Guest Valk0010 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Another way of putting it is this. God operates with morality in the same way chemistry operates. Three questions one could ask? How do you know which god? What is this supposed spirit in question? What evidence do you have to say its exactly Christianity not just something totally new? The point I am making is, its a fake similarity, and even if it is a sound comparison, it doesn't prove the existence of your god. To reiterate, its a fake similarity because chemistry deals with evidence and religion doesn't. In this a priori case(your arguement) you still need evidence to prove its actually a truth about the world, not just some logic toy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Another way of putting it is this. God operates with morality in the same way chemistry operates. Three questions one could ask? How do you know which god? What is this supposed spirit in question? What evidence do you have to say its exactly Christianity not just something totally new? The point I am making is, its a fake similarity, and even if it is a sound comparison, it doesn't prove the existence of your god. To reiterate, its a fake similarity because chemistry deals with evidence and religion doesn't. In this a priori case(your arguement) you still need evidence to prove its actually a truth about the world, not just some logic toy. Please go re-read post 224 carefully. If we don't possess a device, an instrument to measure morality, any evidence we have is more or less meaningless from an analytical standpoint. So currently our results, our evidence is Christian and anti-Christian testimony. What we do know is modern analytical measurement appears to mirror "moral quantification" through Christianity. In other words, you seem to be telling me that if I had a machine that could do the measurement you would be inclined to believe me, but testimony is not enough. Does this not speak to the fallen state of man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Another way of putting it is this. God operates with morality in the same way chemistry operates. Three questions one could ask? How do you know which god? What is this supposed spirit in question? What evidence do you have to say its exactly Christianity not just something totally new? The point I am making is, its a fake similarity, and even if it is a sound comparison, it doesn't prove the existence of your god. To reiterate, its a fake similarity because chemistry deals with evidence and religion doesn't. In this a priori case(your arguement) you still need evidence to prove its actually a truth about the world, not just some logic toy. Please go re-read post 224 carefully. If we don't possess a device, an instrument to measure morality, any evidence we have is more or less meaningless from an analytical standpoint. So currently our results, our evidence is Christian and anti-Christian testimony. What we do know is modern analytical measurement appears to mirror "moral quantification" through Christianity. I guess you haven't really looked into things like Aristotle's virtue ethics, or utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, is actually a perfect example of what your striving for, without the Christian bullshit. You measure what is the most ethical position by determining what does the greatest amount of good for the most people. Its actually a way to measure morality. Because we consider most importantly effect. I guess I just don't see how it mirrors, but then again you can define Christianity however you want. I get what your saying about the chemistry part, I just don't see how Christianity fits into something like that. I did read the post carefully, I just wasn't clear I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 In other words, you seem to be telling me that if I had a machine that could do the measurement you would be inclined to believe me, but testimony is not enough. Does this not speak to the fallen state of man? Sorry didn't catch the edit. No actually, I am just saying that your using a similarity for way more then it can be used. Its a bad similarity nonetheless. But even if it was sound, your overreaching with that that similarity can claim. All a similarity is is a similarity. Problem is, your saying a non evidence based belief, is the same as a evidence based system. Its wonky and overreaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Another way of putting it is this. God operates with morality in the same way chemistry operates. Three questions one could ask? How do you know which god? What is this supposed spirit in question? What evidence do you have to say its exactly Christianity not just something totally new? The point I am making is, its a fake similarity, and even if it is a sound comparison, it doesn't prove the existence of your god. To reiterate, its a fake similarity because chemistry deals with evidence and religion doesn't. In this a priori case(your arguement) you still need evidence to prove its actually a truth about the world, not just some logic toy. Please go re-read post 224 carefully. If we don't possess a device, an instrument to measure morality, any evidence we have is more or less meaningless from an analytical standpoint. So currently our results, our evidence is Christian and anti-Christian testimony. What we do know is modern analytical measurement appears to mirror "moral quantification" through Christianity. I guess you haven't really looked into things like Aristotle's virtue ethics, or utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, is actually a perfect example of