tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7199067220517539475..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Godless gaffeRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger120125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84771870270318751382010-11-08T20:25:27.013-05:002010-11-08T20:25:27.013-05:00Taniwha said:
Again thats mistaken and untrue Pat...Taniwha said:<br /><br /><b>Again thats mistaken and untrue Patrick.Most often we dont live in governments of indevidual anarchy, most often groups of humans have all lived in types of social societies.Seems to me this suggestion of yours worring about the personal desires of the indevidual having ability of overriding, is a type of smelly old slippery red herring used to try and make non believers look unruly and bad.Its propaganda Patrick.Whats more its also both dishonest and very unjust, even if this wrongful judgement is only a misunderstanding and is more about being mistaken.</b><br /><br />1. I won't take the time to reply to everything Taniwha has said. Frankly, it's mainly just a bunch of huff and puff. It'd be a waste of our time to keep responding to such blather. (As any reasonable person can see if they read Taniwha's comments.)<br /><br />2. I will say though that I never said unbelievers are immoral. Rather, I said that based on Taniwha's comments, unbelievers like Taniwha have no <i>grounds</i> for objective morality. That's a huge difference which Taniwha evidently can't grasp. Still.<br /><br />3. Finally, I'll just note that Taniwha has been judgmental toward us. Taniwha has used harsh words against us. Taniwha has said and insinuated that we're engaging in "propaganda," that we're "dishonest," that we're "very unjust" ("even if this wrongful judgement is only a misunderstanding and is more about being mistaken"), that we're not "humble," etc. If Taniwha doesn't think it's right for people to behave like this, then one wonders why Taniwha behaves like this.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64407048945726828192010-11-08T17:03:01.025-05:002010-11-08T17:03:01.025-05:00TANIWHA,
Aztexan is clearly a sockpuppet. Try not...TANIWHA,<br /><br />Aztexan is clearly a sockpuppet. Try not to be so easily taken in.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68302653454651146482010-11-08T08:14:00.804-05:002010-11-08T08:14:00.804-05:00.Expending all that wasted emotion of hating the p...<i>.Expending all that wasted emotion of hating the people you dont weep for</i><br /><br />Another accusation of hatred without evidence. Taniwha, this is a worse offense than I've committed. Your hypocrisy is pitiful.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74890259265520447752010-11-08T04:30:56.705-05:002010-11-08T04:30:56.705-05:00aztexan said:
Taniwha: Who is infuriated here, de...aztexan said: <br /><b>Taniwha: Who is infuriated here, dear? Be assured it isn't me. In fact, I find the unflinching practice of good ol' Calvinist honesty to be among the best guards against anger, rage, etc. The emotions you mention are most often the result of thoughts and opinions needlessly -- and hazardously -- pent-up within. Obviously our Non-Calvs fall prey to this folly, believing as they do that the Gospel requires salesmanship over honesty. Poor uptight souls. It's as though they think it wise to store oily emotional rags atop their pile of epistemological cord wood.</b><br /><br />Hello again aztexan.Wonderful, now see how much better you feel when you have finally settled down a bit.Stopped all the frothing at the mouth.Expending all that wasted emotion of hating the people you dont weep for.Exposing the rage as you said thats pent-up inside, with your use of capital letters saying <b>I DO </b>this and <b> I DO,admittedly, pray sometimes for your extinction.</b> Saying <b>And here is the money shot in your eye, you insufferable Christophobic twit: I'll get my wish in the end.</b> <br /><br />You sure do also sound like one real unhappy-chappy aztexan ?.Why allow yourself to get so very wound up and upset?.Does Calvinism always effect most of its own followers this way?.It seems like its making you people so unhappy frustrated and sad.<br /><br />Smelly old oily rags are not that good for much anymore are they aztexan?.People i know that use old rags to wipe up old oil or something, mostly simply get rid of them old rags,before them old smelly oily rags go and clutter the workshop up and even end up tripping somebody over.And they dont ever keep them on the wood pile aztexan,do your Calvinist friends do this?<br /><br />Please do explain aztexan.Do you honestly feel it really acheives anything much for Calvinism, other than maybe making a bit of a crazy spectacle of yourselves, to let yourseves get all hot and bothered like you do?.<br /><br />Our group is trying to learn how to understand behaviour of the Calvinist type faiths.Taniwhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371815193236301985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30139250630855078402010-11-07T22:23:35.583-05:002010-11-07T22:23:35.583-05:002 of 2
