Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

heusdens

New member
... and as an addition to this, we should also acknowledge the fact as to WHY 'God' has been hardwired into our brains / consciousness, since we can understand what would happen to our species, if we would not acknowledge the fact about the reality of a life threatening situation and reflect on that accordingly..... we would then have already gone extinct!

In more or less the same way, our mental processes at some level allow us to debate all kinds of possibilities about reality itself, and does in fact allow us to think about reality, as if it would not be an objective reality on itself, and at the same time, while we are talking about this, at our deepest levels of consciousness and in an automatic and instinctmatic way we relfect on reality in no other way as that we acknowledge that it IS an objective reality to us..... as for example is the case when we cross a street while debating about the objectivity of reality and wether or not objective reality exists, and a car comes heading in our direction, and our automatic and instinctmatic reactions is to avoid us being overrun by that car.....
 
LightSon

LightSon

New member
Originally posted by ZroKewl
It's sad... but true. Some people are just stupid. Those stupid people listen to the "little bit smarter" people since they can understand them. The stupid people dismiss the "a heckuva lot smarter" people, because they don't even understand what they are saying.
Click to expand...
Cute Fido-doggie-business analogy.

There is one problem I see.

The analogy presumes that the stupid person has enough smarts to train the dog, where as the " heckuva lot smarter", is going to speak what might as well be Latin to a dumb animal and expect it will work. Who's smarter in practice? I would argue that the one who's carpet gets soiled is really not very bright.

Great intelligence implies a practical knowledge of communicating at the level of the listener. That's one reason the incarnation works.
 
Z

ZroKewl

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by August
Less than 400 scientists represents a tiny minority of all American scientists.
Click to expand...
If you are referring to the 387 that Zakath referred to, you need to re-read that. Those are just the Steves. There would be more than 40,000 assuming the proportion of Steves is the same among doctorate scientists & the population at large.

--ZK
 
M

Michael12

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by ZroKewl
If you are referring to the 387 that Zakath referred to, you need to re-read that. Those are just the Steves. There would be more than 40,000 assuming the proportion of Steves is the same among doctorate scientists & the population at large.

--ZK
Click to expand...
Yes ZK...odd how these guys take issue with this tactic when Zakath used it, but didn't see any problem worth mentioning when Bob used it. :rolleyes:

Zak used it to display the fallacy of such an arguement and it was in direct response to Bob's Arguement from Authority.

Personally I think Zak's latest post was his best yet. Bob really hurt himself when attacked a theory that isn't even current. His continued use of "God of the Gaps" is frustrating because he admitted it was wrong to do early on yet every attack he has mounted on science consists of this tactic.
 
novice

novice

Who is the stooge now?
Ok... now I don't mean to be petty but....

Why is that when Bob was 3 minutes late posting one of his posts guys like Eireann about had a coronary!

Yet Zakath posts almost an hour late with his last post (post #7) and not a single peep from his clan. Hmmm go figure! :)

Personally I think Zakath should be allowed an extra hour or two or possibly a day or two so he might be able to compose a post that actually addresses what Bob has posted without blatant mischaracterization but I digress!

So, Eireann where are you this time?
 
H

heusdens

New member
Zakath wrote:

<<Morally speaking, there is no objective way to distinguish between being a slave to an evil demon (a very real possibility, according to some religionists) as opposed to being a slave to a god (the belief of Christians). In both cases the one in command could order any action whatsoever and carrying out that command would be, by definition, a good, moral act. Anything from rape to murder to genocide can be considered good if commanded by the being who serves as the standard.>>

Well said and stated.

Therefore (in retrospect of Bob Enyarts doubtfull argument on the holocaust to proof 'absolute right and wrong') one can claim that Hitler, like anybody else, can claim he acted in the name of God when he persecuted and killed millions of Jews, and bases that on the Christian God and Catholic morals. You can claim then that Hitler is not to be trusted or is not truthfull, but then it can be argued also that neither is God neither is theism.
At least we know that Hitler didn't directly aim at killing Christians or aimed at erasing Christianity and Catholicism, nor can it be said that Christian institutions or Christianity as such, aimed at stopping Hitler. Not that Hitler did not also kill Christians, but he was not at war against Christianity specifically. He was however at war against communism and at war against 'inferior' human species.

Absolute wrong and Absolute right are in the eyes of God nothing different....
 
Last edited:
Bob Enyart

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Hey Huey...

Hey Huey...

Hey Huey, are you trying to publish an entire manuscript that you've previously written by cutting and pasting it a section at a time into TOL forums with occasional intros and tag lines just to make it look relevant? Just curious. -Bob Enyart
 
A

August

New member
ZroKewl wrote:
<If you are referring to the 387 that Zakath referred to, you need to re-read that. Those are just the Steves.>

Yes, but that doesn't alter the fact that the evolutionists are resorting to dogma, authority, and enforcement, while criticizing the church for doing the same thing. Also, don't you see the fallacy in poll-taking in science? If biologists can answer the criticisms, let them do it. Otherwise, a good research scientist would welcome any unexplained anomaly as an opportunity for ground-breaking research.
But they keep doing it. I have seen hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on research projects that were doomed from the beginning because the engineers that didn't understand basic physics outvoted the ones that did.
 
