What Defines And Drives A Relationship

[Guest end3]

 

Why do you people not understand that I understand the difference. Betting all of your income that science at some date in the future will say that treating each other with love is "healthy" for THESE reasons, these life prolonging facts......if it hasn't ALREADY.

 

For the 142nd, time folks, I am able to understand the difference. Let's please move on with the discussion....the actual discussion.

 

If you do understand the difference End, then please look at this.

 

BAA is a man.

All men will die.

Therefore, BAA will die.

 

Now please explain to us why this an objective argument that is true for all and not just a subjective belief of mine.

 

We can measure some of these to some degree of certainty given some definition. What did I score?

[mikey101]

How about I say "proposed mechanism".

 

Long story short, science will never get to the point I am describing because even if we could measure the bio-changes and assign plus or minus or neutral, this assumes we know the necessity of each individual in the grand scheme of existence.....omniscience.

 

I'm really frustrated that for a smart group of people that you limit your definition of life to a group of facts....and dynamic facts as they seem to change occasionally.

 

Leads me to evolution type thoughts.....when is evolution random and when is it the choice of the evolving.

As usual, the fundamentalist is frustrated by things like 'facts' and 'objectivity'.  

 

If you had any respect for yourself and your religion, you would 'end' now.  You clearly don't understand how to present an objective argument, and whining about it is just making you look worse.

[Roz]

You are asking this community of Ex-Cs to consider your 'evidence.'  Your very particular christian book to somehow prove that human relationships have their origin to their god.

 

And you acknowledge that you know the difference between what's religious and what's scientific.

 

You're a preacher.  You know just what you're doing.  I've long suspected that you're just like any other apologist, you're not open to conversation.  Case in point this thread and your other threads.

You're asking the community to look at your scriptures as 'evidence' to support your train of thought that because seem to need human interaction, it must come from your particular god (why? because he's the god of love and relationships that you've asserted.)

 

An apologist's bullshit by any other name would smell just as rancid.

[Guest end3]

You are asking this community of Ex-Cs to consider your 'evidence.'  Your very particular christian book to somehow prove that human relationships have their origin to their god.

 

And you acknowledge that you know the difference between what's religious and what's scientific.

 

You're a preacher.  You know just what you're doing.  I've long suspected that you're just like any other apologist, you're not open to conversation.  Case in point this thread and your other threads.

You're asking the community to look at your scriptures as 'evidence' to support your train of thought that because seem to need human interaction, it must come from your particular god (why? because he's the god of love and relationships that you've asserted.)

 

An apologist's bullshit by any other name would smell just as rancid.

I was open to it a few years ago Roz. Now I know the "factual" side is wonderfully flawed. The problem is you don't know that yet....And when you realize both sides have issues, then THAT makes us a better person. I don't dislike any of you but wish you through the process more quickly. Then it becomes a discussion rather than a conviction....

[mikey101]

 

You're a preacher.  You know just what you're doing.  

And a pretty bad one at that.  It's actually driven me farther away from Christianity.  People that think they know more than others but can't come up with even vaguely logical and coherent thought, then whine about it and refuse to take any responsibility -- don't impress me at all.

[Guest end3]

 

You're a preacher.  You know just what you're doing.

And a pretty bad one at that.  It's actually driven me farther away from Christianity.  People that think they know more than others but can't come up with even vaguely logical and coherent thought, then whine about it and refuse to take any responsibility -- don't impress me at all.

 

Actually I'm pretty good when I love the targets. I just don't love y'all to the level it overcomes my shortcomings.....justifiably.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Why do you people not understand that I understand the difference. Betting all of your income that science at some date in the future will say that treating each other with love is "healthy" for THESE reasons, these life prolonging facts......if it hasn't ALREADY.

 

For the 142nd, time folks, I am able to understand the difference. Let's please move on with the discussion....the actual discussion.

 

If you do understand the difference End, then please look at this.

 

BAA is a man.

All men will die.

Therefore, BAA will die.

 

Now please explain to us why this an objective argument that is true for all and not just a subjective belief of mine.

 

We can measure some of these to some degree of certainty given some definition. What did I score?

 

 

Well, from that reply I'm not convinced that you really  do understand why this is a subjective argument, End.

 

So here's the killer question for you.

 

Which part or parts of this argument depend on my subjective beliefs, and why?

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

Why do you people not understand that I understand the difference. Betting all of your income that science at some date in the future will say that treating each other with love is "healthy" for THESE reasons, these life prolonging facts......if it hasn't ALREADY.

 

For the 142nd, time folks, I am able to understand the difference. Let's please move on with the discussion....the actual discussion.

 

If you do understand the difference End, then please look at this.

 

BAA is a man.

All men will die.

Therefore, BAA will die.