GREV can you please help explain.You seem v...2 of 2<br />GREV can you please help explain.You seem very different to some other Calvinist Christians here on this blog.You seem far more level headed to me.Some other Christians here do seem to me to take on a persona that almost seems more like wild dogs frothing at the mouth.<br /><br />Still waiting and hoping that at some stage Calvinist Peter Pike might find the time to come back and display the evidence that he used to compare Fallwell and Ken the way he did.And answer my questions.<br /><br />But artexan if im understanding you correct, you suggest Calvinist Christians feel a <b>superior intelligence</b> is best displayed by their infuriated ease of anger?.<br /><br />aztexan:<b>Thanks again, Steve. You're doing the Lord's work here -- keep it up.</b><br /><br />artexan do you suggest the superior intelligence of the lord was to become infuriated extremely easy?.Its tough understanding Calvinists.But i guess this does at least match with some peoples thoughts, who say to them the God of the bible seemed like a real monster.<br /><br />Reactions from Calvinists here on this blog have been extremely enlightening for me about Calvinism.Taniwhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371815193236301985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43081136817876704002010-11-07T22:19:43.714-05:002010-11-07T22:19:43.714-05:001 of 2
Steve said : They keep crowing about the r...1 of 2<br /><br />Steve said : <b>They keep crowing about the rational superiority of atheism, and the rational inferiority of Christianity. So I call their bluff. And that's all it is. It takes very little time to expose their losing hand.<br /><br />That's a useful exercise. It disarms them. Leaves them without a shield to hide behind.</b><br /><br /><br />aztexan said :<b> If you are an atheist, you are part of the problem, and that without excuse. I don't feel sorry for you; I DO feel contempt for you. I don't weep for your soul or pray endlessly for your salvation; I DO, admittedly, pray sometimes for your extinction. And here is the money shot in your eye, you insufferable Christophobic twit: I'll get my wish in the end. </b><br /><br />Hello aztexan.A good day to you sir.May the sun shine brightly in your window.<br /><br />I hope you dont mind me saying, but to be honest you do sound extremely upset.You sure do sound like you might also lose it real easy like Steve and Peter Pike seem to do.To be honest i dont understand hot headed people who lose it so easy this way.Some people say its even bad for these peoples health and heart to let themselves quickly fall to peices this way.artexan do you ever worry it might be having a detrimental effect on your heath?.<br /><br />artexan thanks for kindly bringing up the serious matter of how Steve becomes infuriated to hear atheists start <b>crowing about the rational superiority of atheism, and the rational inferiority of Christianity</b><br /><br />artexan do you Steve and Peter personally suggest showing the rational superiority of Calvinist Christians,is best shown by Calvinist Christians being seen to easily become extremely infuriated and retaliate by getting angry?.Do Calvinist Christians suggest its this ease of anger that helps them display they have more intelligence?.Is it this infuriated display of anger, that Calvinist feel helps expose that Calvinists hold the winning hand?.Taniwhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371815193236301985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86092746915362597732010-11-07T01:59:26.443-05:002010-11-07T01:59:26.443-05:00GREV said: Hello:
Well it is nice to know that I ...GREV said: <b>Hello:<br /><br />Well it is nice to know that I am not the only old person on this site.</b> <br /><br />Hello Grev.Thanks and its very nice having you around too.<br /><br /><b>Would I offer comfort and care to a person regardless of their beliefs?<br /><br />The answer is Yes.</b><br /><br />Grev i already felt i knew what your answer might be.<br /><br /><b>Be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove is a favourite saying of mine. The direct citation from the Gospels escapes me at this moment.</b><br /><br />Never mind what escapes you at this moment.Im glad you are here to help inspire me.<br /><br /><b>Wisdom dictates that I be present with people and be open to where they are and the questions they have.<br /><br />Wisdom dictates that I speak to and relate to a person on the level where they are.