God without Religion?

[WalterP]

You certainly know what I am asserting.  They do not put 12 jurors together to exclude testimony.  This all speaks to the conditions of humanity.  Science supports this.  You know this. 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

No.  The 12 jurors do not include or exclude testimony by their own personal choice. 

 

They are directed to include or exclude by the judge.  He/she has the final say in what evidence is admissible.  

 

Just as the personal choice of the evidence-giver is subject to the authority of the judge, so it is with the jury.  They must do as the judge orders.

 

A court of law is not a democracy, where each person present has the same rights and privileges as each other.

 

A court is a hierarchy, with the judge presiding over and enforcing what evidence is admissible and what is inadmissible.

 

All the other people in the court have agreed by oath or some other measure to abide by the judges rulings.

 

If an evidence-giver insists that they have the right to choose what evidence is admissible they will held in contempt of court for undermining the authority of the judge.

 

As I've said several times now... personal choice is unworkable in law.

[Edgarcito]

16 minutes ago, WalterP said:

You certainly know what I am asserting.  They do not put 12 jurors together to exclude testimony.  This all speaks to the conditions of humanity.  Science supports this.  You know this. 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

No.  The 12 jurors do not include or exclude testimony by their own personal choice. 

 

They are directed to include or exclude by the judge.  He/she has the final say in what evidence is admissible.  

 

Just as the personal choice of the evidence-giver is subject to the authority of the judge, so it is with the jury.  They must do as the judge orders.

 

A court of law is not a democracy, where each person present has the same rights and privileges as each other.

 

A court is a hierarchy, with the judge presiding over and enforcing what evidence is admissible and what is inadmissible.

 

All the other people in the court have agreed by oath or some other measure to abide by the judges rulings.

 

If an evidence-giver insists that they have the right to choose what evidence is admissible they will held in contempt of court for undermining the authority of the judge.

 

As I've said several times now... personal choice is unworkable in law.

Testimony is subjective....from the giver and to the receiver sir.  End of argument.   

[TruthSeeker0]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Testimony is subjective....from the giver and to the receiver sir.  End of argument.   

You're either deliberately misunderstanding or you're just not thinking it through - there are rules for testimony and what kind is admitted - that is not subjective. 

 

You also betray an inability to discuss or consider further points with your claims that the debate is over -  this is what people in caves often do. Those out of them realize the horizon can be endless. 

 

Why are you here if you don't truly want to engage? 

[Edgarcito]

Just now, TruthSeeker0 said:

You're either deliberately misunderstanding or you're just not thinking it through - there are rules for testimony and what kind is admitted - that is not subjective. 

 

You also betray an inability to discuss or consider further points with your claims that the debate is over -  this is what people in caves often do. Those out of them realize the horizon can be endless. 

 

Why are you here if you don't truly want to engage? 

No, you're just not sharp enough to understand.....

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

No, you're just not sharp enough to understand.....

Damn it, my goalpost-shifting didn't work!  Now I need to employ my ad hominems!

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Damn it, my goalpost-shifting didn't work!  Now I need to employ my ad hominems!

Lol....she doesn't.  It's like my tomato vine.....Wow, look at that vine.  But if you look closer, there are hairs on the vine.  Science is kinda like that at this point.  We see the vine and define the vine pretty well, but when it comes the hairs, the complexity of a human in this case, then we turn into a sanctimonious type that declares the vine without the hairs view sufficient.  I'm not satisfied with that view.....nor does science actually support that view.  It's not my fault TS doesn't get this or that Walter is stubborn.  It just is.  But, it MAY help you understand people like Georgia in the future....

[WalterP]

Testimony is subjective....from the giver and to the receiver sir.  End of argument.  

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

That is not the point being argued here Edgarcito.   This is.

 

 

 

You...

You and I have differ on evidence...on what is definitive.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Me...

Of course we do.

 

You seem to think that permissible evidence is a matter of personal choice.

 

That standard is unworkable in law, in science, in reasoned argument and in logic.

