Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
September 29, 2013 at 1:10 am (This post was last modified: September 29, 2013 at 1:11 am by max-greece.)
"So, if the economy fails and there is panic in the streets, we will still have our science correct? So do you think A.) The panic in the streets of every major city in the world will result in just another oppertunity for modern man to exhibit his superior morality? Or B.) soceity will fall somewhere between The walking Dead, and Mad Max?"
Ah yes - keep 'em scared - the old Christian tactic and if fear of God won't do it, fear of the collapsing economy will.
You may not have noticed this but I am in Greece - you know - where the economy has collapsed (shrunk 25% in 4 years). They were all predicting a total breakdown of law and order. You know - hasn't happened. The response has been astonishingly muted.
Max is here - Mad Max strangley absent.
"If science is the glue that you say it is then why does every projection we have point toward total anarchy? Is this because of God in your estimation and the bible? -or is it that full bellies and the system of society we currently enjoy allows us to be different than every generation before this one? Take that soceity way, and modern man will shame its fathers in the level of depraveity we will sink to, just because we lost our supermarkets and air conditioning."
Now there you go thinking the worst of people just like you have been taught to do by your revolting faith. Sorry Pal - the God fearing fathers still have it over us.
You know what actually happens. People start to pull together - that's what happens. Come over here and see it for yourself.
"You are a mindless drone if you can not recognize this fact."
mner far plop.
"Science does not make you a better person, the fact that you do not have to worry about your next meal, and your mod cons makes you a better person."
The fact that you don't have to worry about your next meal is down to science. The fact that you have mod cons is down to science. Therefore science does, in fact, make you a better person.
Just as a final note - economics is not science. Economics is a whole area on its own with some maths behind it but overall suffering from flawed assumptions and no global model to support the global market it strived for.
(September 29, 2013 at 1:10 am)max-greece Wrote: "So, if the economy fails and there is panic in the streets, we will still have our science correct? So do you think A.) The panic in the streets of every major city in the world will result in just another oppertunity for modern man to exhibit his superior morality? Or B.) soceity will fall somewhere between The walking Dead, and Mad Max?"
Ah yes - keep 'em scared - the old Christian tactic and if fear of God won't do it, fear of the collapsing economy will.
You may not have noticed this but I am in Greece - you know - where the economy has collapsed (shrunk 25% in 4 years). They were all predicting a total breakdown of law and order. You know - hasn't happened. The response has been astonishingly muted.
Max is here - Mad Max strangley absent.
"If science is the glue that you say it is then why does every projection we have point toward total anarchy? Is this because of God in your estimation and the bible? -or is it that full bellies and the system of society we currently enjoy allows us to be different than every generation before this one? Take that soceity way, and modern man will shame its fathers in the level of depraveity we will sink to, just because we lost our supermarkets and air conditioning."
Now there you go thinking the worst of people just like you have been taught to do by your revolting faith. Sorry Pal - the God fearing fathers still have it over us.
You know what actually happens. People start to pull together - that's what happens. Come over here and see it for yourself.
"You are a mindless drone if you can not recognize this fact."
mner far plop.
"Science does not make you a better person, the fact that you do not have to worry about your next meal, and your mod cons makes you a better person."
The fact that you don't have to worry about your next meal is down to science. The fact that you have mod cons is down to science. Therefore science does, in fact, make you a better person.
Just as a final note - economics is not science. Economics is a whole area on its own with some maths behind it but overall suffering from flawed assumptions and no global model to support the global market it strived for.
Shifting the goal posts.
Your original assertion stated that science was the reason for modern mans morality. I disagreed, and said economics and mod cons are the only reason you feel morally superior to your forefathers. Then I suggested a way to test which one of us was correct. I had you imagine what would happen if you took away the economy and mod cons, but left the science, which you said was the reason for your moral superiority. Then asked would your science maintain society's supreme morality, or would it fall the first time the supermarket did not get its weekly stock order?
Apparently you feel pretty foolish and are trying to redefine the parameters of the discussion... Which I denied with the identification of the logical fallacy you are trying to use.
Science is the reason for modern man's morality BECAUSE it provides all those mod cons. If you take them away then you take away much of the benefit of science and reduce its effect.
Try it this way. Medical Research produces drugs. Drugs treat disease. I therefore say that because of medical research we can treat disease.
You then come along and say - "nonsense. If we let medical research continue but took the drugs off the market the disease would remain untreated. Therefore medical research does not treat disease."
(September 28, 2013 at 3:18 pm)Drich Wrote: You've moved the goal posts. This topic was not about compelling evidence.
And I'm not talking about compelling evidence either, I'm talking about you. You claim that there's evidence being presented by god, and that anyone who disagrees with it simply refuses to look at it correctly. My question has nothing to do with whether the evidence is compelling or not, but whether you would ever admit that a person could examine that evidence and still not agree with it.
The point being that right now, you seem to be falling into the trap that christians so often do, where their position is "either you agree with me, or you're an idiot or contrarian." If your position sincerely excludes the possibility that a person could look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion than yours- if you won't even accept the possibility that you could be wrong- then we no longer have a conversation, because you've thrown yourself into dishonesty with gusto.
Quote:It was about 2% of the worlds population calling the vast majority of the inhabitances of the planet alive or ever have lived crazy because we do no think like the 2%ers do.
Hey, I'm sorry that the evidence doesn't match up with what you want to be true, but the universe doesn't bend to your petulant whim. If you're going to behave in a manner that is the textbook definition of delusional, you'd better be prepared to be called delusional by those of us who don't.
Quote:It's like the 2%ers of the motorcycle community (the hard core bike club guys) calling the guy who rides his bike for fun a poser. Or a pretender. When in reality the 98%ers repersent what the motorcycling community really is! and it is the 2%ers who are out of touch with reality.
Except that reality, existential claims, are different from positions of style or manner in that they're objective. Either your god exists or he does not; either the claims of your religion are true, or they are not. There's no point at which the number of people believing this thing will make it true. Unfortunately for you, the evidence, that which is verifiably accurate, does not match the claims you are making, and therefore your existential, objective claims are to be considered faulty.
People are the yardstick when it comes to behavioral claims like your bike analogy, but not with regards to reality. Unless you're actually saying that the moment 51% of the population becomes atheist, your god will cease to exist, and never have existed at all?
Is that what you're saying, Drich?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
In luke 11-5 to 13 it clearly states that it is a friend, NOT a neighbour. Why do you insist saying it was a neighbour?
Now I would like you now to show me where christ converts the asking into knocking?
How many asks does it take to equal a knock?
Please show me what will be found if I "seek"? No assumptions please.
Please show me what will be opened if I "knock"? No assumptions please.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and will go against my better judgement here.
After reading you non answers you are just trying to set up your out. You are being intellectually dishonest.
Quote:1.) how do I know this was a neighbor?
Do you have a reading disability? That was not the question.
In luke 11-5 to 13 it clearly states that it is a friend, NOT a neighbour. Why do you insist saying it was a neighbour?
The following only answers your question, it would be relevant if you could prove that all neighbours are friends. Plus the friend only gave the loaves to get rid of the friend not due to kindness. You are being intellectually dishonest.
The time given in the story and the fact they did not have cars puts the 'friend' in close proximity to the seeker of the breads house. Not to mention this was said by Christ in the pervious chapter:
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
The fact that the man in the house help the man outside makes him a neighbor according to Christ which is the only definition that matters as we are speaking of Christianity.
Quote:Question the conversion of asking into knocking. To knock simple means to repeat the process, or to keep seeking and to keep asking. (Like you have done In Your hound dogging me)
Christ tells us to do this in: 9 “So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
Where in those 2 verses does it say either to keep asking repeatedly or that asking turns into a knocking.
Here is drich trying to set up another out by not even trying to answer the question honestly. So now I am forced to ask again and he will say "but I already answered that question". Sorry drich you and everyone else knows that the only answer is that asking does not turn into knocking.
Quote:How many asks equal a knock?
I refer back to the story. In the story the asking continued until the neighbor got what he wanted. This is Christ's example of a successful a/s/k campaign. Meaning you are to knock or repeat this process till you get what you are looking for.
Your answer once again has nothing to do with the question. Avoiding questions. Reminds me of one of your threads. hock: The question came about because you asserted that the repeated asking makes it a knock.
Quote:What you get after a successful a/s/k campaign is the gift of the Holy Spirit. No guessing this is what Christ says:
13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”
I honestly believe if you put this same effort towards a/s/k with in a very short time you would have a story to tell.
No seeking or knocking there to get the holy spirit, only ask. Non answer again.
Here are the questions that you did not answer, holy shit it was all of them, plus one more that I forgot to ask again when you ignored it before.
