull session, except with unusually-dumb seventh-graders instead of college freshmen.

Edited by stevestory on Aug. 16 2017,19:49

   
Henry J



Posts: 4784
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2017,20:10   

Maybe they should put these people on that game show, "Are You Smarter Than a fifth Grader?".  :p

As for the "purpose" of an acorn - growing into a tree is a property of acorns. Calling that a purpose is just a figure of speech (metaphor?).

As for "created instantaneously" - that's relative to time passing within our "universe"; and that time dimension is part of said "universe". So there might or might not be other dimensions against which it wasn't instantaneous. (I put "universe" in quotes because the literal meaning of that word would include those other dimensions, if they exist. :p )

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1121
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2017,22:21   

Barry is being true to form. I have been commenting as Kenneth Hugh for the last couple of months, none of them getting past moderation. Then I posted the following given the fact that KF obviously lost a close family member.
Quote
kenneth hugh  August 16, 2017 at 6:13 pm
KF, I know that we have had many disagreements in the past (Acartia, William Spearshake, Tintinnid, Armand Jacks, Ziggy Lorenc, and a few others), but I just wanted to express my sympathy at your loss. Regardless of our differences, we are all, ultimately, part of the same family. I hope to see you back in fighting form soon.

Surprisingly, he actually let it stand and the comment got posted. I subsequently posted a comment simply to thank him. Rather than going to moderation, as I expected it would, it completely disappeared. Banned again.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2075
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2017,23:49   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 16 2017,08:48)
You have to go back to the 5th post on page 8, 145 posts back from today, to find KF's last comment, made July 15, 2017 at 2:16 pm.

I wonder if Montserrat has online searchable arrest logs?

Perhaps the volcano erupted again and Kairosfocus discovered, a little too late, that he's been worshipping the wrong god all these years.

Edited to add that I just learned of his bereavement.  Sorry, KF.

Edited by CeilingCat on Aug. 16 2017,23:58

--------------
...after reviewing the arguments, I’m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODE’s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%.  --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2017,13:50   

Quote
80
critical rationalistAugust 17, 2017 at 7:19 am
@LocalMinimum
Quote

on (4), are you stating that junk DNA is not supportive of evolution?

I’m saying that the current crop of ID lacks explanatory power due to artificially limiting itself to an abstract designer with no defined limitations so it does not exclude God. As such, many aspects of the biosphere simply cannot be explained by ID but can be explained by new-Darwinism. It’s a bad explantion.

Predictions in science are based on the necessary consequences of universal theories about how the world works, in reality, not merely a number of individual experiences of human beings. ID’s designer is abstract and doesn’t “work” in any necessary way because that would exclude a supernatural designer, by definition. There are no necessary consequences to based them on.

For example, take the order of appearance of organisms from least to most complex. New-Darwinism explains this order in that the necessary non-explantory knowege of how to build them was genuinely created over time via a process of variation and criticism. More complicated organisms could not be constructed unless the necessary knowege is present there. However, there are no limits on what the current crop of ID’s designer knows, when it knew it, etc. So, it could have created organisms in any order, including the most complex to least complex or even all at once. At best, on could say “that’s just the order the designer must have wanted”, which explains nothing.

ID is a bad explanation because, despite being carefully designed so it’s designer not necessarily being God, the opposite must necessarily be true: ID’s designer must necesararly defined to not exclude God. Even at the expense of explantory power.

Specially human beings are good explanation for human designed things precisely because of our human limitations.
linky

Edited by stevestory on Aug. 17 2017,14:51

   
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2017,13:57   

same thread:

Quote
84
critical rationalistAugust 17, 2017 at 11:56 am
@UB,
Quote

UB: …let me know when you are prepared to retract your statement.

You mean retract your interpretation of my statement? Why would I do that?
Quote

ID is a bad explanation because, despite being carefully designed so [its] designer [need not necessarily] be God, the opposite [is] necessarily true: ID’s designer must [be] necessarily defined to not exclude God. Even at the expense of explantory power.

I’d even say that a prediction of very little junk in the genome isn’t even a prediction of an abstract supernatural being, as one could always retreat to the claim that said being left junk in the genome “for some good reason we cannot understand.”

IOW, ID’s abstract designer’s lack of necessary is not a feature. It’s a significant detriment. It strips it of the ability to make predictions as necessarily consequences of the theory itself. An abstract designer with no limitations that gets what it want’s for no other reason because it chose that outcome could choose anything logically possible. So, it necessarily predicts nothing, except the absence of logically impossible things. We can more efficiently predict the absences of logically impossible things because, well, they are logically impossible.

Yet, in this thread alone, we have ID proponents claiming ID predicts very little junk in the genome. Why?

Take this comment from ET..
Quote

Why design in a bunch of junk that you then have to design around to get the proper outputs and functionality?

Given that ID’s designer has no defined limitations, why would the designer of the biosphere find it difficult to design around “a bunch of junk” like we currently would? Nor is it even clear that we would in the future. And no one will actually codify that limitation in ID the supposed scientific theory. Why not?

Because everyone knows ID’s designer is God. Not because of what ID says, but because of what it refuses to say.

So, my criticism is that ID proponents simultaneously claim ID says nothing about the designer, yet makes predictions that appear to require doing just that.

What gives?

   
Ptaylor



Posts: 1038
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2017,18:24   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 18 2017,06:57)
same thread:

     
Quote
84
critical rationalistAugust 17, 2017 at 11:56 am
@UB,
     
Quote

UB: …let me know when you are prepared to retract your statement.

You mean retract your interpretation of my statement? Why would I do that?
     
Quote

ID is a bad explanation because, despite being carefully designed so [its] designer [need not necessarily] be God, the opposite [is] necessarily true: ID’s designer must [be] necessarily defined to not exclude God. Even at the expense of explantory power.

I’d even say that a prediction of very little junk in the genome isn’t even a prediction of an abstract supernatural being, as one could always retreat to the claim that said being left junk in the genome “for some good reason we cannot understand.”

IOW, ID’s abstract designer’s lack of necessary is not a feature. It’s a significant detriment. It strips it of the ability to make predictions as necessarily consequences of the theory itself. An abstract designer with no limitations that gets what it want’s for no other reason because it chose that outcome could choose anything logically possible. So, it necessarily predicts nothing, except the absence of logically impossible things. We can more efficiently predict the absences of logically impossible things because, well, they are logically impossible.

Yet, in this thread alone, we have ID proponents claiming ID predicts very little junk in the genome. Why?

Take this comment from ET..
     
Quote

Why design in a bunch of junk that you then have to design around to get the proper outputs and functionality?

Given that ID’s designer has no defined limitations, why would the designer of the biosphere find it difficult to design around “a bunch of junk” like we currently would? Nor is it even clear that we would in the future. And no one will actually codify that limitation in ID the supposed scientific theory. Why not?

Because everyone knows ID’s designer is God. Not because of what ID says, but because of what it refuses to say.

So, my criticism is that ID proponents simultaneously claim ID says nothing about the designer, yet makes predictions that appear to require doing just that.

What gives?

Not so fast there - Barry has declared a winner of that little exchange and it is...Upright Biped!:

   
Quote
86
Barry ArringtonAugust 17, 2017 at 3:42 pm

Wow UB @ 78 and 85, you paddled his little behind pretty hard. Ouch.

Or maybe it was a kickin’ sit-che-a-shun. See the debate here starting at 0:53

(broken youtube link)

Funny how these guys win argument after argument, debate after debate, but back in the worlds of science and education...

Edited by Ptaylor on Aug. 18 2017,15:09

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
Henry J



Posts: 4784
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2017,20:28   

But aren't most of us upright bipeds?

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2194
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2017,02:28   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 17 2017,20:28)
But aren't most of us upright bipeds?

Even suggesting we might be like UB could put you in danger of bannination around here.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2194
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2017,02:30   

OK, which one of you is polistra, and which one EricMH? This is too good to be taken out of context.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Lethean



Posts: 143
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2017,08:39   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 18 2017,02:30)
OK, which one of you is polistra, and which one EricMH? This is too good to be taken out of context.

lol

 
Quote

J-MacAugust 18, 2017 at 5:42 am

polistra,

 
Quote
The simple fact is that Islam is closer to Natural Law than Christianity.


Really? Can you elaborate on this fact?

How do you know Christianity is not as close the natural law as Islam? Have you examined closely the 38.000 christian denomination known in the world today ?


Surely some Christians somewhere must be doing it right!

Having observed J-Mac for a while over at TSZ (until I could take no more of the J-Mac/phoodoo/Mung shitshow) it's quite clear he's a walking talking parody.

Also, this.



--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."


~Dave Hawkins~

  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2017,09:33   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 17 2017,19:24)
Funny how these guys win argument after argument, debate after debate, but back in the worlds of science and education...

Like how the noble, aryan looking young christian man in a Jack Chick tract always wins against the spitting angry jew Professor Smartypants.