 

Now please explain to us why this an objective argument that is true for all and not just a subjective belief of mine.

 

We can measure some of these to some degree of certainty given some definition. What did I score?

 

 

Well, from that reply I'm not convinced that you really  do understand why this is a subjective argument, End.

 

So here's the killer question for you.

 

Which part or parts of this argument depend on my subjective beliefs, and why?

 

Here's one back for you. It's impossible for it to be anything other than subjective.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Here's one back for you. It's impossible for it to be anything other than subjective.

 

 

Why do you believe that?

[Guest end3]

 

Here's one back for you. It's impossible for it to be anything other than subjective.

 

Why do you believe that?

 

The sum total is defined by humanity. We good now?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Here's one back for you. It's impossible for it to be anything other than subjective.

 

Why do you believe that?

 

The sum total is defined by humanity. We good now?

 

 

Nope.

 

Instead of painfully stretching this out any further End, I'll give you the answer.

.

.

.

No part of the argument is subjective at all.  None of it.  

None of it depends on any subjective belief on my part, your part or anyone else's part.  

 

The first statement, "BAA is a man" is objectively true for everyone.

That statement doesn't depend on what anyone subjectively believes is true.  All the objective evidence confirms that I am a man.  There is no objective evidence that indicates that I am anything else.  To argue that I am anything else than a man is to argue against what is observed, what can be tested and what can be proven.

 

The second statement, "All men die" is objectively true for everyone.

For the same reasons as the first statement.

 

The conclusion, "Therefore, BAA will die" uses the content of the first two statements, puts them together and arrives at the only possible logical conclusion.  BECAUSE BAA is a man (objective statement) and BECAUSE all men die (objective statement), at some time in the future, BAA will die (objective conclusion).

.

.

.

Are you good with this?

[florduh]

 

 

 

You might ask yourself before you relegate it to dogma.... What is God.... Specifically. Don't be so readily quick to dismiss.

I'd love to go into that, personally-- as a philosophical/comparative religion matter, but I don't think that conversation would be widely appreciated here in this forum, so I can't engage.

 

Orbit, we would appreciate it if you would cut out the incessant passive-aggressive sniping. If you have a specific issue, please pm the mod of your choice and we'll look into the complaint. If you wish to discuss any aspects of spirituality or the existence of gods, the Den is a good place but expect challenges. The Colosseum will work, too. If you're not up to challenges, take it to the Spirituality Forum. If the Spirituality Forum is not conducted in a way to your liking either, I'm sure there are other websites where the membership and forums are geared to such things.

 

 

[color=#\Um, get off my back with your paranoia. This was a honest statement of fact meant to communicate that I would love to talk about this, but it is not appropriate for this forum. Stop seeing passive aggressive where it doesn't exist. This is really starting to feel like a witch hunt.

 

Please document the events of the "witch hunt." You have been sniping with cryptic comments for weeks. State your problem, please. I address my complaints publicly because you complain publicly. Feel free to take up your concerns with any mod via pm.

[mikey101]

 

Actually I'm pretty good when I love the targets. I just don't love y'all to the level it overcomes my shortcomings.....justifiably.

 

You are not pretty good, you can't even express yourself clearly.  People have to decipher what you're saying and tell you what you mean. I suggest taking an English writing course to learn how to write clearly and coherently.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

Here's one back for you. It's impossible for it to be anything other than subjective.

 

Why do you believe that?

 

The sum total is defined by humanity. We good now?

 

 

Nope.

 

Instead of painfully stretching this out any further End, I'll give you the answer.

.

.

.

No part of the argument is subjective at all.  None of it.  

None of it depends on any subjective belief on my part, your part or anyone else's part.  

 

The first statement, "BAA is a man" is objectively true for everyone.

That statement doesn't depend on what anyone subjectively believes is true.  All the objective evidence confirms that I am a man.  There is no objective evidence that indicates that I am anything else.  To argue that I am anything else than a man is to argue against what is observed, what can be tested and what can be proven.

 

The second statement, "All men die" is objectively true for everyone.

For the same reasons as the first statement.

 

The conclusion, "Therefore, BAA will die" uses the content of the first two statements, puts them together and arrives at the only possible logical conclusion.  BECAUSE BAA is a man (objective statement) and BECAUSE all men die (objective statement), at some time in the future, BAA will die (objective conclusion).

.

.

.

Are you good with this?

 

No, I'm not good with it. Every interpretation is and was defined by humanity. It's an agreement to some level of certainty of things humans subjectively defined. Unless you can document that we are here outside of our own perception.

[Guest end3]

 

Actually I'm pretty good when I love the targets. I just don't love y'all to the level it overcomes my shortcomings.....justifiably.

You are not pretty good, you can't even express yourself clearly.  People have to decipher what you're saying and tell you what you mean. I suggest taking an English writing course to learn how to write clearly and coherently.