</b><br /><br />Thanks to you i shall try best i can to keep following suit Grev ,and do likewise<br /><br /><b>So ... if a person wants to discuss hard issues we shall discuss the hard issues. If they wish to numb and discuss nothing I can talk about the Evil Empire with the best of them. Evil Empire should be recognized I hope as a label for the New York Yankees.<br /><br />Wisdom dictates that a soft answer turns away wrath.</b><br /><br />Yes and thanks to your presence Grev you help to soften my heart.<br /><br /><b>My reference to Luke 13 concerns those who want to discuss hard issues like where is God when tragedy strikes. Well, God in that passage gave an interesting answer.<br /><br />Certainly, I find it easy to render an apology to someone when words spoken have been received as harsh.<br /><br />I neither feel an apology detracts from what believe it rather calls to mind a choice. When a reed is bruised it is said Messiah will not break that reed.</b><br /><br />Grev i think Ken would still have been thankful to have spent some time among Christian people.Maybe he wasnt a believer anymore but still i doubt that had effected or changed his ability to be extra caring kind.And i agree totally an apology does not detract from what we believe.Even an agnostic or atheist realizes some mistakes will be made.<br /><br /><b>I am called to be His follower so my choice is clear.<br /><br />Likewise, when someone violently opposes the gospel, wisdom dictates to move onto other things. God is the one who saves I cannot.</b> <br /><br />I hope you dont think im being violent here Grev.I hope you didnt ever feel that way about Ken either.<br /><br />Peace to you Grev.You help make this world a slightly better place to live.Taniwhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371815193236301985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2343057131708816502010-11-07T01:32:43.369-05:002010-11-07T01:32:43.369-05:00steve said: On the subject of "standards,&quo...steve said: <b>On the subject of "standards," it's customary to distinguish between laws of utility (e.g. "rules of the road") and laws of morality (e.g. prohibitions against murder). A traffic code is a social convention, not a moral norm.</b><br /><br />Hello Steve.Yes it may be customary.But maybe its also due to these very customs you speak of too , that sadly many humans that are made to suffer extremely while dieing , have need to be always made to suffer on needlessly this way. <br /><br />While thankfully our pets and animals should never be made to be suffering extremely this way.<br /><br /><b>Custom</b> is maybe not always the very best way to decide whats best, right wrong or even moral.<br /><br />Unless you changed your mind Steve, and now think the ancient act of stoning people to death, and the Muslim honor killing is ok?.<br /><br />Its customary too, right?Taniwhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371815193236301985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-5084149976536763642010-11-07T01:11:02.592-05:002010-11-07T01:11:02.592-05:004 of 4
ἐκκλησία :Steve has raise the issue of opi...4 of 4<br /><br />ἐκκλησία :<b>Steve has raise the issue of opinion in his debate with you for that very reason.<br /><br />If what he did was really wrong, apart from his opinion of it, you believe in objective morals, and cannot be a consistent atheist as a consequence.</b><br /><br /><br />Yes i believe in there being some objective morals ἐκκλησία.Non believers can have some objective type morals just the very same way as we can decide by use objective conclusion to that yes a direct skud missile to the head will cause human death.<br /><br />Most often ἐκκλησία,the conclusion of death being caused after direct hit of skud missile, is not really so subject to any humans tests or opinions.<br /><br />Do we really need to write another holy book to remind us, direct hit from skud missile to human head will cause us instant death?.No.<br /><br />This objective standard is completely consistant with thought of non believer.And what i <b><br />personally think</b><br />effect of direct hit of this skud missile might be, has absolutely no bearing on the truth of fact of what will happen.<br /><br />Subjective tests and opinion wont change truth and fact of outcome.Taniwhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371815193236301985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49855047771466009922010-11-07T01:09:32.096-05:002010-11-07T01:09:32.096-05:003 of 4
ἐκκλησία: By your use of subjective standa...3 of 4<br /><br />ἐκκλησία: <b>By your use of subjective standards above, as examples of 'objective standards' you show that you don't understand the whole argument about subjective vs objective. (Incidentally, I agree with you that everyday life has many examples of standards; they just all happen to be subjective. That's the wonderful about subjective standards - there are so many)</b><br /><br /><br />No i feel they are not all subjective ἐκκλησία.There is plenty of conclusions that is still objective of our personal human thought, without need of advice from God.<br /><br /><b>The lack of middle-ground I referred to above is a logical necessity. It's called the law of excluded middle. Something cannot be both true and false at the same time.<br /><br />A standard of ethics must either be objective in the sense that something is indeed truly right or wrong apart from our opinions about it, or it must be subjective in that it is related to preference (communal or individual).</b><br /><br /><br />The golden rule do unto others as you would have them do unto you, sometimes has middle ground in my opinion ἐκκλησία.For instance if i like to be kissed and cuddled and be taken advantage of by the opposite sex in a sexual way as they please,should i freely kiss cuddle and have sex with others as i please too?.I like to have people remind me of my age,should i remind everyone else of all other peoples ages too?.Its said to be very wrong to use euthanasia for our human loved ones who are suffering extremely, but yet is said as also being extremely unthoughtful and completely disgusting and totally nasty to let any of our pets go through such extreme suffering in such a way.<br /><br />No middle ground?.<br /><br />All things are not always so black and white im afraid.Taniwhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371815193236301985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27345013334810040302010-11-07T01:07:54.528-05:002010-11-07T01:07:54.528-05:002 of 4
continued
Sorry ἐκκλησία i fail to see ...2 of 4<br /><br />continued<br /><br /><br /><br />Sorry ἐκκλησία i fail to see why.Let say we use the speed 100km/h and 250km/h for the speed limit used in general around town.Now how subjective will conclusion of the answers be to the personal group thought of the men deciding, as to whether Speeds of 100km/h will be likely to cause less death than 250km/h does.<br /><br />There is no way in general road use, that speed of 250km/h around town will be safe.(please note this test does not include allowence to build more modern roads)<br /><br />And what is completely objective of human tests and any personal opinion indeed is the fact remains, pills and medication do sometimes effect some people differently.It does not matter so much about any tests we make or our personal thought and opinion.People do react differnt to medication.<br /><br />Sure subjective standards also exist.Some pills happen to effect some people different than others.<br /><br />But objective standards exist too. Tell me ἐκκλησία, how subjective is conclusion of thought of man, with regards to conclusion of whether outcome of a direct hit from skud missile to the head of human, is going to cause death or continued life of human?.Does it really matter what different mens personal thoughts or tests on the likely outcome is going to be?.<br /><br />Dont think so.The <b>factual</b> conclusion remains completely objective of mans personal tests or thoughts.Taniwhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371815193236301985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-42532907027393850842010-11-07T01:06:12.085-05:002010-11-07T01:06:12.085-05:001 of 4
ἐκκλησία said: Taniwha, an objective stand...1 of 4<br /><br />ἐκκλησία said: <b>Taniwha, an objective standard is something apart from man (objective in its own right). Your counter argument equivocates between subjective standard and objective standard.</b><br /><br />Hello again ἐκκλησία and thanks for your patience and kindness.I think i understand.Its kind of like most often its really objective (in its own right) of mans personal thought,as to us deciding whether man can be eaten by crocodiles and lions.Thinking Crocs and lions dont eat men,most often wont ever help stop them doing so.<br /><br /><b> Speedlimits, medical standards based upon clinical trials etc, and the like, which you used as examples of objective standards, are all subjective standards.<br /> <br /><br />Consider for example a medical standards that says take two of these per day, but also comes with a warning: NOTE: some may experience side effects including ..". This is precisely because the standard is subjective, not objective. There is nothing objective about making a speed limit 100 km/h rather than say 101.74 km/h.</b><br /><br />continuedTaniwhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371815193236301985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1859457230311117502010-11-07T00:08:09.838-04:002010-11-07T00:08:09.838-04:002 of 2
Peter Pike.
IE:Do you believe that murder...2 of 2<br /><br />Peter Pike.<br /><br />IE:Do you believe that murderers will be found guilty and be judged the very same way and be convicted to the very same coviction of dept, as that what a shop lifter will also be judged of and have need to pay for.<br /><br />IE Murderer and Shop lifter = same conviction and same ammount of dept<br /><br />Just trying to understand your reasoning of seeming to be a Christian fully condoning the treatment of Ken.<br /><br />How many other Christian here on this blog condone such treatment?.So far by the silence almost seems like most here do.Understanding these things helps us understand Calvinists.<br /><br /><b>You mind if I just sit over here and watch you dig your grave a little deeper?</b><br /><br />Ok i guess, if thats how you feel it is.Taniwhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371815193236301985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41178224330076176002010-11-07T00:01:50.227-04:002010-11-07T00:01:50.227-04:001 of 2
Peter Pike said: Yup, your hypocrisy knows...1 of 2<br /><br />Peter Pike said: <b>Yup, your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Christian dead guy = mock him with impugnity and who cares about his family; atheist dead guy = "SHUT UP!"</b><br /><br />Hello again Peter. No to be completely honest i feel that is not quite what i had said about matters at all.<br /><br /><b>So not only your defense of Hitchens, but your bashing of Fallwell--stating he deserved what Hitchens did--shows your hypcrisy.</b><br /><br />Pete im glad you dislike hypocrisy. Please do be kind enough to show evidence of where i said fallwell deserved it?.<br /><br />As far as i can see so far by looking back at what i wrote in my comment it seems i was more interested in pointing out the difference between Ken and Fallwell.And thats where i still stand.<br /><br />Pete im interested, do you feel Ken was against civil rights and was also vocal of dislike of gay folk and at some time was thought as being also actively involved in condoning aparthied ?.Im very interested if this is the suggestion you make.<br /><br />To show us you are not involved in this hypocrisy that it seems you obviously throughly abhor,please be kind enough to show some examples of how you compare Ken to Fallwell.<br /><br />Or are you saying that its your Christian belief that all sinners will indeed also be judge by God of being all guilty of exactly the very same crimes.Taniwhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371815193236301985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30789179018410354982010-11-06T23:13:50.891-04:002010-11-06T23:13:50.891-04:002 of 2
Steve No, it’s not just my opinion. It’s...2 of 2 <br /><br />Steve <b>No, it’s not just my opinion. It’s the “opinion” of atheist thinkers who admit that atheism lacks the resources to underwrite objective moral norms.</b><br /><br />Not all atheist thinkers agree.Myself and plenty of others disagree with those who do try suggesting such unfounded things.<br /><br /><b>Like Muslim cultures which decide gang-rape and honor-killings are a suitable punishment for a girl to brought shame on the family name.</b><br /><br />Yes Steve thankfully for once i can agree that is very correct, and do you know that these Muslim just like the Christian does, also try telling us that they honestly believe that their <b>objective moral</b> that tells them to rape and do honor-killings came from their God.<br /><br />Do you now see how this actually proves that its not God but instead indeed its man thats actually in control of what humans can try to claim as being this objective moral given by God.<br /><br /><b>But that’s just your opinion, which is relative to your evolutionary brain. Falwell had different opinions which were relative to his evolutionary brain. Moreover, Falwell’s subculture decided to make opposition to homosexual rights a social standard. We do that all the time, right?</b><br /><br />Steve no do please try to learn to better understand that we human do live in a type of social society.And so its not just my opinion at all.<br /><br />However i do agree with you Steve ,that Falwell’s subculture was what helped influence his opinion.<br /><br />Just as certain unfortunate situations coupled along with a certian type of subculture surrounding Hitler at times, also helped influence the thought of Hitler to become the hater of Jews that he was.Taniwhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371815193236301985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39006247273877005582010-11-06T23:10:38.252-04:002010-11-06T23:10:38.252-04:001 of 1
steve said: i) Why would I agree to that? ...1 of 1<br /><br />steve said: <b>i) Why would I agree to that? According to you, your morality is relative to your brain, while the morality of the rapist is relative to his brain. Why does your relative morality trump his relative morality?</b>, <br /><br />Steve moarality is relative to peoples brain.The attitude and actions of many who call themselves faithful believers and faithful to the morals of God, seem to also prove it to be so.Dont you agree?.<br /><br />My morals dont trump anyones.We live in social groups in a type of social society which does have moral thought as a collective of humans.<br /><br /><b>ii) In addition, you’re still too thick to get the point. The fact that Scripture records a case of gang-rape is not an endorsement of gang-rape.</b> <br /><br />I see Steve you feel some need to be easy to anger,and revert to this abuse of <b>calling me thick</b>.Do other Christians here condone this sort of behaviour?,guess so if they dont speak up and say otherwise.Is this line of argument coming from the argument that atheist calls Christian thick ,so that then makes it fine for Christians to call people these names also?.Can you please explain.<br /><br />And you still dont seem to understand me Steve.My opinion is that many things written within these faith books at times has helped cause very many mistakes to be made.People treated people wrongfully.Even as slaves.Some women were mistreated and abused.<br /><br /><b>Since you don’t argue in good faith, rational dialogue is impossible.</b> <br /><br />Steve explain why i dont argue in any good faith.Is my arument any worse than yours?,have i felt need to call you <b>thick,ignorant,unintelligent and as being into sexist stereotyping?</b>.<br /><br />Please kindly show evidence of where i have.Taniwhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371815193236301985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76941802363026797892010-11-06T22:11:36.686-04:002010-11-06T22:11:36.686-04:002 of 2
Stoning would hardly qualify as “extended ...2 of 2<br /><br /><b>Stoning would hardly qualify as “extended torture,” but even if it did, your disapproval of torture is just your opinion (as you’re wont to say). And if a torturer gets a kick out of torture, well, that’s his opinion, too.</b><br /><br />No not extended?.How about allowing a mob of <b>angry people</b> the right to pick up rocks and stones and see how many try aiming to kill you fast or how many try killing you slow Steve.Great way to help decide whether death by stoning, was used as a speedy way or slow way to kill people.<br /><br />Its a red herring you try to use too Steve, trying to suggest its only my opinion.<br /><br /><b>Now you’re changing the subject. Your original objection involved an allusion to a recorded gang rape in Scripture.</b> <br /><br />Not at all, just poiting out how extremely important it was that faith books explain exactly what they mean.<br /><br /><br /><b>If you think gang rape is wrong, that’s just your opinion–remember? And if the rapist thinks that gang-rape is good clean fun, well that’s just his opinion, right?</b><br /><br />No Steve again thats another red herring you use, because most often we humans as social beings live in social societies, not dictatorships or under rule anarchy.Taniwhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371815193236301985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74124584851806730152010-11-06T22:10:30.014-04:002010-11-06T22:10:30.014-04:001 of 2
steve said: Your opinion of my opinion.
H...1 of 2<br /><br />steve said: <b>Your opinion of my opinion.</b><br /><br />Hello Steve yes thats correct.However its not only my opinion either. <br /><br /><br /><b>Yes, since he gives a supporting argument, and you don’t.</b><br /><br />Your opinion once again Steve.Your opinion basically comes down to this, faithful read a bible and atheists dont, therefore this makes faithful morals more moral than atheist morals are.<br /><br />What type of supporting argument is that Steve?.<br /><br /><b>There’s no safety net for folks like you who willfully misinterpret the verse. If you fall to your death (to play along with the metaphor), that’s your fault.</b><br /><br />In my opinion Steve your metaphor is easily shown to be extremely lacking.With regard to the analogy do you suggest a fall has its own mind like a deity does ?.Or are you maybe suggesting deties are mindless beings, like falls are?.<br /><br />There is just no winning for folks who willingly make mistakes about the idea of our falls also having its own mind, like i had understood theists thought God does.<br /><br /><b>You don’t make a serious effort to understand the verse.</b><br /><br />Says you.<br /><br />Guess Steve would also throw total blime on any of his young children too if they didnt fully understand the danger of roads.Dad Steve has absolutely no responsibility to caring enough about making completely sure his children do fully understand.<br /><br />Kid gets flattened by truck on road ,dad Steve gets angry and says ,oh well, its all your fault son, i didnt exactly actually mean kids really should be playing on roads.Learn to listen better next time you silly stupid kids.And learn to take lots more notes so you can understand when im only using metaphor.And i dont really care less how hard you find it,thats just tough luck for you.<br /><br />Thats being understanding?.Blame it all on the children.Taniwhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371815193236301985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10964498363592558262010-11-06T20:31:50.947-04:002010-11-06T20:31:50.947-04:003of3
3. Nothing you've said grounds objective...3of3<br /><br /><b>3. Nothing you've said grounds objective morality and ethics. In fact what you've said undercuts objective morality and ethics. Sure, it may be "natural" for you to "feel the emotion of some empathy and a little sadness" in this case. But again what's "natural" isn't necessarily what's ethical or unethical. It's just a feeling. You can't say it's right or wrong to feel this or that way. And you can't say it's right or wrong to act this or that way. Therefore you have no grounds to criticize us for feeling or acting a different way. </b><br /><br />No i totally disagree.You are misunderstanding and totally forgetting the fact we human most often do live in groups in our social societies, and do not live in some dictatorship governed by a dictator or only by opinion of the indevidual anarchrist.<br /><br />Its another red herring you use.Taniwhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371815193236301985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-75527526623683995332010-11-06T20:30:12.849-04:002010-11-06T20:30:12.849-04:002 of 2
Patrick :2. What you've said doesn'...2 of 2<br /><br />Patrick :<b>2. What you've said doesn't account for competing ethical desires. Not to mention the fact that it's posible for us to override those desires even though according to you we're evolutionarily hardwired for those desires.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />Again thats mistaken and untrue Patrick.Most often we dont live in governments of indevidual anarchy, most often groups of humans have all lived in types of social societies.Seems to me this suggestion of yours worring about the personal desires of the indevidual having ability of overriding, is a type of smelly old slippery red herring used to try and make non believers look unruly and bad.Its propaganda Patrick.Whats more its also both dishonest and very unjust, even if this wrongful judgement is only a misunderstanding and is more about being mistaken.<br /><br />Its still long overdue and about time that if the faithful wish for non believers to start to also be more accepting of the faithful in social society.That the faithful also humble themselves a little more and get down off their high horses and stop with this trying to portray the non believers as being those who are only immoral.<br /><br />Need we non believers need remind the faithful of many immoral past practices faithful have also been involved in?.<br /><br />If not.Then why is there this persisting need to judge non believers as being the immoralist humans?.<br /><br />Pride?Taniwhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371815193236301985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10699908376058518492010-11-06T20:21:35.090-04:002010-11-06T20:21:35.090-04:001 of 3
Patrick Chan said:
(Cont.)
1. What you&#...1 of 3<br /><br />Patrick Chan said: <br />(Cont.)<br /><br /><b>1. What you've said commits a well-known fallacy: you're deducing ethical sentiments from natural facts.</b><br /><br />Yes i do understand thats your faithful opinion Patrick.And in return my opinion is that indeed its actually you thats committing a fallacy here, a type of fallacy that is also fast becoming well known too as obviously being a fallacy.<br /><br />The fallacy is that you as a believer have been extremely mistaken by believing that human ethical suntiments can objectivly said as having been involved with the mind of any deities, when indeed it is also a fact that <b>all human ethical thought</b>,first must also have need to pass through the mind of human.Meaning honestly God cannot even be claimed to have been able to provide these type of <b>objective morals</b> that could be claimed as totally deviod of mans thought and opinion, that the believer trys claiming God provided.<br /><br />What moral can honestly be said as being more Godly <b>objective</b> between the use of your mind Patrick, or an Islamists mind or my mind to decide what it might be more moral Patrick?.Do you claim the mere fact that personally you also read a faith book, automatically happens to give you the right to demand to claim it so?.<br /><br />I suggest that would be completely illogical of you, and would be unfair and unjust as well.<br /><br />It is you that lives by a great fallacy Patrick.For indeed your objective moral cannot honestly be claimed as being anymore an <b>objective</b> type moral, than that of the Islamist,Hindu,Buddhist or atheist or anyone else either.<br /><br />Atleast not in the type of objective sense you try claiming.Taniwhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371815193236301985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30549436694700557682010-11-06T18:43:42.192-04:002010-11-06T18:43:42.192-04:003 of 3
Or are your own actions controlled by your...3 of 3<br /><br />Or are your own actions controlled by your emotion also and relative to our human social society Patrick.<br /><br />Dont forget in your world God created animals to kill and eat you.Without use of the written excuses also contained within your faith book,it could easily be said by will of your God, your worldview suggests you should possibly freely allow any snakes and lions the right to chew on you and your children as much as they please.<br /><br />However very conveniently the faithful have also included words within their books to allow them to excuse their action of preventing or killing any animals or insects that try biting them.<br /><br />Patrick life <b>works out</b> no better for the social society of humanity to allow it to be ok that Lions eat humans than it does for us to allow cannibils<br /><br />Faithful simply insert the added idea of a God that said its ok for man to decide lions and cannibils really cannot be allowed to bite or eat men.Non believers simply leave out the God idea ,and admit it really doesnt <b>work out all that well</b> for our <b>harmony</b> in a social society thats dominated by us human.<br /><br />Animals will often decide on their own group ethical harmony traits in much the same way.<br /><br />Ethic is relative to differnt groups of beings Patrick.Human are of the Human group thats become dominant.It is not so very differnt that some human were once known as cannibals, anymore than we know some packs of lions didnt eat elephant.Or that some animal will eat their own while other wont.<br /><br />And please dont try and suggest im suggesting cannibalism is fine.We human as a group have evolved with brains that find cannibilism abhorent to our senses.Taniwhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371815193236301985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43654606046609576032010-11-06T18:40:13.499-04:002010-11-06T18:40:13.499-04:002 of 3
Patrick: 2. You only talk about the animal...2 of 3<br /><br />Patrick: <b>2. You only talk about the animal "ethics" you find acceptable. But what about the ones you might not find acceptable? Some animals have evolved with the desire to eat their mates. That's what black widows and praying mantises sometimes do. So does this mean you're fine with those humans who were or are cannibals since, after all, some animals do that? </b> etc<br /><br />Patrick animal minds and actions have simply evolved the differnt ways they have.Your argument here seems circular.As a faithful person who is a believer do you feel angry at God for creating these things in animals?.It doesnt help anything by you being angry about it does it right?.So just as you accept God created them this way,an atheist can accept its just the way that different animals have evolved.<br /><br />Just as you have a way to find animal ethic acceptable , atheists too have ways to understand and find it acceptable.<br /><br />Once again that ethic is relative to animal mind,but that still doesnt mean that what ever they feel like doing is always ok in the social society we have where animals need to find ways to suvive while others try eating them.Your God created spiders,lions,snakes that try to bite and kill you Patrick.Do you agree to always abide by the will of your God who created them, and allow to let them animals choose to do as they please?.Taniwhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371815193236301985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66888922947408105002010-11-06T18:38:00.308-04:002010-11-06T18:38:00.308-04:00I see one comments has already gone,so comments ar...I see one comments has already gone,so comments are still disappearing.Best i can do is post my comment in parts.And wait for Patrick to kindly restore the comments that disappeared when he has the time.<br /><br />1 of 3 <br /><br /><b>Patrick Chan said...That's not my "opinion." That's your "opinion." I'm just going off what you said.</b><br /><br />No Patrick thats not my opinion at all, as it is also a very wrong opinion.Speed limits are relative to different areas,and even though these laws are only relative to thought and decision of men.It doesnt give me or anyone else the right to choose and do as i please.<br /><br /><br /> <b>1. Do animals think of themselves as having emotions like "anger" and "empathy"? That it's moral or ethical for them to do this or not do that? Rather, you're anthropomorphizing animals without arguing for it. </b><br /><br />No Patrick unlike humans, dogs and cat minds have not evolved with quite the same ability to fully understand the emotions they have.However this does not have to mean they dont have emotions that help control their action.Taniwhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371815193236301985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8362597071048268662010-11-06T16:51:27.239-04:002010-11-06T16:51:27.239-04:002 of 2
I understand now that it seems likely that...2 of 2<br /><br />I understand now that it seems likely that my comments had not disappeared right away.Meaning ἐκκλησία first had time to read what i had said.This would explain how ἐκκλησία was able to reply.Even if it doesnt completely explain the strange phenomena of posts appearing and hanging around for quite some time,before suddenly deciding on totally disappearing out of view.<br /><br />I hope you understand, my trying to understand why Steve might only post parts of my comment is what also helped with building the confusion i had.I thought to myself if Steve is seen to be able to read and repost parts of my comment ,why then doesnt he just go ahead and repost the whole comments that have disappeared.<br /><br />Anyway hope this confusion has left no longterm hard feelings,i apologise again, and simply say thanks for restoring all my comments Patrick.Taniwhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371815193236301985noreply@blogger.com