   
JohnW



Posts: 2834
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2017,12:21   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 17 2017,16:24)
Not so fast there - Barry has declared a winner of that little exchange and it is...Upright Biped!:

   
Quote
86
Barry ArringtonAugust 17, 2017 at 3:42 pm

Wow UB @ 78 and 85, you paddled his little behind pretty hard. Ouch.

Or maybe it was a kickin’ sit-che-a-shun. See the debate here starting at 0:53

(broken youtube link)

Funny how these guys win argument after argument, debate after debate, but back in the worlds of science and education...

Paging Mr Leathers.  Mr Leathers to the black studded courtesy phone...

What is it with these guys and spanking?  They can't all be Tory MPs.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Henry J



Posts: 4784
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2017,13:32   

Re "What is it with these guys and spanking?"

A little behind in their education?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2017,13:54   

Quote
29
ichisanAugust 18, 2017 at 12:17 pm
Bob and rvb8 are not humans. Their minds have been snatched by evil aliens intent on spreading calumnies, hatred and wars among humans. There are venomous snakes among us. Just saying.


just sayin!

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 2075
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2017,15:52   

Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 18 2017,12:21)
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 17 2017,16:24)
Not so fast there - Barry has declared a winner of that little exchange and it is...Upright Biped!:

       
Quote
86
Barry ArringtonAugust 17, 2017 at 3:42 pm

Wow UB @ 78 and 85, you paddled his little behind pretty hard. Ouch.

Or maybe it was a kickin’ sit-che-a-shun. See the debate here starting at 0:53

(broken youtube link)

Funny how these guys win argument after argument, debate after debate, but back in the worlds of science and education...

Paging Mr Leathers.  Mr Leathers to the black studded courtesy phone...

What is it with these guys and spanking?  They can't all be Tory MPs.

Spanking is the number two sexual variation, right after oral sex.  And Barry can't find anybody low enough to suck his dick.

--------------
...after reviewing the arguments, I’m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODE’s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%.  --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

  
JohnW



Posts: 2834
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2017,16:27   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 18 2017,13:52)
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 18 2017,12:21)
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 17 2017,16:24)
Not so fast there - Barry has declared a winner of that little exchange and it is...Upright Biped!:

       
Quote
86
Barry ArringtonAugust 17, 2017 at 3:42 pm

Wow UB @ 78 and 85, you paddled his little behind pretty hard. Ouch.

Or maybe it was a kickin’ sit-che-a-shun. See the debate here starting at 0:53

(broken youtube link)

Funny how these guys win argument after argument, debate after debate, but back in the worlds of science and education...

Paging Mr Leathers.  Mr Leathers to the black studded courtesy phone...

What is it with these guys and spanking?  They can't all be Tory MPs.

Spanking is the number two sexual variation, right after oral sex.  And Barry can't find anybody low enough to suck his dick.

You win the Disturbing Mental Image Of The Week Award, CeilingCat.  Ewww.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2194
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2017,16:52   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 18 2017,13:54)
Quote
29
ichisanAugust 18, 2017 at 12:17 pm
Bob and rvb8 are not humans. Their minds have been snatched by evil aliens intent on spreading calumnies, hatred and wars among humans. There are venomous snakes among us. Just saying.


just sayin!

I'd been wondering what had happened to my limbs.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Henry J



Posts: 4784
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2017,22:48   

Re "I'd been wondering what had happened to my limbs."

Surely they're not vestigial?

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2075
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2017,00:00   

Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 18 2017,16:27)
   
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 18 2017,13:52)
     
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 18 2017,12:21)
       
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 17 2017,16:24)
Not so fast there - Barry has declared a winner of that little exchange and it is...Upright Biped!:

             
Quote
86
Barry ArringtonAugust 17, 2017 at 3:42 pm

Wow UB @ 78 and 85, you paddled his little behind pretty hard. Ouch.

Or maybe it was a kickin’ sit-che-a-shun. See the debate here starting at 0:53

(broken youtube link)

Funny how these guys win argument after argument, debate after debate, but back in the worlds of science and education...

Paging Mr Leathers.  Mr Leathers to the black studded courtesy phone...

What is it with these guys and spanking?  They can't all be Tory MPs.

Spanking is the number two sexual variation, right after oral sex.  And Barry can't find anybody low enough to suck his dick.

You win the Disturbing Mental Image Of The Week Award, CeilingCat.  Ewww.

Denyse on her knees.

When youve recovered from that, another Christian fan of the second most popular sexual variation*:    
Quote
You're damn right Cornelius can do whatever he likes. He has been kind to you even though you deserve nothing but scorn and an ass whipping.

Louis (Mapou and many others) Savain

Corny's blog

* "Perversions in Jesus talk.

P.S. If your stomach is still not completely emptied , think of self- satisfied slurping sounds.