 

Care to tell us why that is? 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I have clearly demonstrated that admissible evidence in law is not a matter of personal choice on the part of the evidence giver.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

But, it MAY help you understand people like Georgia in the future....

Hmm... if only I had been exactly like Georgia for 30 years of my life, then I wouldn't need some confused pseudo-scientist's advice on how to understand her.

[Edgarcito]

13 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Hmm... if only I had been exactly like Georgia for 30 years of my life, then I wouldn't need some confused pseudo-scientist's advice on how to understand her.

No, the problem is dipshit, you hold firm to science, and then when you are called on it, you don't have the gonads to say so.  But Georgia is the one that's wrong....fn remarkable.

 

Edit:  Just like old times buddy....cheers sir...lol.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

23 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No, the problem is dipshit, you hold firm to science, and then when you are called on it, you don't have the gonads to say so.  But Georgia is the one that's wrong....fn remarkable.

 

Edit:  Just like old times buddy....cheers sir...lol.

Umm... when, exactly, did you call anybody on it?  You've asserted that science supports people being unique (a point that literally nobody is arguing with); but Walt continues to demonstrate that individuals do not get to determine what constitutes evidence, however unique said evidence might seem in relation to the individual's condition.  

 

Stick to the argument, End3.

[WalterP]

Edgarcito,

 

You seem to think that admissible evidence is a matter of personal choice.

 

I declared that this standard is unworkable in law, in science, in reasoned argument and in logic.

 

I have since demonstrated that it is unworkable in law.

 

 

Let us move on.

 

 

That standard is unworkable in science too.

 

Care to tell us why that is?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Umm... when, exactly, did you call anybody on it?  You've asserted that science supports people being unique (a point that literally nobody is arguing with); but Walt continues to demonstrate that individuals do not get to determine what constitutes evidence, however unique said evidence might seem in relation to the individual's condition.  

 

Stick to the argument, End3.

Here's a nuance of the argument.....you just said you were like Georgia for 30 years which apparently is evidence for your understanding. 

[Edgarcito]

20 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Edgarcito,

 

You seem to think that admissible evidence is a matter of personal choice.

 

I declared that this standard is unworkable in law, in science, in reasoned argument and in logic.

 

I have since demonstrated that it is unworkable in law.

 

 

Let us move on.

 

 

That standard is unworkable in science too.

 

Care to tell us why that is?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

I don't have any other points to discuss at the moment sir....thanks.

[WalterP]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't have any other points to discuss at the moment sir....thanks.

 

Then please let me know the moment you do want to continue with the subject of the personal choice of the evidence-giver.  I will be ready.

 

Given the central importance of evidence to the Lion's Den this subject is certain to come up again.  Probably sooner rather than later.

 

Then we can pick up this thread again.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

30 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Here's a nuance of the argument.....you just said you were like Georgia for 30 years which apparently is evidence for your understanding. 

Here's a nuance of the argument... my experience qualifies me to understand Georgia better than my experience qualifies you to understand Georgia.  That is why personal experiences are irrelevant and unreliable; and thus, unacceptable as evidence.

 

[older]

16 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

We are not rabid towards the possibility of breaking through cave complex #2. Nor are we in denial that we exist within cave complex #2, having already broken the confines of small cave niche #1. And we aren't pissed off at the possibility of 'anyone else' existing in a cave complex #3 for that matter! It's more a case of good on any one who may be able to get there. Excellent job!!! Let's hope that we all get there to greater and greater understanding someday. 

 

Meanwhile the ego freaks of small cave #1 represent the smallest of available human mind sets and comprehensive ability. Close minded, cut off from exploration and cut off from seeking adventure and advancement forward towards greater understanding. Content to sit in the dark acting 'as if' there's no further discovery to be made and rabid towards anyone who may suggest otherwise. Always looking to try and put down anything that suggests otherwise. Transparent as the day is long, from a psychological perspective. 