 

Sounds like a good suggestion. Thanks.

[Roz]

 

 

Actually I'm pretty good when I love the targets. I just don't love y'all to the level it overcomes my shortcomings.....justifiably.

 

You are not pretty good, you can't even express yourself clearly.  People have to decipher what you're saying and tell you what you mean. I suggest taking an English writing course to learn how to write clearly and coherently.

 

 

Mikey, End's stated that he runs a laboratory of some kind, he's educated and can readily form coherent sentences.  

 

The problem is that he's also an apologist.  It's not that he cannot see the bad strains of logic coming from him, it's that he can and still does it anyway.  Why?  To deny his christ is his own demise.

 

Now he's going on about how 'everything is not truly objective' -another tactic to get religious dogma on even footing with real evidence.

 

It's funny, because if it were a Muslim presenting the passages of his angel Gabriel dictating Allah's words to Mohammed as proof that god did impart 'logos' to mankind, End3 would be as skeptical as any other skeptic here.

[mymistake]

Well naturally the real God isn't the Muslim God.  That's silly.  Of course the real God is the Christian God.  Because no reason.

[mikey101]

 

 

It's funny, because if it were a Muslim presenting the passages of his angel Gabriel dictating Allah's words to Mohammed as proof that god did impart 'logos' to mankind, End3 would be as skeptical as any other skeptic here.

 

Well stated.  Thinking of one's religious beliefs as scientific fact seems to me like a form of control. Not knowing the great mysteries of life means being in an unstable world where you can't be sure of anything. I can understand the desire to be comfortable, but it's just something that we accept and makes us stronger imo.

[Roz]

And let's take End3's premise now.  That nothing's truly objective, everything's subjective.

 

All it would take for the theory of gravity to be disproven is evidence to the contrary.

All it would take for the theory of evolution to be disproven is evidence to the contrary.

All it would take for the crazy census / tax of rome to be proven is supporting evidence.

 

Evidence.  No word games, just evidence.  That's all it would take.  This goes on in normal everyday logic.  For your holy book to have any relevant meaning as anything other than a collection of stories from antiquity, you must present evidence that your god -singular god yaweh- is real.

[Guest end3]

Science doesn't have all the answers peeps. As soon as you can come to grips with that the better. Granted it brings you security in this time of rejecting the other, but it's like a pendulum that has swung to far to the other side.....too much of a good thing is not good. Embracing science as the end all is much like embracing fundamental Christianity.

[mikey101]

Science doesn't have all the answers peeps. As soon as you can come to grips with that the better. Granted it brings you security in this time of rejecting the other, but it's like a pendulum that has swung to far to the other side.....too much of a good thing is not good. Embracing science as the end all is much like embracing fundamental Christianity.

Seems you have a good grasp of the pendulum swinging too far.  But are you able to see it in yourself?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

So you know where I am coming from, I believe God is the manifestation of love and understanding through a relationship.

 

End3 27 October 2014 12:01PM  post #181

 

 

 I just don't love y'all to the level it overcomes my shortcomings.....justifiably.

 

 

So you believe that "god" is the manifestation of love and understanding through relationships; but the love (manifestation of "god") you have for us is insufficient to be of any use to yourself or any of us.  By extention, therefore, "god" (manifestation of love) is of no use to yourself or any of us.

 

Congratulations, End3, you just completely destroyed your own argument.

[sdelsolray]

On another forum, they had a sub-forum called "Nowhere", where the moderators sent threads deemed too silly, too full of woo woo, etc.

[mymistake]

Science doesn't have all the answers peeps. As soon as you can come to grips with that the better. Granted it brings you security in this time of rejecting the other, but it's like a pendulum that has swung to far to the other side.....too much of a good thing is not good. Embracing science as the end all is much like embracing fundamental Christianity.

 

I don't think anybody here thinks science has all the answers.  I'm quite sure you cannot name anybody who does.  Same thing for science as the end all.  

 

So basically you are defeating in idea nobody holds.  Congratulations on your mighty victory.  Now with that out of the way do you have anything to say that applies to people here?

[mymistake]

 

 

So you know where I am coming from, I believe God is the manifestation of love and understanding through a relationship.

 

End3 27 October 2014 12:01PM  post #181

 

 

 I just don't love y'all to the level it overcomes my shortcomings.....justifiably.

 

 

So you believe that "god" is the manifestation of love and understanding through relationships; but the love (manifestation of "god") you have for us is insufficient to be of any use to yourself or any of us.  By extention, therefore, "god" (manifestation of love) is of no use to yourself or any of us.

 

Congratulations, End3, you just completely destroyed your own argument.

 

 

Not that this will change his mind.  It might make him frustrated or a little angry but it won't change his mind about anything.