--------------
...after reviewing the arguments, I’m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODE’s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%.  --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

  
paragwinn



Posts: 519
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2017,04:01   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 18 2017,22:00)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 18 2017,16:27)
       
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 18 2017,13:52)
       
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 18 2017,12:21)
           
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 17 2017,16:24)
Not so fast there - Barry has declared a winner of that little exchange and it is...Upright Biped!:

                 
Quote
86
Barry ArringtonAugust 17, 2017 at 3:42 pm

Wow UB @ 78 and 85, you paddled his little behind pretty hard. Ouch.

Or maybe it was a kickin’ sit-che-a-shun. See the debate here starting at 0:53

(broken youtube link)

Funny how these guys win argument after argument, debate after debate, but back in the worlds of science and education...

Paging Mr Leathers.  Mr Leathers to the black studded courtesy phone...

What is it with these guys and spanking?  They can't all be Tory MPs.

Spanking is the number two sexual variation, right after oral sex.  And Barry can't find anybody low enough to suck his dick.

You win the Disturbing Mental Image Of The Week Award, CeilingCat.  Ewww.

Denyse on her knees.

When youve recovered from that, another Christian fan of the second most popular sexual variation*:        
Quote
You're damn right Cornelius can do whatever he likes. He has been kind to you even though you deserve nothing but scorn and an ass whipping.

Louis (Mapou and many others) Savain

Corny's blog

* "Perversions in Jesus talk.

P.S. If your stomach is still not completely emptied , think of self- satisfied slurping sounds.

Barry Arrington: "Get thee behind me, Internet Forum Satan!
No, wait, that's not what i meant....!"

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2017,08:04   

Quote
18
rvb8August 19, 2017 at 1:53 am
j_a_d @4,

In answer to your first question I say, ‘How did God originate from absolute nothig?’

I know He said, ‘I am that I am’, but meaningless tautology only satisfies the credulous.

Your second question begs the retort, ‘couldn’t God have ‘fine tuned’ it a little better? Such flagrant waste of space, and raw materials.’

Your third question seems to forget that upon our deaths we go back to the ‘non-life’ molecules that created, (heh:) us. The faxt that we know our ‘ingredients’, and where those ‘ingredients’ originated, (stars), suggests atheists understand this question far better than the religious.

Your nest two questions are similar and I will answer both at once; the science and research is on going, the results are amazing, and the science is wonderful. As IDers sit baxk and twiddle their thumbs at the jaw dropping complexity of life, scientists are busily unravelling this complexity and reaching amazing conclusions; nowhere in their research is ‘supernaturalism’ even vaguely thought of as a process worhty of investigation. That is because, and I can’t stress this enough, SUPERNATURALISM, IS, UNTESTIBLE BECAUSE IT IS BY DEFINITION BEYOND NATURE!

You conclude with your own silly invention, ‘naturalist miracles’ Ah-huh; try understanding the word ‘oxymoron’, and that takes care of that.
Quote

19
ichisanAugust 19, 2017 at 2:17 am
rvb8: I know He said, ‘I am that I am’, but meaningless tautology only satisfies the credulous.

I knew it. rvb8 is a demon just as I thought. LOL.
Quote

20
rvb8August 19, 2017 at 3:13 am
ichisan @19,

I’m not a demon as I place demons in the same category as God; divine, above nature, non-corporeal.

Because I don’t accept anything can exist beyond the ‘natural’ universe then ‘demons’ also fall into the fictional world of the supernatural.

Also, I like puppies.:)
linky

   
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2017,11:36   

Quote
36
kairosfocusAugust 18, 2017 at 11:30 pm
Folks,

Given some guilt by association rhetoric above, I think a reminder from earlier this year may help us balance thinking — and those who could imagine (on years of track record) that Antifa is a peaceful, legitimate protest movement are at best naive:

What is a Fascist or a Nazi?

https://uncommondescent.com/free-sp....fascist

With this on agit prop street theatre games:

https://uncommondescent.com/atheism....theatre

Notice, one of the Alinsky rules ...
Kairos is tanned, rested, and ready, and he's bringin the Derp

   
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2017,11:39   

Quote
35
tribune7August 18, 2017 at 5:23 pm
rvb @21 — A woman was murdered by a neo-NAZI. —

What would Clarence Darrow say?

What if Fields, well, ends up being acquitted?
http://billlawrenceonline.com/james-f....quittal


no idea wtf that all meant.

Edited by stevestory on Aug. 19 2017,12:42

   
  9094 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (304) < ... 287 288 289 290 291 [292] 293 294 295 296 297 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]