what your striving for, without the Christian bullshit. You measure what is the most ethical position by determining what does the greatest amount of good for the most people. Its actually a way to measure morality. Because we consider most importantly effect. I guess I just don't see how it mirrors, but then again you can define Christianity however you want. I get what your saying about the chemistry part, I just don't see how Christianity fits into something like that. I did read the post carefully, I just wasn't clear I guess. I appreciate the effort Valk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 In other words, you seem to be telling me that if I had a machine that could do the measurement you would be inclined to believe me, but testimony is not enough. Does this not speak to the fallen state of man? Sorry didn't catch the edit. No actually, I am just saying that your using a similarity for way more then it can be used. Its a bad similarity nonetheless. But even if it was sound, your overreaching with that that similarity can claim. All a similarity is is a similarity. Problem is, your saying a non evidence based belief, is the same as a evidence based system. Its wonky and overreaching. We mix material evidence and 12 jurors to sentence people to life or death, but that's the best we have. It would be wonky and overreaching? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Another way of putting it is this. God operates with morality in the same way chemistry operates. Three questions one could ask? How do you know which god? What is this supposed spirit in question? What evidence do you have to say its exactly Christianity not just something totally new? The point I am making is, its a fake similarity, and even if it is a sound comparison, it doesn't prove the existence of your god. To reiterate, its a fake similarity because chemistry deals with evidence and religion doesn't. In this a priori case(your arguement) you still need evidence to prove its actually a truth about the world, not just some logic toy. Please go re-read post 224 carefully. If we don't possess a device, an instrument to measure morality, any evidence we have is more or less meaningless from an analytical standpoint. So currently our results, our evidence is Christian and anti-Christian testimony. What we do know is modern analytical measurement appears to mirror "moral quantification" through Christianity. I guess you haven't really looked into things like Aristotle's virtue ethics, or utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, is actually a perfect example of what your striving for, without the Christian bullshit. You measure what is the most ethical position by determining what does the greatest amount of good for the most people. Its actually a way to measure morality. Because we consider most importantly effect. I guess I just don't see how it mirrors, but then again you can define Christianity however you want. I get what your saying about the chemistry part, I just don't see how Christianity fits into something like that. I did read the post carefully, I just wasn't clear I guess. I appreciate the effort Valk. Got anything better? God being a standard, the holy spirit being what is measuring of that standard. It doesn't prove anything other then you have a wierd theological perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 In other words, you seem to be telling me that if I had a machine that could do the measurement you would be inclined to believe me, but testimony is not enough. Does this not speak to the fallen state of man? Sorry didn't catch the edit. No actually, I am just saying that your using a similarity for way more then it can be used. Its a bad similarity nonetheless. But even if it was sound, your overreaching with that that similarity can claim. All a similarity is is a similarity. Problem is, your saying a non evidence based belief, is the same as a evidence based system. Its wonky and overreaching. We mix material evidence and 12 jurors to sentence people to life or death, but that's the best we have. It would be wonky and overreaching? Not the same thing. We have no good reason to believe that a god that cares about us exists or made jesus rose from the dead. IF WE DID YOUR ANALOGY WOULD BE PERFECT (caps for emphasis not for yelling). You have no evidence not even 12 jurors in your case. We need evidence and logic for chemistry WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY, ONLY SUPPOSEDLY LOGIC. (caps for emphasis) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 God being a standard, the holy spirit being what is measuring of that standard. It doesn't prove anything other then you have a wierd theological perspective. Is that all this is? I'm wondering it it's just a guy saying he has a pet theory. Okay. Great. Give him a pat on the head. Everybody has the right to have pet theories. Have any pet theory you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 God being a standard, the holy spirit being what is measuring of that standard. It doesn't prove anything other then you have a wierd theological perspective. Is that all this is? I'm wondering it it's just a guy saying he has a pet theory. Okay. Great. Give him a pat on the head. Everybody has the right to have pet theories. Have any pet theory you like. I think I pretty well summerized what he has been saying fairly well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 I don't know so much about chemistry. I've always been more of an astronomy man myself. In astronomy the standard distances are AU which is the mean distance from Earth to Sol and the LY which is the