 

While on my morning walk I was thinking again about the cave. Josh makes a good point here. I think most of us secularists don't care if people want to be in the cave. But when Josh writes, "[T]here's no further discovery to be made and rabid towards anyone who may suggest otherwise. Always looking to try and put down anything that suggests otherwise," what he points me to is the fact that one of the fundamentals of Christianity is proselytization. Christianity has a long history of using every possible means, from subtle social pressure all the way through legal and physical force (including death) to pull people into the cave. I think that if Christians would go about their business and leave the rest of us alone,  all the stress and controversy would more than likely diminish to an ignorable state. But they can't because proselytization is part of the program and they cannot or will not take the rest of it and leave that behind.

 

 

[AntiChrist]

On 4/25/2020 at 5:32 AM, Georgia said:

Hello Everyone! 

 

I hope you all are keeping safe and staying at home

 

My name is Georgia, I'm 29 years old and live in London, UK. I am firm, strong believer in the Father and the Messiah but I do reject the majority of the religious nonsense. Christianity has been ruined- it's highest members of the church are pedophiles, power hungry, money hungry and false teachers. Many leaders of small congregations are also false teachers, out for themselves and have no idea how to use the scripture (which of course has been altered to fit in with Western customs). So called "Christianity" is an eastern faith which has been manipulated and shaped to be able to brain wash the Western world. 

 

With that being said, I am interested to find out if those of you who identity as an atheists have had poor experiences in the church? And would you ever consider having a relationship with the father outside of religion ? 

 

P.S I am a believer but welcome all answers,  but please be respectful of my views as I will yours. I'm up for a debate but not an insult match.

 

Thanks

You believe! Try knowing.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

In redneck Oklahoma where I grew up, we had a phrase for discussions like this.  "Arguing with a fence post." 

[AntiChrist]

15 minutes ago, Weezer said:

In redneck Oklahoma where I grew up, we had a phrase for discussions like this.  "Arguing with a fence post." 

It was really needing to know Jesus, the Bible, the history of Christianity, ECT - That I was able to free myself from the belief of it.

[Edgarcito]

4 hours ago, Weezer said:

In redneck Oklahoma where I grew up, we had a phrase for discussions like this.  "Arguing with a fence post." 

You know why the wind blows in the Texas panhandle.......because Oklahoma sucks.

[freshstart]

@Edgarcito

I really am trying to follow your argument here. If you're saying science (as we know it today, anyway) doesn't explain everything, I agree. If you're saying personal experience should not be routinely dismissed as valid evidence, again I agree. But if you are saying we should, therefore, conclude that the truth lies "over here" rather than "over there," then I guess I'm not following.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

You know why the wind blows in the Texas panhandle.......because Oklahoma sucks.

No, I'm pretty sure it's because Texas blows.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

A guy was born in Missouri.   Moved to Kansas when he was 10 years old.  Moved to Oklahoma at 30, and then to Texas when 60 years old.   Then he died at 80 and went to Hell, but he didn't notice the difference because the change had been so gradual.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

You know why the wind blows in the Texas panhandle.......because Oklahoma sucks.

 

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No, I'm pretty sure it's because Texas blows.

 

You are both correct.  One of the reasons I don't live in either place now.

[Edgarcito]

14 hours ago, freshstart said:

@Edgarcito

I really am trying to follow your argument here. If you're saying science (as we know it today, anyway) doesn't explain everything, I agree. If you're saying personal experience should not be routinely dismissed as valid evidence, again I agree. But if you are saying we should, therefore, conclude that the truth lies "over here" rather than "over there," then I guess I'm not following.

I have about three modes that strike me as truth Fs....one, science.....I'm constantly amazed that there are people in this world that are extremely bright and are just far above the population....It's like wow, you win.  Then there is the religious crowd...that I sympathize with, but are hard to swallow.  I don't really, unless I think they are actually Spiritual.  Then, there is the third mode....when I read the Bible and think yes, this is right....it actually relaxes and calms me.  Then the forth truth is the general population.  What do you do there....I don't know.