That Boat Don't Float!!

[Montalban]

Just a simple question: how to you feel towards my sister? Do you hate her or love her?

(And a slightly more difficult question to follow: how did you feel towards my sister before you read that question?)

Matthew 10: 25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[c]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[d]"

28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

see the answer to the question put to Jesus on "Who is my neighbour"
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10&version=NIV

 

[Montalban]

Been asked a question you can't answer??

Not of late, why? If you're referring to the question above, I answered that by showing what Jesus calls us to do in the case of whom we are to love.

Just throw a few verses at it and and you can take it the question has been answered,

It has.
Maybe the answer is too complex.

I'll try it a little less difficult
Q: (see above)
A: I (try to) love everyone, that would include her

What a deluded way to live a life.

Thanks for the ad hom, I always find personal attacks a good resource tool for dialogue!

 

[Freodin]

Not of late, why? If you're referring to the question above, I answered that by showing what Jesus calls us to do in the case of whom we are to love.

It has.
Maybe the answer is too complex.

I'll try it a little less difficult
Q: (see above)
A: Yes.


Thanks for the ad hom, I always find personal attacks a good resource tool for dialogue!

So you can say with certainty, that, by the command of Jesus, you love my sister? And that you did love my sister before having got the notion that there is a sister of Freodin?

 

[Montalban]

So you can say with certainty, that, by the command of Jesus, you love my sister?

I'm an Orthodox Christian

We're called to be God (an idea/process called Theosis)

Jesus loved everybody. By love I'm drawn to Jesus and to follow what he did.

And that you did love my sister before having got the notion that there is a sister of Freodin?

I pray for all people, I don't know you personally either, but I still love you.

I'm sure there's a point in all this that you're leading to.

Conversely, you, a bag of chemicals acting in a certain way act in such a way as to feel love for another bag of chemicals acting in a certain way (that you call 'sister').

Some chemical makes you think you're right in this coversation with me; which means that you're not right in any absolute sense and are therefore arguing against the very 'rightness' of the argument you are making - by arguing that 'rightness' is just a particular chemical making you think you're right.

Strange, but true.

Every time people on your side think I'm wrong, and so passionately come out to argue against me you're arguing against your own side by the very act of arguing the point you're trying to make!

I'm sorry if it seems odd for me to put that like I have but it's very clear that you and others simply don't get the nature of the quote I love so much...

As British biologist J. B. S. Haldane wrote in 1927, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
George Gilder -- Evolution and Me
also at
CSC - Evolution and Me

 

[Montalban]

It's not unusual for people from your side to argue self-anhiliating arguments. My favourite evolutionist Dawkins mocks (by way of argument) that people who are relgious are so simply because of some gene in their brain.

Lacking introspection he fails to realise that if this were 'true' then his own lack of belief in religion is also caused by genes. He is thus arguing against the 'intellectual stance for truth' of his own argument!

 

[driewerf]

I don't think there are 'Religious Genes', I just think there are 'Religious Parents', I'm not saying that you had religious parents because for MOST religious people here it's quite the opposite, their parents were usually ATHEISTS and they searched high and low before they found their gods.

Atheists that did not abort a baby?

 

[SkyWriting]

Will there be atheists there?

He doesn't want to destroy anyone but wants all people to have an opportunity
to turn to him and change the way they think and act.

When I read this today, it gives me the impression that all souls are re-incarnated until they repent. But I'm not going to pursue that idea unless other support for that idea turns up. God-willing.

 

[SkyWriting]

Which as we know most of them do because they are Atheists and they have no choice but to abort their unborn children.
How come I've never heard about this??? am I supposed to abort a fetus just because I'm an Atheist?
who thought that one up? where did that crackpot idea come from?

Some posters go "under-cover" and create new posting accounts with new names and use their newbie status to stir up controversy in topics. Lots of crackpot ideas result from that exercise.

 

[Freodin]

I'm an Orthodox Christian

We're called to be God (an idea/process called Theosis)

Jesus loved everybody. By love I'm drawn to Jesus and to follow what he did.


I pray for all people, I don't know you personally either, but I still love you.

I'm sure there's a point in all this that you're leading to.

I admit that I do not understand this concept of "love". As I see it, "love" is an interaction between (mostly) humans expressed by certain behaviours. So "love" needs an object. I do not "love" unspecified concept like "all humans"... I need to have a specific object.

So you don´t know me personally, but you love me. Ok, general goodwill towards the unknown guy on the internet. Still a specific object.

But you also love my sister? You don´t know her personally. You didn´t know of her existence, before I mentioned her. And you still don´t know her in any possible way... because I don´t have a sister!

So what do you love? Clearly, you don´t love a person - bag of chemicals or something else. You love an image that you formed in your head. Not even a perception... an imagination.

Is this love?

Some chemical makes you think you're right in this coversation with me; which means that you're not right in any absolute sense and are therefore arguing against the very 'rightness' of the argument you are making - by arguing that 'rightness' is just a particular chemical making you think you're right.

Strange, but true.

Every time people on your side think I'm wrong, and so passionately come out to argue against me you're arguing against your own side by the very act of arguing the point you're trying to make!

I'm sorry if it seems odd for me to put that like I have but it's very clear that you and others simply don't get the nature of the quote I love so much...

As British biologist J. B. S. Haldane wrote in 1927, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
George Gilder -- Evolution and Me
also at
CSC - Evolution and Me

Ok, so I don´t understand that quote. I read it again, I know what it says, and I don´t understand it.

Explain it to me. Don´t just repeat the words... EXPLAIN IT!

 

[SkyWriting]

It's not unusual for people from your side to argue self-annihilating arguments. My favorite evolutionist Dawkins mocks (by way of argument) that people who are religious are so simply because of some gene in their brain.

Lacking introspection he fails to realize that if this were 'true' then his own lack of belief in religion is also caused by genes. He is thus arguing against the 'intellectual stance for truth' of his own argument!

"Lack of introspection" is entertaining to read. Though often common among all people.

One very revealing comment I received from a non-believer was that my stand on various issues was well thought out. That not being the case, I realized they were Biblical concepts. All I had to do was have faith in God's word and I got credited with having a well thought out position.

 

[SkyWriting]

As British biologist J. B. S. Haldane wrote in 1927, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."


George Gilder -- Evolution and Me
also at
CSC - Evolution and Me

What the quote is saying is that to suppose that if our concept-of-self or self-awareness is only due to chemical reactions or electrical signals, then those signals or reactions could be fooling us into thinking that the signals or reactions even exist.

I think it's an unsupported statement.

For an organism to exist, it must be doing billions of things right. All the chemistry and electrical signals MUST be acting correctly to keep the organism alive. Logically, any non-life-essential abilities, such as thinking about one-self, would tend to be based on truth, as the brain sees it anyway.

In his quote, he suggests that chemistry lies. And for people with brain chemistry problems....he's correct. Insane people do have problems with both understanding truth, and bodily functions as well.

 

[SkyWriting]

There was reality before there were people, before there was any life at all.

My understanding is similar:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth wasa formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

 

[Montalban]

What the quote is saying is that to suppose that if our concept-of-self or self-awareness is only due to chemical reactions or electrical signals, then those signals or reactions could be fooling us into thinking that the signals or reactions even exist.

I think it's an unsupported statement.

For an organism to exist, it must be doing billions of things right. All the chemistry and electrical signals MUST be acting correctly to keep the organism alive. Logically, any non-life-essential abilities, such as thinking about one-self, would tend to be based on truth, as the brain sees it anyway.

In his quote, he suggests that chemistry lies. And for people with brain chemistry problems....he's correct. Insane people do have problems with both understanding truth, and bodily functions as well.

He's not suggesting chemistry lies.

He's saying that if all we are is chemistry then things we believe to be true aren't, but simply that we believe them to be true because of the chemicals arrangements in our head making us think 'truth' and then our notion of "all we are is chemistry" is not true in an absolute sense either.

 

[Montalban]

unsubscribbing

 

[SkyWriting]

Which pretty much just shows that some of them may have been, as most people were at the time, Christians. Doesn't say anything about them wanting the country they were creating to be Christian.

The United States is a collection of States.
While care was taken to keep the Federal government from exerting influence over religious institutions,
the states had no difficulty cementing the ideas of their leaders regarding Gods influence over the process.

Massachusetts Constitution
Chapter 5, Section 1, Article 1:
"Whereas our wise and pious ancestors, so early as the year one thousand six hundred and thirty-six, laid the foundation of Harvard College, in which university many persons of great eminence have, by the blessing of God, been initiated in those arts and sciences, which qualified them for public employments, both in church and state: and whereas the encouragement of arts and sciences, and all good literature, tends to the honor of God, the advantage of the Christian religion, and the great benefit of this and the other United States of America..."

I mean, I'm an atheist, and my writings just in this forum alone make that very clear. But if I started a club of some sort, that does not make the club an atheist club, or a club founded on atheist principles, or a non-god club. It just makes it a club founded by an atheist.

Yes. Pretty much. You'd be hard pressed to find a club that
supports positions in opposition to it's founders. While Planned Parenthood
does not actively support the forced sterilization of minorities, it's
current goals are pretty much in line with it's founders ideals.

Countries, pretty much the same.

As America may (still debatable, though) have been founded by Christians, but that doesn't make it a Christian country. Heck, you might as well say that
it's a White country because all the founding fathers were white.
Or it's a male country because they were all male.
Or it's an older-person country because they were all older dudes.
Or it's an I've-never-seen-Titanic country because all of the founding fathers had/have not seen that movie.

Really?
We've had to pass additional laws since the founding to legislate:
Non-whites to vote
Women to vote
protection for children
safety for Titanic-like boats

 

[SkyWriting]

He's not suggesting chemistry lies.

He's saying that if all we are is chemistry then things we believe to be true aren't, but simply that we believe them to be true because of the chemicals arrangements in our head making us think 'truth' and then our notion of "all we are is chemistry" is not true in an absolute sense either.

I don't get it. Seems to me that any method of understanding truth of any kind would tend to be self correcting and non deceptive.

Only separation from God would allow for much self deception. Any "natural" organism would need to be honest with itself in order to survive.

 

[BananaSlug]

This statement makes no sense whatsoever.

Sure it does.

What does "we are animals, we are also human" mean?

We are animals, we require food for metabolism, we have the urge to mate, we are capable of movement. We are also mammals, we are endothermic, hairy, and nurse our young with milk. We are also human, being bipedal, having a large brain, infants with extended childhoods, and culture.

I'm familiar with animals going feral.

I've paid the price of being in the vicinity a couple of times when they have; and I'll never forget the look in their eyes when they do.

Yes, and animals that "go feral" are not violent, simply wild. A "feral" human still has human behavioral traits, they are just "wild".

 

[SkyWriting]

We are animals,..

The legal community has ruled that humans are not animals.
In most states.

 

[pgp_protector]

The legal community has ruled that humans are not animals.
In most states.

Link ?
I'm not seeing anything, the only thing I found were some legal documents referring to "Nonhuman Animals"

 

[Skaloop]

The legal community has ruled that humans are not animals.
In most states.

Well, no. They may have ruled that not all animals are humans and as such are not eligible for government-granted human rights, but you'll need to provide a citation for your side.

Besides, even if they did rule as such, it would only be a legal definition. By the biological definition (which is the one that would be relevant in this discussion), humans most certainly and undeniably are animals. In all states.