In luke 11-5 to 13 it clearly states that it is a friend, NOT a neighbour. Why do you insist saying it was a neighbour?
Now I would like you now to show me where christ converts the asking into knocking?
How many asks does it take to equal a knock?
Please show me what will be found if I "seek"? No assumptions please.
Please show me what will be opened if I "knock"? No assumptions please.
Do you understand the following?
Let us just assume your right about such a thing as the holy spirit for the following.
Ask you will receive
Seek you will find
Knock you will open
To receive the holy spirit you must ask.(luke 11-13)
If you cannot answer honestly I will just have to accept that a/s/k is bullshit as I have proven to you before and you have failed to prove otherwise. Thanks for playing.
I think, though I might be mistaken, Drich's failure to respond to your questions has to do with him being unable to see the subtle logical distinctions in the various formulations. His mind doesn't grok that kind of detail, so to him, I'm guessing, you are simply repeating yourself by saying the same thing multiple times using slightly different wording; he doesn't see any distinctions, so he treats them all as just variations on the same theme.
I think, though I might be mistaken, Drich's failure to respond to your questions has to do with him being unable to see the subtle logical distinctions in the various formulations. His mind doesn't grok that kind of detail, so to him, I'm guessing, you are simply repeating yourself by saying the same thing multiple times using slightly different wording; he doesn't see any distinctions, so he treats them all as just variations on the same theme.
You could be right here since for some reason drich has kudos your post. This will be the second time that we will have kudos a post.
It could be my comprehension skills, but I think you are saying that drich comprehension skills are lacking? If so, do you agree drich with apophenia post?
The other way to take why drich has kudos your post is because it is well written of course but also because if he truly understands it gives him an out. This way he can publically still say a/s/k without looking like a complete liar. For this reason I will highlight the very pacific elements that concern god giving of the holy spirit in luke 11.
5 And He said to them, “Which of you shall have a friend, and go to him at midnight and say to him, Friend, lend me three loaves; 6 for a friend of mine has come to me on his journey, and I have nothing to set before him’; 7 and he will answer from within and say, ‘Do not trouble me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give to you’? 8 I say to you, though he will not rise and give to him because he is his friend, yet because of his persistence he will rise and give him as many as he needs. 9 “So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 11 If a son asks for bread[d] from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? 13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”
I know I have highlight before and you accused me of cherry picking. The highlighted parts clearly shows the process to receive the holy spirit. If you disagree you must be able to prove otherwise. You have fail to do so, so far. I could be wrong.
Until you have proven me wrong I will point out your mistake each time you use a/s/k.
I will be away for a few days, so this is the reason I will not reply to any of your posts in the next few days.
(September 29, 2013 at 5:39 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Looking at the verse in question it appears to read as follows:
Those who A, X;
Those who B, Y;
Those who C, Z.
These are three independent clauses. X is contingent on A, Y is contingent on B, and Z is contingent on C.
In no way is this saying that X is contingent on B and C, Y on A and C, or Z on A and B.
Independent clauses are independent.
Then why did Christ combine all of the independent clauses in verse 9 of luke 11?
He says: Those who A,B,C with yield the sum total of X,Y,Z?
To assert there are 3 I dependent clauses here, One must first reconcile the combining of A,B,C by Christ in verse 9. Only then are you free to claim that there are indeed 3 seperate independent clauses here.
Remember this is Christianity we are talking about and Christ is the ultimate authority. Meaning if this is His parable, and His explanations of said parable, and He says it takes A,B,C then one from a Christian perspective one can not separate A,B,C simply because B and C are not paired with A, through out the equation. It is because Christ combined all three elements in verse 9 that from verse 9 on, all three elements are implied each time one is mentioned. This is the paradyme set in verse 9.
Again, To change it we must have a contextual passage recorded by Christ with in this context of this particular parable that shows Him again separating A,B,C resulting in the sum total of x,y,z.
That is something we do not have. Lest you or warpath can provide book chapter and verse.
Also thank you for translating for me. Maybe you can do the same for warpath.
I think it's reasonable to interpret Luke 11:5-8 as incorporating all three. We can reasonably assume that the individual in question sought out his friend (went to his friend's home) and knocked to get his attention (the friend states that the door is locked) and persisted in asking (that was the whole reason for his visit to the friend). Which means that A/S/K essentially comes down to "persist in asking, and you will receive."
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
hock: The question came about because you asserted that the repeated asking makes it a knock.
Non answer again.
Thanks for playing.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