A

August

New member
Michael12 wrote:
<No, it proves the Big Bang didn't happen.>
How could disproving the "spinning ball of gas" theory about the solar system formation possibly prove anything about the big bang?
I'm not an astrophysicist, but I do know enough basic physics to see lots of flaws in Enyart's science. There is nothing about the present orbits of planets or their satellites that violates basic laws of dynamics. The variety of orbits, revolution and rotation rates, etc., can probably be accounted for by impacts and near encounters with other objects. It is doubtful that we know a lot about the rotation of Venus because it is observed from earth shrouded in clouds. A couple of Venus probes have delivered some fascinating photographs of the surface, but the duration of the photography was very limited, because of the hostile atmospheric conditions. Enyart's assertion about the spin of the sun would apply as an example of conservation of momentum to a solid body, but not to an extremely active gaseous body like the sun. I can explain why if anyone is interested.
Still the tremendous variety in the makeup of the solar system seems to follow no logical pattern. I can't account for it.
BTW, the big bang isn't just a theory, as is Hawkings' conjecture. In fact, scientists were dragged to it, figuratively kicking and screaming, when the evidence for it became almost overwhelming; and the measurements seemed to rule out competing theories.
 
Z

ZroKewl

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by August
Yes, but that doesn't alter the fact that the evolutionists are resorting to dogma, authority, and enforcement, while criticizing the church for doing the same thing. Also, don't you see the fallacy in poll-taking in science?
Click to expand...
Obviously, you didn't "get it". Did you go to the "Project Steve" site? It's a joke... TO POINT OUT the fallacy that the Creationists often use to make other people believe them.

--ZK
 
Last edited:
A

August

New member
ZroKewl wrote:
<It's a joke..>
That does not negate my point. The fact is that a lot of "scientists" did sign such a document in an attempt to enforce a dogma through authority.
I don't have time to read every link. The problem with posting something that you don't really mean is that eventually it will be like "crying wolf". No one will take you seriously.
 
A

August

New member
Conscience and spirit

Conscience and spirit

I'm not sure that the evidence supports the thesis that everyone has a conscience - at least, as we usually think of it. There are murderers that pass a lie detector test with flying colors. Also, there are cultures where no indications of conscience is shown. Many of the American Indian tribes had no words for "love", "kindness", or "compassion". Often prisoners would be brought into the village for the squaws to torture for their amusement.
However, that doesn't imply that man has no spirit. In fact, if Jesus was right when he told us to call God our Father, then we are spirits ourselves, and not bodies. Unless you write off his words as symbolism.
The amazing thing about this debate is that the concept of spirit has hardly been mentioned, when God Himself is spiritual in nature. It almost appears as if Elyart has an anthropomorphic view of God.
A good scientist knows that, if you want to know the truth about anything, you have to study it under its own terms. You'll never know the whole truth about wild animals by removing them from their natural habitat into the laboratory. And we'll never bring the distant stars into the lab. We have to be content with seeing them as a point source of radiation, and analyze their spectra and intensity variations.
It is the same way with God. We'll never find out the whole truth as long as we try to do it in physical terms. He exists in the world of spirit. We have to find HIm through the inner Spirit - the "Logos" that is in everyone. That is why the existence of God cannot be absolutely proved to another person. It has to be a matter of individual experience. That is the essence of religion - not formal rites, not doctrine, and not organization.
A theologian is somewhat like a marine biologist who stays in his lab, refusing to enter the water himself, and drawing conclusions only from his own theories and perhaps from anecdotal evidence - which is always somewhat suspect because it is anecdotal.
But a materialist is more like a man who sits in his office in Kansas and denies that the ocean even exists.
 
A

August

New member
Zakath wrote"
<2. If God were to exist, then he would love all Christians and want that love reciprocated. He
would also strongly desire that, here on earth, Christians become aware of, and be clear
about those aspects of his nature and system of governance that have importance to their
lives.

3. Hence, if god were to exist, then he would prevent Christians from becoming confused in
their beliefs about his nature and system of governance in ways that have importance to their
lives and that interfere with them coming to love him.>

This is a fundamental problem, because it is a concern of many Christians, non-Christians, and agnostics. I can only offer the answer that I have found, with no attempt to prove it.
First, God will not violate our freewill, even to stop a murder or an atomic war. And, if you think it through, you see that you would not want Him to.

Second, God wants us really to love Him. But how can you love someone that you don't know personally? He exists in the world of spirit. We are so completely distracted by the physical world that the world of spirit seems vague and improbable at the very least. And that is why so few ever satisfy the conditions for knowing God directly. Jesus gave us words of guidance, and then his physical body left. But when he did leave after just a few years on earth, he sent us a Guide that would be with us eternally - the Holy Spirit.

Then why doesn't the Holy Spirit scream God's messages at us? Because we don't "repent". By repent I don't mean "be sorry for our sins", but "be willing to change our minds" - think outside the box, adopt a new paradigm. The power of denial is so strong, and the Holy Spirit is so gentle, that He won't push a truth on us that we would not welcome. And, just as in Jesus's time, there are few that would accept a new concept, especially among theologians. Their livelihoods were in jeopardy.

Why did Jesus emphasize that we could only enter the kingdom of heaven if we would "turn and become as a little child"? Because little children have no prejudices. They are ready and willing to be taught.
The process along which the Holy Spirit leads each individual is unique to that individual, because He perceives the direction that that mind will most easily take in shifting its paradigm, without trying to change our thinking in one fell swoop. That would incite fear and resistance. So, we wind up with people of various faiths and belief systems, all heading toward the same goal, but seeming at any one time to be at great disparity with one another.

This "Way" is very different, and difficult only for that reason. But the reward is without price.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top