the God term
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-05-2013, 08:08 PM
RE: the God term
(01-05-2013 07:44 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(01-05-2013 06:51 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Shocking

I'm starting to wonder if you are a poe?

Poe's law, named after its author Nathan Poe, is an Internet adage reflecting the idea that without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

He's been called out as a Poe like around page 10. Can't recall now who said it first. KC said it second tho.

159 pages of going round and round. Same circular logic. Same ignoring what he doesn't want to deal with..
I feel I have dealt with everything. Why don't you tell me exactly what I have ignored?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2013, 08:10 PM
the God term
Childeye, you show no signs of listening to us at all. You claimed to be visiting us to learn about us but I have yet to see much evidence of that. Nearly every post of yours is a soapbox to preach from.

I can't shake the feeling you are being dishonest either with us of with yourself. Possibly both.

There is a telltale sign of someone who has truly come to learn something: they ask questions. Not questions designed to lead to opportunities to spread their own message. Honest questions that seek information. Facts, not Truth.

The only thing we've gotten from you so far is preaching. You don't even seem particularly interested in getting to know us personally.

I am disinclined to continue any further exchanges with you at this time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Cardinal Smurf's post
01-05-2013, 08:11 PM
RE: the God term
(01-05-2013 06:05 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Childeye, perhaps this will explain things to you a bit more clearly:

I don't believe you.
Why? I believe you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2013, 08:25 PM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2013 09:03 PM by childeye.)
RE: the God term
(01-05-2013 08:10 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Childeye, you show no signs of listening to us at all. You claimed to be visiting us to learn about us but I have yet to see much evidence of that. Nearly every post of yours is a soapbox to preach from.

I can't shake the feeling you are being dishonest either with us of with yourself. Possibly both.

There is a telltale sign of someone who has truly come to learn something: they ask questions. Not questions designed to lead to opportunities to spread their own message. Honest questions that seek information. Facts, not Truth.

The only thing we've gotten from you so far is preaching. You don't even seem particularly interested in getting to know us personally.

I am disinclined to continue any further exchanges with you at this time.
I am getting to know you. In my view, you don't trust anyone who believes in God. You ask me a question about how I am so sure about my convictions, I give you substantive answers. And when I answer, you call it preaching. I told you all lies end in hypocrisy because you asked how I discern the Truth from false truth. Here is your hypocrisy. You all tell me why you believe the way you do and don't count it as preaching, but when I do it, it is preaching. We're all preaching something here. Another thing, I do listen to you. Apparrantly I am not persuaded by your preaching.

It should be clear that True worship is drawn out by the object of worship. It is therefore real and knowable. So here is a question for you. How am I wrong because I believe that someone who would sacrifice himself to save others is trustworthy? How am I wrong to desire to serve Love as God? You just don't like that I call Love God. I have aready addressed the fact that Love has counted as God by many cultures for millenia.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2013, 08:51 PM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2013 08:54 PM by childeye.)
RE: the God term
(01-05-2013 05:41 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  We are perpetually told, that, without a God there would be no moral obligation; that the people and even the sovereigns require a legislator powerful enough to constrain them. Moral constraint supposes a law; but this law arises from the eternal and necessary relations of things with one another; relations, which have nothing common with the existence of a God. The rules of Man's conduct are derived from his own nature which he is capable of knowing, and not from the Divine nature of which he has no idea. These rules constrain or oblige us; that is, we render ourselves estimable or contemptible, amiable or detestable, worthy of reward or of punishment, happy or unhappy, accordingly as we conform to, or deviate from these rules. The law, which obliges man not to hurt himself, is founded upon the nature of a sensible being, who, in whatever way he came into this world, is forced by his actual essence to seek good and shun evil, to love pleasure and fear pain. The law, which obliges man not to injure, and even to do good to others, is founded upon the nature of sensible beings, living in society, whose essence compels them to despise those who are useless, and to detest those who oppose their felicity.

Whether there exists a God or not, whether this God has spoken or not, the moral duties of men will be always the same, so long as they are sensible beings. Have men then need of a God whom they know not, of an invisible legislator, of a mysterious religion and of chimerical fears, in order to learn that every excess evidently tends to destroy them, that to preserve health they must be temperate; that to gain the love of others it is necessary to do them good, that to do them evil is a sure means to incur their vengeance and hatred? "Before the law there was no sin." Nothing is more false than this maxim. It suffices that man is what he is, or that he is a sensible being, in order to distinguish what gives him pleasure or displeasure. It suffices that one man knows that another man is a sensible being like himself, to perceive what is useful or hurtful to him. It suffices that man needs his fellow-creature, in order to know that he must fear to excite sentiments unfavourable to himself. Thus the feeling and thinking being has only to feel and think, in order to discover what he must do for himself and others. I feel, and another feels like me; this is the foundation of all morals.
More I would say on this. You do speak of some form of vanity in alluding that some people may not be sensible. Of course men have no need of a God they know not. The problem is that some men know not that they know God even as they experience Love. You say this: Moral constraint supposes a law; but this law arises from the eternal and necessary relations of things with one another; relations, which have nothing common with the existence of a God. Have you considered that the moral constraint is not the letter of the law but the Spirit of Love? For we know that no law can simply make Love appear upon legislating it. Laws are for where Love is not ruling. Therefore the eternal and necessary relations of persons with one another have everything in common with the existence of God, when God is seen as the Eternal Spirit of Love.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2013, 08:52 PM
RE: the God term
(01-05-2013 06:43 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(01-05-2013 02:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  We've already been through this. There was no Moses. He was a myth. You have no absolute set of morals of ethics. You say it's OK to kill under certain circumstances. YOU have no absolute set of morals.
First off, Whether Moses was a myth or not is speculative. However you are right I have no absolute set of morals other than I should love Love. For I believe Morality is a Spiritual attribute, not a set of rules.

No it's not "speculative". Scholars know he could not be real, as presented in your Babble.

You only love because you have circulating oxytocin in your brain, and receptors in your brain cells to detect the levels of it. Without it, and dopamine you have no emotions. People without them are emotionally crippled. It PROVES you wrong. Do you even have a clue what those words mean ? People without it (those hormones), are not able to love. You know nothing about Neurophysiology. You have proven yourself ignorant of every field of science since you came here. Just because you constantly repeat a falsehood, it does not make it true. 130 pages, and you have accomplished nothing, except expose your ignorance.

So you just admitted your point about absolute morals was a lie on your part. Thank you.

BTW, swear on a stack of your bibles that you are not PleaseJesus.
Tongue

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
01-05-2013, 09:19 PM
RE: the God term
Circular arguments are circular.
[Image: wWdvwCBl.png]

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2013, 09:20 PM
RE: the God term
Vanity. An inflated sense of pride in oneself.

Who has more vanity, the atheist or the theist?

The atheist comes to terms with reality. The atheist realizes the insignificance of his or her existence amidst the magnitude of the universe. The theist cannot accept the possibility of insignificance, and therefore chooses to delude themselves in order to satisfy this vanity.

Did a god really invent this entire universe, in its natural state, with all of its mystery and hostile grandeur in order to support such a small speck of life on which to cultivate a mass of grossly under-evolved apes?

Only a vain person could think this.

Love is the ultimate absolute? Nay, life is the only absolute we can be sure of. Love isa pleasant side effect of this life. Perhaps it is the greatest effect of life, but it is still only an emotion.

It is fear of uncertainty that prompts man to construct this vanity, in order to persuade away the fearful thought of meaninglessness. It is this fear that will drive men to murder in order to preserve his constitution of purpose. This fear that will cause men to abandon reason in order to ease his confusion.

The confusion of his vanity.

Only when one can submit to the fact that we are alone on this planet, and that no gods are plotting heaven nor hell for our eternal souls can one find himself.

True love is humility, and you, childeye have not shown a thread of such since you began here. I have witnessed no true inquiry nor understanding, only vain attempts at poor reasoning of ancient superstitions.

True self begins with humility, not vanity, not god.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2013, 09:31 PM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2013 09:35 PM by childeye.)
RE: the God term
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2013, 09:34 PM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2013 09:47 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: the God term

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: