papasmerf
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2010
- Messages
- 33,614
your "roommates"??:dontknow:
- Thread starter Baz
- Start date
your "roommates"??:dontknow:
G
Guido
Guest
J
Jesus Quintana
Guest
Well they didn't have ambulances then so a lawyer was out of the question.
H
HOF
Guest
HERE'S A PHOTO OF BAZERKO!
H
HOF
Guest
It's bezerko and his choir of thumpers
aka
The Village People
actually
that's wrong
The Village Idiots
You're a despicable man Hof. You along with other have a blackened heart. I'm not as kind hearted as my dear husband, I will say it like it is. I also do not need nor want your sympathy Sillygirl. I'm not convinced this dinner party is such a good idea and Brent is aware of my feelings. It will not happen if I don't see a change in peoples attitude towards us.
a 1 player
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2010
- Messages
- 4,904
As your kind-hearted "husband" introduced himself....
bazerkida1 said:
*Yawn*, ain't it time end the schtick.
jumpingjackflash
Reviewer
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2010
- Messages
- 2,940
H
HOF
Guest
bazerko Post#1 I have to ask and I don't give a rat's ass if you all flame the shit out of me.
Do any of you johns ever attempt to meet a real woman for a real date?
HUBGFE=Bizarro world
Did you read the first post tboy?
Whoever this assclown is invited the community to piss on his cornflakes.
a 1 player
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2010
- Messages
- 4,904
I am listening to one of the videos right now, forgive me that it will take me a day or so to get back to you.
I do want to make one thing clear... (well, two things)
1) I do believe Jesus walked the earth. It would be silly to even attempt to refute that. He is perhaps the most documented person in history.
2) The bible is not an entirely evil book, there is a lot of great stuff in there. It is however a rudimentary philosophy (the old testament) written well before the development of metaphysics and epistemology.
I think it's just Hide.
It's a con, it's bullshit, it's a dupe, it's a rub...it's nothing, just someone playing a game to get some attention.
a 1 player
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2010
- Messages
- 4,904
'All too often I hear people repeating arguments from such people as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. This argument goes something like this; how can you be religious don’t you know that religious people have caused all the mass murders in history and it’s done nothing but keep society in the dark ages. Of course the argument is usually more complex then this but I am sure you get the idea and possibly heard this type of argument before.'
This is not a valid argument for atheism. It is not based on any irrevocable truth or prime axiom.
'The most common one is evolution, this is poised as evidence as against Gods existence and even if it were a plausible theory which I do not believe but let’s give the new evangelizing atheists the benefit of the doubt that the theory of evolution were true, it still does not account for life coming from non life, matter coming from non-matter and everything coming from nothing. It perplexes me that the atheist just does not grasp this concept, typically you ask “how did life come from non-life” and the answer is “well I am not sure, but that does not mean that God did it” The very simple response is that science has not proven that God does not exist in fact it has shown that some sort of intelligence had to be involved whether that is God or not is a matter for another argument, but none the less some sort of intelligence higher than our own.'
Evolution has been proven through fossils, carbon dating and DNA extractions.
Take for instance Michael Behe’s work in “Darwin’s Black Box” and the work done by the Intelligent Design movement which is suggesting that there is an intelligence behind nature, we see in micro biology many tiny microscopic machines that resemble man made machines that no one in their right mind would state they came into existence totally out of nothing and totally without a designer of some sort, such as the outboard motor and the flagellum motor. Many faith based atheists will object and say “well that is not science” and I would agree with them to a certain point that postulating an intelligence outside of the natural world is not science according to the modern definition of science, however that leaves the question if science is preventing where the evidence is leading, isn’t it time to change the definition of science to gain further coherent understanding of the world around us if the evidence is leading to an intelligence outside of the natural world?
What evidence? None is given.
Another of the most common statements coming from these new atheists is that science has nothing to do with faith and they are polar opposites, this view is also held by the leading evangelistic atheists such as Richard Dawkin's, Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchen’s. This has to be the most ridiculous philosophical thought ever to come from these atheistic evangelicals and John Lennox shows Richard Dawkin's in one of their popular debates leaving Richard Dawkin's quite red faced when John Lennox asks “do you have faith in your wife” and Richard Dawkin's responds “yes based on evidence” the point is here that there are different types of faith and that is faith based on evidence and faith based on nothing but pure speculation, some examples of faith based on evidence is the faith whilst driving over a bridge the bridge will not collapse, that sort of faith is based on good evidence, blind faith would be something like believing that the universe totally came out of nothing based on no evidence, that is what I would call “blind faith”.
This is a foolish argument given by someone who does not even understand the basics of philosophy. It is this type of shit that gives atheists a bad name.
Now to address the idea that science has absolutely nothing to do with faith, (the type we have discussed as faith based on good evidence above) would be the simple picture of the scientist conducting his experiments using his five senses and having faith based on good evidence that the five senses are giving him an accurate portrayal of the actual experiment at hand. The scientist has no way of testing his five senses outside of his five senses and any experimental procedure to determine the accuracy of the five senses would require the scientists to have faith that his five senses are in fact giving his brain reliable information. Another quick example of faith used in science is the presupposition that the world is not an illusion only in ones brain, there is no outside evidence that the universe and everything in it is actually in existence in a physical way outside of the human individual brain, scientists and everyone presuppose the existence of the material world outside of the brain based on some good evidence yet it is still faith.
The senses are self evident and an axiom, meaning outside of proof, because all proof is based on them. This axiom is a corollary of the axiom of consciousness. Again, being conscious is self evident and outside of proof because all proofs are based on it. To be conscious is to be conscious of something. To be conscious of nothing is a contradiction, impossible. Meaning there is reality to be conscious of, and our senses are OUR way of interacting with it. Any attack on these axioms negates itself, BECAUSE ANY ATTACK IS DEPENDENT ON THEM.
"A so-called sensory illusion, such as a stick in water appearing bent, is not a perceptual error......The Senses do not censor their response; they do not react to a single attribute (such as shape) in a vacuum, as though it were unconnected to anything else; they cannot decide to ignore part of the stimulus. Within the range of their capacity, the senses give us evidence of everything physically operative, they respond to the full context of the facts-including, in the present instance, the fact that light travels through water at a different rate than through air, which is what causes the stick to appear bent. It is the task not of the senses but of the mind to analyze the evidence and identify the causes at work (which may require the discovery of complex scientific knowledge)."
Ayn Rand
This is a perfect example of how evaluation is needed and how evaluation could be wrong. The fact is, we must realize our senses work with a certain capacity with respect to reality, and we must analyze properties of reality and apply them to our senses.
Now we have determined that objects have a nature independent of us, meaning the stick is bent to us but independent of our senses it is not. The fact still remains that we can distinguish form from object but "the task of identifying the nature of physical objects as they are apart from man's form of perception does not belong to philosophy, but to physics."
This is not a valid argument for atheism. It is not based on any irrevocable truth or prime axiom.
'The most common one is evolution, this is poised as evidence as against Gods existence and even if it were a plausible theory which I do not believe but let’s give the new evangelizing atheists the benefit of the doubt that the theory of evolution were true, it still does not account for life coming from non life, matter coming from non-matter and everything coming from nothing. It perplexes me that the atheist just does not grasp this concept, typically you ask “how did life come from non-life” and the answer is “well I am not sure, but that does not mean that God did it” The very simple response is that science has not proven that God does not exist in fact it has shown that some sort of intelligence had to be involved whether that is God or not is a matter for another argument, but none the less some sort of intelligence higher than our own.'
Evolution has been proven through fossils, carbon dating and DNA extractions.
Take for instance Michael Behe’s work in “Darwin’s Black Box” and the work done by the Intelligent Design movement which is suggesting that there is an intelligence behind nature, we see in micro biology many tiny microscopic machines that resemble man made machines that no one in their right mind would state they came into existence totally out of nothing and totally without a designer of some sort, such as the outboard motor and the flagellum motor. Many faith based atheists will object and say “well that is not science” and I would agree with them to a certain point that postulating an intelligence outside of the natural world is not science according to the modern definition of science, however that leaves the question if science is preventing where the evidence is leading, isn’t it time to change the definition of science to gain further coherent understanding of the world around us if the evidence is leading to an intelligence outside of the natural world?
What evidence? None is given.
Another of the most common statements coming from these new atheists is that science has nothing to do with faith and they are polar opposites, this view is also held by the leading evangelistic atheists such as Richard Dawkin's, Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchen’s. This has to be the most ridiculous philosophical thought ever to come from these atheistic evangelicals and John Lennox shows Richard Dawkin's in one of their popular debates leaving Richard Dawkin's quite red faced when John Lennox asks “do you have faith in your wife” and Richard Dawkin's responds “yes based on evidence” the point is here that there are different types of faith and that is faith based on evidence and faith based on nothing but pure speculation, some examples of faith based on evidence is the faith whilst driving over a bridge the bridge will not collapse, that sort of faith is based on good evidence, blind faith would be something like believing that the universe totally came out of nothing based on no evidence, that is what I would call “blind faith”.
This is a foolish argument given by someone who does not even understand the basics of philosophy. It is this type of shit that gives atheists a bad name.
Now to address the idea that science has absolutely nothing to do with faith, (the type we have discussed as faith based on good evidence above) would be the simple picture of the scientist conducting his experiments using his five senses and having faith based on good evidence that the five senses are giving him an accurate portrayal of the actual experiment at hand. The scientist has no way of testing his five senses outside of his five senses and any experimental procedure to determine the accuracy of the five senses would require the scientists to have faith that his five senses are in fact giving his brain reliable information. Another quick example of faith used in science is the presupposition that the world is not an illusion only in ones brain, there is no outside evidence that the universe and everything in it is actually in existence in a physical way outside of the human individual brain, scientists and everyone presuppose the existence of the material world outside of the brain based on some good evidence yet it is still faith.
The senses are self evident and an axiom, meaning outside of proof, because all proof is based on them. This axiom is a corollary of the axiom of consciousness. Again, being conscious is self evident and outside of proof because all proofs are based on it. To be conscious is to be conscious of something. To be conscious of nothing is a contradiction, impossible. Meaning there is reality to be conscious of, and our senses are OUR way of interacting with it. Any attack on these axioms negates itself, BECAUSE ANY ATTACK IS DEPENDENT ON THEM.
"A so-called sensory illusion, such as a stick in water appearing bent, is not a perceptual error......The Senses do not censor their response; they do not react to a single attribute (such as shape) in a vacuum, as though it were unconnected to anything else; they cannot decide to ignore part of the stimulus. Within the range of their capacity, the senses give us evidence of everything physically operative, they respond to the full context of the facts-including, in the present instance, the fact that light travels through water at a different rate than through air, which is what causes the stick to appear bent. It is the task not of the senses but of the mind to analyze the evidence and identify the causes at work (which may require the discovery of complex scientific knowledge)."
Ayn Rand
This is a perfect example of how evaluation is needed and how evaluation could be wrong. The fact is, we must realize our senses work with a certain capacity with respect to reality, and we must analyze properties of reality and apply them to our senses.
Now we have determined that objects have a nature independent of us, meaning the stick is bent to us but independent of our senses it is not. The fact still remains that we can distinguish form from object but "the task of identifying the nature of physical objects as they are apart from man's form of perception does not belong to philosophy, but to physics."
a 1 player
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2010
- Messages
- 4,904
Regardless, I shall find out at this 'so called' dinner. For the time being, the debate is fun.
Just remember a 1, the largest glass at your setting is for water.
a 1 player
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2010
- Messages
- 4,904
Perhaps I'm a bit on the slow side tonight... Please explain.
a 1 player
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2010
- Messages
- 4,904
Damn, I should have known that. Thanks. Time to brush up.
A
Art Mann
Guest
You should bring HaySoos. If bizarro and idaho run out of booze, Jesus can turn water into wine.