distance a photon can travel through a vacuum in the time it takes for Earth to make one orbit around Sol. There are also standard candles by which we measure brightness. Certain objects, such as the type 1a supernova, always have the same brightness at their source so we can gauge their distance based on how faint they appear when the light reaches Earth. Theses cosmology standards point to the other divine standards, namely that the Flying Spaghetti Monster's true form is fettuccine marinara. Of all the pastas clearly fettuccine tastes the best. But only a fool would put alfredo sauce on fettuccine. Hello? Do you know what happens when someone who is lactose intolerant eats alfredo sauce? The Flying Spaghetti Monster would have nothing to do with that. The standards of the universe point to a tangy, wholesome marinara made fresh with all natural ingredients. This is clearly seen from the standards. And now I shall go and worship his holy noodleage with a Remembrance Supper of his real true form. Now that you know the Truth may you do likewise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 End our humility is here. Hidden, nestled next to our vulnerability. Speak to it and it shall come forth. Speak to our pride, and it too shall come forth. So I have said it, and so it is. I can't help myself when I am the victim of the EX-C pile-on......but from all the rolling around, I am yet satisfied. I came remarkably close with the lignifcattion thread.....yes, that was satisfying.....lol. This is of winning and losing. You have spoken to pride, and thus pride you shall have. I must have won again, when all they have is the pile-on option. I've yet to see any mechanisms.....just claims of "facts". I'm still struggling to get over the astronomical scale of the disconnect that's at work here! . . . . . End's won again ...because we have nothing but claims of "facts". Not the facts themselves. Nope. Nothing as solid and testable as the facts - just vague, unconfirmed rumors that there might be such things as the facts. Just unverifiable and purely subjective experiences of the facts. Just unsupportable claims of the existence of these, so-called "facts". Is there trustworthy eye-witness testimony (written down 2,000+ years ago) by people who actually knew the "facts"? Maybe those who did know the "facts" were illiterate fishermen who dictated what they'd seen and these written records have down to us, unaltered and unchanged by anyone? . . . But... ...I thought the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus was a "fact"? . . . . Yep! End's won again. By denying the existence of the "facts". He wins every time. Attaboy, End! BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 I don't mind winning. I am disappointed that y'all aren't bright enough to understand what I am discussing. It's a shallow victory, but a victory none the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 And who's bright enough to understand that evidence doesn't always convict an alleged criminal. We should just always let a computer decide men's fate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 I don't know so much about chemistry. I've always been more of an astronomy man myself. In astronomy the standard distances are AU which is the mean distance from Earth to Sol and the LY which is the distance a photon can travel through a vacuum in the time it takes for Earth to make one orbit around Sol. There are also standard candles by which we measure brightness. Certain objects, such as the type 1a supernova, always have the same brightness at their source so we can gauge their distance based on how faint they appear when the light reaches Earth. Theses cosmology standards point to the other divine standards, namely that the Flying Spaghetti Monster's true form is fettuccine marinara. Of all the pastas clearly fettuccine tastes the best. But only a fool would put alfredo sauce on fettuccine. Hello? Do you know what happens when someone who is lactose intolerant eats alfredo sauce? The Flying Spaghetti Monster would have nothing to do with that. The standards of the universe point to a tangy, wholesome marinara made fresh with all natural ingredients. This is clearly seen from the standards. And now I shall go and worship his holy noodleage with a Remembrance Supper of his real true form. Now that you know the Truth may you do likewise. I don't doubt there is a connection between physics and God, but I'm not too hopeful you will discover it.....being a scientist and all. Edit: I think I'll start calling you Captain AU......or Captain Ast (silent t)......or Captain Unit. ... You will need a cape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Today is Friday the 13th. There will be millions of people around the world today who will not even go out, because of there strong 'belief' that this is a bad day. I know some!! I personally have never accepted this date as a bad thing. I don't believe it. So, I have never been afraid of Friday the 13th. All of this shows us what 'pretending', 'faith' , 'belief' and 'non-belief' do to people. We either accept what has been passed down to us and don't question it or we do question it. I like to question. I questioned Friday the 13th, did a little reseach about how it started with all it's superstitions and 'threw it out as garbage. I want to believe only what is real and makes sense to me now.................... Questioning destroys superstitions. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 ... y'all aren't bright enough to understand ... Yeah. That must be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 See, this is such an incredibly lame response. I don't see that at all. Would it have to reflect or agree with your religion to be "not lame"? You can't even consider that science and religion not diametrically opposed. Are you sure? Truely amazing. Then you did not understand. I find that religion and science do not have to be diametrically opposed. Now that I have corrected your mistake do you want to try again? The chip on your shoulder isn't helping. If you want to carry on a conversation, please go read the analytical methods I referenced and then compare them to God the Father as an external standard and the Holy Spirit as an internal standard. It mixes science and theology in a very unique match. If everyone here wants to deny and go ad hom, then that is status quo. After four years of putting up with this bullshit, learning the arguments, taking the abuse, the audacity of these peckerwoods to not consider what I have noticed is the pinnacle of what God is describing as prideful. No guts, no glory. Now I have a little glory, and there is no one with guts. Does someone make you come here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Yeah, I really expected more from you. I have more important (and real) things than to deal with than your imaginary things. I work in the fertilizer business so I like to use fertilizer analogies in relation to xianity. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Does someone make you come here? Finally been here long enough to learn some of the arguments. And now that I can refute them somewhat, it's "can't you just leave". But the kicker is, that if I were to change my belief status to something other than a Christian, then BAM, welcome END3!, we know you are a good guy!......your pain is our pain, join us in the fight against those evil Christians. My behavior is sometimes purposely nothing other that returning the behavior I receive, yet under my label, I am condemned as a human. Ha, what at hoot. So yeah, it has crossed my mind lately that I am needing to move on as I am finding this place increasingly something. I assume it serves it's function for what it is. but it doesn't often exceed that. With that said, there are some good discussions here that I enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 I work in the fertilizer business so I like to use fertilizer analogies in relation to xianity. :-) +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Does someone make you come here? I'm wondering that myself. Is some church paying him to come here to get his ass kicked on a regular basis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnosticator Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 But the kicker is, that if I were to change my belief status to something other than a Christian, then BAM, welcome END3!, we know you are a good guy!......your pain is our pain, join us in the fight against those evil Christians. My behavior is sometimes purposely nothing other that returning the behavior I receive, yet under my label, I am condemned as a human. End, it's not who you are, but what you believe that's the problem. Ask yourself why there are Ex-Christians. Could it be because Christians become evil when they do the evil that is in the Bible? Or that sensitive and moldable minds are harmed by taking to heart what the Bible says we need to believe? Harmless beliefs won't bear bad fruit. But the fruit of anti-human belief are damaged minds and harmful behaviors in word and action. IOW, if the Bible were truly good for humanity, apostates would not exist, and all believers would be inspired to do only good. But that's far from reality. Are you blind to the dark side of the Bible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 End, it's not who you are, but what you believe that's the problem. Ask yourself why there are Ex-Christians. Could it be because Christians become evil when they do the evil that is in the Bible? Or that sensitive and moldable minds are harmed by taking to heart what the Bible says we need to believe? Harmless beliefs won't bear bad fruit. But the fruit of anti-human belief are damaged minds and harmful behaviors in word and action. IOW, if the Bible were truly good for humanity, apostates would not exist, and all believers would be inspired to do only good. But that's far from reality. Are you blind to the dark side of the Bible? I have no problem with these thoughts. i have a problem with those pots that call the kettle black if that makes sense. How superior is another belief if it yields something worse and even justified within it's opinion? For example, Akehia the Christian husband, man hater. She knows not who I am, but hates per gender and label. And you expect me to decide her belief is superior? Like I said, at least Christians admit to having problems. Had she or a myriad of these types decided to have a trusting relationship, I would be more than willing to carry on a decent conversation. It's somewhat like labeling all non-believers under one label or type......which is not accurate. When each of you say generalities about Christianity, they don't apply to all. Moreover, some interpretations of Christianity are grossly lacking in considered thought. And again, you would wish me to switch for which of these reasons? I could think of more if need be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Does someone make you come here? I'm wondering that myself. Is some church paying him to come here to get his ass kicked on a regular basis? Gosh ma'am, I am so missing your scientific input in the lignification thread and analytical methods analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts