Holding an empty bucket
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-03-2013, 07:33 PM
RE: Holding an empty bucket
(20-03-2013 02:26 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(20-03-2013 02:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Very good, grasshopper! Now follow your trail of thought just a little further....

You should probably know that I have reasons to believe that intellect is fundamental to our existence.
Well, I disagree...intelligence had nothing to do with it. We spread and multiplied, bacteria does this. Which are the most successful organisms on the planet.

intelligence isnt fundamental to our existence (could be our down fall, the way we are going). We look at the most successful species on the Earth, they are not intelligent. They reproduce quick and adapt as quick.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2013, 07:57 PM
RE: Holding an empty bucket
(20-03-2013 07:33 PM)StorMFront Wrote:  
(20-03-2013 02:26 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You should probably know that I have reasons to believe that intellect is fundamental to our existence.
Well, I disagree...intelligence had nothing to do with it. We spread and multiplied, bacteria does this. Which are the most successful organisms on the planet.

intelligence isnt fundamental to our existence (could be our down fall, the way we are going). We look at the most successful species on the Earth, they are not intelligent. They reproduce quick and adapt as quick.
From a broad sense I agree with you since there are plenty of species out there that are doing great with little to no brains about them.

However when it comes to homo sapiens then we definitely need intelligence. We aren't fast, strong, poisonous, or deceptive. We don't have large teeth, sharp horns or sharp claws. Basically if not for our intelligence we'd have been extinct a long time ago. Drinking Beverage

Just an outsider looking inn.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2013, 08:30 PM
RE: Holding an empty bucket
(20-03-2013 07:57 PM)Foxcanine1 Wrote:  
(20-03-2013 07:33 PM)StorMFront Wrote:  Well, I disagree...intelligence had nothing to do with it. We spread and multiplied, bacteria does this. Which are the most successful organisms on the planet.

intelligence isnt fundamental to our existence (could be our down fall, the way we are going). We look at the most sccessful species on the Earth, they are not intelligent. They reproduce quick and adapt as quick.
From a broad sense I agree with you since there are plenty of species out there that are doing great with little to no brains about them.

However when it comes to homo sapiens then we definitely need intelligence. We aren't fast, strong, poisonous, or deceptive. We don't have large teeth, sharp horns or sharp claws. Basically if not for our intelligence we'd have been extinct a long time ago. Drinking Beverage
I agree with you also, as long as intelligence is added to the list of traits of survival (fast, strong, poisonous, or deceptive). Also, that there is no dominate trait for survival, there is situations we can be faced with where other traits would be more beneficial. To say intelligence is why we are successful (with the average species on earth existing around 3 million years and weve only been around for 200k to 400k years) would be egotistical to think our intelligence is the only reason we were successful, which we havent really demonstrated it in the history of the Earth.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes StorMFront's post
20-03-2013, 08:44 PM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2013 02:02 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Holding an empty bucket
(20-03-2013 08:39 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  One of PJ's big regrets was that he had a group seeking a debate in public between him and Hitchens. But alas, this was not to be. This thread touches another of the Hitchens straw men. There are millions of Christians in America alone who doubt or outright disbelieve the miraculous happenings in the Bible but love and adore Jesus as a moral authority, a great teacher, and divine. Less than 1% of the Bible text records miracles. Without them, one can still find the magnificent teachings and love of Jesus Christ. It does not require MODERN miracles to read the Bible and desire to reach out toward God/respond to God.
PJ, you're living in a dream. There's nothing lovable about Jeebus. He wasn't a great teacher. His teachings aren't magnificent. Go back to the bible and reread them. They're laughable and pathetic. Jeebus was no philosopher, and he didn't love everyone.

There are no chapters on Jesus in most philosophy textbooks. A philosopher has credentials and Yeshua didn’t.

He was uneducated and illiterate. Galilean peasant society was insular and primitive, even by the standards of the times. He might’ve been clever and charismatic, yet he knew nothing of the philosophy and science of the Greek and Roman world. Non-Jewish law, ethics, history, art and literature were a mystery to him. Such an uninformed person wasn’t qualified to be a world-class teacher of philosophy.


Jesus was a deluded dreamer who made wild promises that didn’t come true. He was judgmental, intolerant, inconsistent, egocentric and ethnocentric. He failed to give consistent or comprehensive
solutions to life’s conundrums. Most of his teachings lack the detail to make them meaningful. Dogma without reasoning and explanation doesn’t cut the mustard as philosophy.


Truly inspiring words in great books, poetry, or speeches have a timeless coherency and consistency to them. Jesus’ teachings don’t. If they were sent to a publisher who’d never read the Bible, they’d garner a pink slip. He’d assume Jesus was a dunce.

Commendable philosophers are seekers of truth and admirers of wisdom who propose answers to the mysteries of life and the universe after a reasoned analysis. They see through gloss to discover
substance. They occasionally come up with profound one-liners (aphorisms) such as “E=mc squared” or “I think, therefore I am,” but these are the products of elaborate reasoning. Jesus’ numerous one-liners only proposed unsatisfactory simplistic solutions to complex problems.


Good philosophers have open minds and are genuinely interested in the opinions of others. They don’t assume or pretend they alone have all the answers. They care enough about their audience to document their ideas with precision and detail. They’re aware that one day their ideas may appear outdated. Much of what Jesus said was a dictatorial diatribe that failed to do any of this.

Many people argue that everything he said was perfect because he was god. Yet blind faith can’t rescue Jesus from a thinking, critical public. (http://www.richardcarrier.info/McFallRebuttal1.html)

Some claim it was the fact he became a man that’s what matters; that Jesus’ primary purpose was to save the world from its sins. Paul invented this idea, and he ignored Jesus’ teachings. People might wonder why the founder of the theology didn’t consider Christ a philosopher, yet wrote
volumes propounding his own philosophy.


There are many people who disagree with me. I think they too easily accept any of the thousands of books and articles written by evangelists to explain and harmonize Jesus’ sayings. They go to great
lengths to “contextualize” what’s been written. All this commentary is heavily manufactured; it resorts to artificial and arbitrary interpretations rather than simply taking what are said to be Jesus’ words at face value. There’s no other way to make Jesus sound authoritative and wise, yet I think it’s intellectually dishonest.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2013, 09:14 PM
RE: Holding an empty bucket
(20-03-2013 08:44 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(20-03-2013 08:39 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  One of PJ's big regrets was that he had a group seeking a debate in public between him and Hitchens. But alas, this was not to be. This thread touches another of the Hitchens straw men. There are millions of Christians in America alone who doubt or outright disbelieve the miraculous happenings in the Bible but love and adore Jesus as a moral authority, a great teacher, and divine. Less than 1% of the Bible text records miracles. Without them, one can still find the magnificent teachings and love of Jesus Christ. It does not require MODERN miracles to read the Bible and desire to reach out toward God/respond to God.
PJ, you're living in a dream. There's nothing lovable about Jeebus. He wasn't a great teacher. His teachings aren't magnificent. Go back to the bible and reread them. They're laughable and pathetic. Jeebus was no philosopher.

There are no chapters on Jesus in most philosophy textbooks. A philosopher has credentials and Yeshua didn’t.

He was uneducated and illiterate. Galilean peasant society was insular and primitive, even by the standards of the times. He might’ve been clever and charismatic, yet he knew nothing of the philosophy and science of the Greek and Roman world. Non-Jewish law, ethics, history, art and literature were a mystery to him. Such an uninformed person wasn’t qualified to be a world-class teacher of philosophy.


Jesus was a deluded dreamer who made wild promises that didn’t come true. He was judgmental, intolerant, inconsistent,egocentric and ethnocentric. He failed to give consistent or comprehensive
solutions to life’s conundrums. Most of his teachings lack the detail to make them meaningful. Dogma without reasoning and explanation doesn’t cut the mustard as philosophy.


Truly inspiring words in great books, poetry, or speeches have a timeless coherency and consistency to them. Jesus’ teachings don’t. If they were sent to a publisher who’d never read the Bible, they’d garner a pink slip. He’d assume Jesus was a dunce.

Commendable philosophers are seekers of truth and admirers of wisdom who propose answers to the mysteries of life and the universe after a reasoned analysis. They see through gloss to discover
substance. They occasionally come up with profound one-liners (aphorisms) such as “E=mc squared” or “I think, therefore I am,” but these are the products of elaborate reasoning. Jesus’ numerous one-liners only proposed unsatisfactory simplistic solutions to complex problems.


Good philosophers have open minds and are genuinely interested in the opinions of others. They don’t assume or pretend they alone have all the answers. They care enough about their audience to document their ideas with precision and detail. They’re aware that one day their ideas may appear outdated. Much of what Jesus said was a dictatorial diatribe that failed to do any of this.

Many people argue that everything he said was perfect because he was god. Yet blind faith can’t rescue Jesus from a thinking,critical public. (http://www.richardcarrier.info/McFallRebuttal1.html)

Some claim it was the fact he became a man that’s what matters; that Jesus’ primary purpose was to save the world from its sins.Paul invented this idea, and he ignored Jesus’ teachings. People might wonder why the founder of the theology didn’t consider Christ a philosopher, yet wrote
volumes propounding his own philosophy.


There are many people who disagree with me. I think they too easily accept any of the thousands of books and articles written by evangelists to explain and harmonize Jesus’ sayings. They go to great
lengths to “contextualize” what’s been written. All this commentary is heavily manufactured; it resorts to artificial and arbitrary interpretations rather than simply taking what are said to be Jesus’ words at face value. There’s no other way to make Jesus sound authoritative and wise, yet I think it’s intellectually dishonest.
Jesus Christ, I hate when people use philosophy....if philosophers had open minds, they would be scientists.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like StorMFront's post
21-03-2013, 01:43 AM
RE: Holding an empty bucket
(20-03-2013 03:56 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  
(20-03-2013 02:26 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You should probably know that I have reasons to believe that intellect is fundamental to our existence.

None that are rational. If there were good reasons you would have presented them already.

You made a stupid argument. The rationality of my reaseons or the lack of rationality of my reasons, isn't necessarily connected to my lack of presentation of them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2013, 01:57 AM
RE: Holding an empty bucket
(20-03-2013 09:14 PM)StorMFront Wrote:  
(20-03-2013 08:44 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  PJ, you're living in a dream. There's nothing lovable about Jeebus. He wasn't a great teacher. His teachings aren't magnificent. Go back to the bible and reread them. They're laughable and pathetic. Jeebus was no philosopher.

There are no chapters on Jesus in most philosophy textbooks. A philosopher has credentials and Yeshua didn’t.

He was uneducated and illiterate. Galilean peasant society was insular and primitive, even by the standards of the times. He might’ve been clever and charismatic, yet he knew nothing of the philosophy and science of the Greek and Roman world. Non-Jewish law, ethics, history, art and literature were a mystery to him. Such an uninformed person wasn’t qualified to be a world-class teacher of philosophy.


Jesus was a deluded dreamer who made wild promises that didn’t come true. He was judgmental, intolerant, inconsistent,egocentric and ethnocentric. He failed to give consistent or comprehensive
solutions to life’s conundrums. Most of his teachings lack the detail to make them meaningful. Dogma without reasoning and explanation doesn’t cut the mustard as philosophy.


Truly inspiring words in great books, poetry, or speeches have a timeless coherency and consistency to them. Jesus’ teachings don’t. If they were sent to a publisher who’d never read the Bible, they’d garner a pink slip. He’d assume Jesus was a dunce.

Commendable philosophers are seekers of truth and admirers of wisdom who propose answers to the mysteries of life and the universe after a reasoned analysis. They see through gloss to discover
substance. They occasionally come up with profound one-liners (aphorisms) such as “E=mc squared” or “I think, therefore I am,” but these are the products of elaborate reasoning. Jesus’ numerous one-liners only proposed unsatisfactory simplistic solutions to complex problems.


Good philosophers have open minds and are genuinely interested in the opinions of others. They don’t assume or pretend they alone have all the answers. They care enough about their audience to document their ideas with precision and detail. They’re aware that one day their ideas may appear outdated. Much of what Jesus said was a dictatorial diatribe that failed to do any of this.

Many people argue that everything he said was perfect because he was god. Yet blind faith can’t rescue Jesus from a thinking,critical public. (http://www.richardcarrier.info/McFallRebuttal1.html)

Some claim it was the fact he became a man that’s what matters; that Jesus’ primary purpose was to save the world from its sins.Paul invented this idea, and he ignored Jesus’ teachings. People might wonder why the founder of the theology didn’t consider Christ a philosopher, yet wrote
volumes propounding his own philosophy.


There are many people who disagree with me. I think they too easily accept any of the thousands of books and articles written by evangelists to explain and harmonize Jesus’ sayings. They go to great
lengths to “contextualize” what’s been written. All this commentary is heavily manufactured; it resorts to artificial and arbitrary interpretations rather than simply taking what are said to be Jesus’ words at face value. There’s no other way to make Jesus sound authoritative and wise, yet I think it’s intellectually dishonest.
Jesus Christ, I hate when people use philosophy....if philosophers had open minds, they would be scientists.
"Philosophy" is just a word. Don't forget great scientists like Aristotle and Daniel Dennet are considered philosophers.
I agree with you that all philosophy ultimately hinges on science (if that is what you meant.)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2013, 01:59 AM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2013 02:37 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Holding an empty bucket
(20-03-2013 08:39 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  One of PJ's big regrets was that he had a group seeking a debate in public between him and Hitchens. But alas, this was not to be. This thread touches another of the Hitchens straw men. There are millions of Christians in America alone who doubt or outright disbelieve the miraculous happenings in the Bible but love and adore Jesus as a moral authority, a great teacher, and divine. Less than 1% of the Bible text records miracles. Without them, one can still find the magnificent teachings and love of Jesus Christ. It does not require MODERN miracles to read the Bible and desire to reach out toward God/respond to God.

The Bible talks very little, (if at all) about the "magnificent love" of Jebus. He was, (ho-hum, yawn), just another of the many apocalyptic preachers of his time. One of many who did miracles. One of many who died, and rose. One of the many who were seen as a messiah figure. Your "magnificent love" is just biased crap you make up to justify belief in a long-dead guy. Saying a teacher was "divine" does not even make sense in the cultural context of the Hebrews, and CERTAINLY does not equate him with, (or as the "son of") Yahweh. When the Witch of Endor explains to Saul what she saw, when she conjured the shade of Samuel, she said she saw a "divine being". That in no way means she saw a "god". I really wish you would learn something about the cultural context about whcih you pretend, (falsely) to know what you're talking about, you fraud. There is nothing in the Bible texts which is not 100% dependent on it's cultural context...nothing which did not come directly and only from the human culture which produced it. No science. No unique knowledge. No advancements. Nothing different that everyone at the time did not already have. The person responsible for Hebrew culture as we know it was the Persian King, Artaxerxes. The Hebrews lived no better or longer than the Greeks or Romans. No one went to Jerusalem for medical care. They were not known as great philosophers, or healers, or thinkers, or even especially kind people. No navigation advances, or science. No atronomical advances. They slaughtered a hell of a lot of animals in trying to gain the favor of their god(s). That's about it. Their temple was destroyed, and in it's place TODAY is a shrine to Allah, a direct descendant of the Arabic god named "Sin", whom the Hebrews were commanded not to worship. Not Yahweh, as they, (Muslims) claim. Real "prophetic" isn't it. Just as much of a joke as SexuallyPleasingJebusTroll.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
21-03-2013, 02:14 AM
RE: Holding an empty bucket
(20-03-2013 08:39 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  One of PJ's big regrets was that he had a group seeking a debate in public between him and Hitchens. But alas, this was not to be. This thread touches another of the Hitchens straw men. There are millions of Christians in America alone who doubt or outright disbelieve the miraculous happenings in the Bible but love and adore Jesus as a moral authority, a great teacher, and divine. Less than 1% of the Bible text records miracles. Without them, one can still find the magnificent teachings and love of Jesus Christ. It does not require MODERN miracles to read the Bible and desire to reach out toward God/respond to God.
"One of PJ's big regrets was that he had a group seeking a debate in public between him and Hitchens. But alas, this was not to be."

Um......why would C.H. debate you? Do you have anything new or interesting to say? I've yet to see you post something original or interesting here.

I'm happy to be corrected. Please tell us about your qualifications and what you can add to the debate about religion.

I strongly suspect you're overestimating your own ability. You would've been hung, drawn and quartered if you debated Christopher Hitchens.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2013, 02:34 AM
RE: Holding an empty bucket
(21-03-2013 01:43 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(20-03-2013 03:56 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  None that are rational. If there were good reasons you would have presented them already.

You made a stupid argument. The rationality of my reaseons or the lack of rationality of my reasons, isn't necessarily connected to my lack of presentation of them.

Hint : You don't earn a "-9" for nuthin'. Think about it, genius.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: