FC Community

Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: waterbearer94 on June 01, 2012, 06:32:28 am

Title: origin of life...
Post by: waterbearer94 on June 01, 2012, 06:32:28 am
falcon you seem to have a deep set of beliefs or at least that you have thought out... HOW DO YOU THINK EXISTENCE STARTED? i ask because i don't understand how something could come out of nothing, or how a god could just be there, but onto something coming out of nothing... i once heard that there are these partciles or whatever that appear randomly out of nowhere and sometimes they dissapear and sometimes they stay, well if thats true where did the system of them coming out of nowhere come from, and how was there nothing? also i've heard that ppl can come from the stars like the stars contain the elements of life and blew up and it started or something... well where would the stars come from... and in the nothingness how could the conditions become right for life... how could anything be capable if there is nothing? i'm not trying to stump you i'm just confused... if god was real and good then i would want to serve him but the thing is i don't get how he can send ppl to hell for eternity if the world is just made up by him seems too harsh for a pointless made up world... like culdnt god have made himself nonexistent if he was just there so nothing had to exist and possibly suffer? my main concern is something after death... like what if its really bad being trapped for eternity in your mind or consicousness or your existence never ending? FALCON OR ANYONE HOW CAN YOU BE CONFIDENT YOU JUST DIE AND DONT GO ANYWHERE? please help
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Falconer02 on June 01, 2012, 11:11:34 am
Quote
FALCON OR ANYONE HOW CAN YOU BE CONFIDENT YOU JUST DIE AND DONT GO ANYWHERE?

Simple! We aren't scared. We don't get frightened by this mysterious universe and it's age and therefore accept the most-likely possibility that this is the only life we get. I'm extremely happy to be living in a time where we're actually shedding our ancient beliefs (slowly) and finally discovering the truths about the universe around us.  That being the case, it's best to enjoy life to the fullest and try to answer these mysteries through rational/realistic means instead of wasting it on ancient mythology and man-made gods that promote the concept of a rewarding afterlife with not one ounce of proof to give it credibility. I honestly cannot understand how anyone would favor an afterlife with a god who promotes an "OBEY ME OR SUFFER FOR ETERNITY!" philosophy rather than giving the thought that this might be their one shot at life. Respectfully perhaps you can answer that one, Waterbearer?
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: rghvac69 on June 01, 2012, 11:41:59 am
I don't know if this will help, but no one but satan and the fallen angels have been sentenced to death. All other spiritual beings are either on the good side of the gulf, or the bad side (Luke 16), awaiting judgement. The great white throne judgement doesn't occur until after the millennium age of Christ's reign. During the millennium, those who have not been taught the truth will be taught during this time in spiritual bodies, without the hang-ups of the flesh, and with what is being taught in our churches today, very few know the real truth of God's word. After the millennium Satan is loosed and believe it or not, their will be some that still follow him. Those that do not overcome afterwards, according to the bible, will be sentenced to hell. If you want an example of what happens to the spiritual body in hell, read Ezekiel 28 v18-19. The condemned are turned to ashes from within, so there is no eternal suffering. Think about it, would heaven be a great place if you could see a relative squirming and screaming in a lake of fire? No, God doesn't operate that way. The memory of the condemned are blotted out of existence. Why wouldn't God do this? Do we want a bunch of evil beings and troublemakers with us in the eternity?
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 01, 2012, 12:24:33 pm
falcon you seem to have a deep set of beliefs or at least that you have thought out...

While not speaking for all 'falcons'; I don't have any sets of "beliefs", (as I understand the term to mean 'convictions lacking tangible evidence'). Instead, I have a preference for using an ability to reason and examine what evidence is available.  After that process, there's usually a point where speculation arises out of such a reasoning process, (in lieu of skipping the reasoning and jumping right into speculations).

HOW DO YOU THINK EXISTENCE STARTED?

Falconeer02 was correct; that is a complex question and any non-religious answers you're likely to receive will range from simple speculations to much more complex ones.

The brief 'answer' I'd theorize is 'fractal emergence', (the longer theories arise from a complex interconnected group of mathematics concerning multiple dimensions, chaos, superstring, fractal and emergence theories).  Emergence theory is technically speculative, (pends verifying evidence), but is based upon existing tangible evidence and 'mathematical proofs' to support the viability of such theories.

i ask because i don't understand how something could come out of nothing, or how a god could just be there, but onto something coming out of nothing... i once heard that there are these partciles or whatever that appear randomly out of nowhere and sometimes they dissapear and sometimes they stay, well if thats true where did the system of them coming out of nowhere come from, and how was there nothing?

The 'something-from-nothing' aspect of the visible universe is what concerns the multi-dimensional/chaos/superstring/emergence theories.
That is, theorectical physicists, (and others), hypothesize that some particles which have been observed to "appear" & "disappear" may be doing so either by way of "quantum-tunneling", (for example, with tunnel-diodes), or by "dimensional translations", (into some other dimension than the four most are familiar with; 11-dimensional space/time theories).  These other dimensions aren't actually "nothing"; they're nominally dimensions for which only mathematical proofs currently exist, (being undetectable in our four dimensions thusfar).  There are no mathematical proofs positing the existence of 'g-d' or, any 'g-ds as most religions vaguely define such terms for "supernatural" entities.

Since we'd therefore have 'something' we can detect arising out of something we cannot, the situation isn't "something from nothing". It's theorized as more of a hyperdimensional-steady-state universe in which there was neither a 'beginning' nor an 'end', (and subsequently, no need to posit a "creator" 'g-d').  For instance, in advanced chaos theory with regards to fluid dynamics, there arise "islands of stability/order" out of chaos from the motion of the chaotic medium itself, (no "creator" necessary - such patterns appear 'spontaneous').

... like culdnt god have made himself nonexistent if he was just there so nothing had to exist and possibly suffer?

Everything that lives, dies, (so far).  No 'g-ds' are required in that premise.  In life, there is "suffering" and non-suffering, (among many other things).  No 'g-ds' are required for this to occur or be prevented.

my main concern is something after death... like what if its really bad being trapped for eternity in your mind or consicousness or your existence never ending? FALCON OR ANYONE HOW CAN YOU BE CONFIDENT YOU JUST DIE AND DONT GO ANYWHERE? please help

Since no one has returned to life after being physically dead, (religious myths notwithstanding), we are left to speculate.  If one speculates, (or avoid it entirely), by basing their 'hopes' upon religion/faith/beliefs, there is an overwhelming probability that they'd be incorrect about what happens after death.  The apparent options include speculations that; nothing happens - dead is dead, the intangible "animating energies" which make you you translate dimensionally into an intangible form of existence, (here's what the religious adherents grasp fervently at and then wildly speculate that they "go to heaven ot hell" when there's no valid evidence to support such speculation), or that those 'intangible animating energies' [life/conscious awareness] get "reincarnated" into tangible lifeforms - normally not a butterfly or shrub.

As previously mentioned, just because it's speculation, one must discern the difference between speculations arising from unsubstantiated beliefs/notions/fears/faith/random irrationality and those which have a foundation in reasoning and evidence.  Failure to do so can result in being mentally-trapped in a blind-faith paradigm and that would be "hell".
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 01, 2012, 12:27:09 pm
I don't know if this will help, but no one but satan and the fallen angels have been sentenced to death.

How would speculative religious mythology, based upon specious beliefs/faith instead of evidence or reason, "help"?


 
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: rghvac69 on June 01, 2012, 12:42:41 pm
He was asking a question about the afterlife, if I understood is question correctly. How would atheism "help" with this matter, if you don't even believe in an afterlife? Besides, it's good for him to hear another POV, isn't it?
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: rghvac69 on June 01, 2012, 12:52:23 pm
Waterbearer,

I don't know what your religious beliefs are, and quite frankly it's none of my business, but if you do believe and are scared of going to hell, then repent and try to live right, and God will consider that good enough.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 01, 2012, 12:59:35 pm
He was asking a question about the afterlife, if I understood is question correctly.

Actually, two questions were asked.  The first related to the origins of existence/life and the second to any potential "afterlife" existence.  Being xtian, presumably you skipped the more complex question and simply posted a parroted religious/blind-faith POV instead.

How would atheism "help" with this matter, if you don't even believe in an afterlife? Besides, it's good for him to hear another POV, isn't it?

Where did I state that I was either atheist or, didn't speculate upon an "afterlife"?  Did you bother to read and comprehend the posted reply to "waterbearer" before you jumped to unwarranted conclusions?  That's one of the main problems with blind faith; that jumping to conclusions based upon the specious religious beliefs of others, (such as the collection of fictions in 'the bible'), instead of using reasoning.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/34p0uvo.gif)

"Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced
people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day.
And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these
ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send to
live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you!"
-- George Carlin, (from his album "You Are All Diseased")
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 01, 2012, 01:11:11 pm
Waterbearer,

I don't know what your religious beliefs are, and quite frankly it's none of my business, but if you do believe and are scared of going to hell, then repent and try to live right, and God will consider that good enough.

That's direct religious proselytizing, (as opposed to the indicating the option available of using reason & rational thinking in lieu of superstitious "beliefs" and "faith").

[noting, for future reference, the actual sequence of posted exchanges: 1) OP starts a thread about the origin of existence/life with some questions dubious of 'g-d'.  2) a couple of non-religious replies ensued regarding non-religious speculations.  3) religious speculations and overt bible-thumping were Initially posted by a xtian. 4) religious speculation was refuted on the basis of parroting specious claims. 5) religious adherent makes further speculations 'attacking' non-xtian viewpoints on the OP's questions. 6) xtian religious adherent directly proselytizes thus providing evidence of same in lieu of debate.]

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."
Scriptures, n. The sacred books of 'our holy religion', as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which
all other faiths are based."
-- Ambrose Bierce
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: rghvac69 on June 01, 2012, 01:55:04 pm
I figured you could handle the origin of life questions. As far as assuming that you are an atheist, if you aren't I apologize, but you've said some pretty nasty things about God and religion, so maybe you can understand why I assumed that. I'm not proselytizing, for I said IF you believe, then I continued with what a believer should do if he/she is scared of going to hell. I'm not trying to force anyone to believe the way I believe. Part of his question was about the afterlife, which as a Christian concerns me more than the origins of life, and I gave him my opinion based on my faith, just as you gave your opinion on your believes. I just wanted to help the person, as you do, so chill out, and quit being so combative.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 01, 2012, 02:25:49 pm
I figured you could handle the origin of life questions.

And I'd extrapolated that such would be merely speciously-attributed to 'g-d' by a xtian, (even if you didn't do so as yet).

As far as assuming that you are an atheist, if you aren't I apologize, but you've said some pretty nasty things about God and religion, so maybe you can understand why I assumed that.

What, precisely is "nasty" about pointing out that a 'belief' in such a hypothetical entity is based upon "faith" alone, (with zero substantive evidence to support the belief-claim)?  Such challenges stem from logical reasoning, which may or may not include an atheistic viewpoint, (that is, logic is equivalent to atheism).

I'm not proselytizing, for I said IF you believe, then I continued with what a believer should do if he/she is scared of going to hell.

Adding an "if" doesn't change the proselytizing content of your reply to the OP.  It definitely fits the parameters defining proselytizing and denying that it is ... irrational. The entire post: « Reply #2 on: Today at 11:41:59 » Message ID: 546202 consisted of proselytizing religious propaganda, (that is, it lacked any evidentiary basis beyond an inherently self-referential dubious 'biblical' one).

I'm not trying to force anyone to believe the way I believe.

"Force" is not an integral or required aspect of proselytzing.  It's optional and excluding "force" does not alter the content of proselytizing a religious belief.

Part of his question was about the afterlife, which as a Christian concerns me more than the origins of life, and I gave him my opinion based on my faith ...

Indeed it was and yes you did; to which I replied that there is no rational basis for such beliefs, (which is true, since they're based upon "faith" and "faith" means: sans evidence).  This is an example of reasoning and not of a "belief", (at best, it would be a rational 'disbelief').

just as you gave your opinion on your believes.

I don't hold either "believes"[sic] or "beliefs" and my "opinion" has a rational basis in logic whereas yours has an irrational basis in illogic.  There's a discernable difference which seems to continually ellude 'believers', (or "beliefers"[sic]).

I just wanted to help the person, as you do, so chill out, and quit being so combative.

I fail to see how encouraging/proselytizing 'mind-blindness' would help another person.  Parenthetically, this forum is called "Debate & Discuss" and carries the inherent connotation that opposing viewpoints will likely be debated & discussed.


"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
-- Buddha
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: JediJohnnie on June 01, 2012, 02:29:18 pm
Not to interject myself into the conversation,but what's with this new trend of "accusing" people of "proselytizing"?Since when has it become a crime to share one's faith?Why is it being portrayed as somehow underhanded? ::) So far I've seen several posts of people saying "whoa-I'm not proselytizing!" as if it's something to be ashamed of.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 01, 2012, 02:38:46 pm
Not to interject myself into the conversation,but what's with this new trend of "accusing" people of "proselytizing"?

It isn't an 'accusation' when the description is factually accurate, and it is in this instance.

Since when has it become a crime to share one's faith?Why is it being portrayed as somehow underhanded? ::)

Who said it was a "crime"?  What religious proselytization does consist of is propaganda encouraging blind faith.  Since I oppose blind faith in any form, (religious or non-religious), I merely pointed out the evidence of proselytizing without designated it as a criminal act.  Such non-forced proselytizing, ('bible-thumping', religious 'preaching', etc.), is insidious - or "underhanded" - in that it encourages blind faith rather than a rational, reasoned approach.

Alternatively, encouraging a rational, reasoned approach does not proselytize 'logic' since logic is not a religion and encouraging another to think for themselves is directly opposite of xtian precept.

"The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of
their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science --or any honest intellectual inquiry."
-- Stephen J. Gould

"Physics isn't a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time raising money."
-- Leon Lederman
 
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: SherylsShado on June 01, 2012, 02:48:13 pm
@falcon9
     Sorry this is so "off-topic" it's unreal, but I didn't know how else to "message" you.  Since this thread was "calling on you", I decided to post here.  I would "message you through FC" but FC doesn't allow personal messages  (it results in the message "An Error Has Occurred! You are not allowed to send personal messages".). "Glitches" happen sometimes, I should be so lucky!!  ;)
    Anyway, I am cheering for you in the post-mania contest---I would enter, but I think that I will have to work at that time.  (I finished my training yesterday and am back to some sixteen hour shifts again between two jobs.)
     Good Luck (not that you need it, you're a "platinum pro")!!  :thumbsup:   
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 01, 2012, 03:06:17 pm
@falcon9
     Sorry this is so "off-topic" it's unreal, but I didn't know how else to "message" you.  Since this thread was "calling on you", I decided to post here.  

Sometimes messages in bottles do wash-up on-shore.  Although I don't perceive "waterbearer's" post as a 'calling out' to flame me or falconeer02, (or "others").

    Anyway, I am cheering for you in the post-mania contest---I would enter, but I think that I will have to work at that time.  (I finished my training yesterday and am back to some sixteen hour shifts again between two jobs.)
     Good Luck (not that you need it, you're a "platinum pro")!!  :thumbsup:   

It's a bummer that you'd have to work during Post Mania.  I did attempt to "nominate" you for it but, Kohler wants willing victims ... er, volunteers -  yeah, that's it.  Thanks for cheerleading, (will you be dressed as one too?  :o 8) )

Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: SherylsShado on June 01, 2012, 04:31:26 pm
@falcon9
     Sorry this is so "off-topic" it's unreal, but I didn't know how else to "message" you.  Since this thread was "calling on you", I decided to post here.  

[quote author=falcon9 Sometimes messages in bottles do wash-up on-shore.  Although I don't perceive "waterbearer's" post as a 'calling out' to flame me or falconeer02, (or "others").

Yes, you are special.  I only have 2 options.  :(  (Permission granted, of course...)  Sometimes messages in bottles do wash-up on shore.  Sometimes the finders are lucky in that they are able to find the person's information inside the bottle so that they can let them know where their message travelled to, but NOT always.  Sometimes all they get is the 'address of the company that made the bottle' , example "Friggin' China".  If the founder tried to return it there, all they would do is return it to "Friggin' China support" .
    Anyway, I am cheering for you in the post-mania contest---I would enter, but I think that I will have to work at that time.  (I finished my training yesterday and am back to some sixteen hour shifts again between two jobs.)
     Good Luck (not that you need it, you're a "platinum pro")!!  :thumbsup:   

Quote from: falcon9
It's a bummer that you'd have to work during Post Mania.  I did attempt to "nominate" you for it but, Kohler wants willing victims ... er, volunteers -  yeah, that's it.  Thanks for cheerleading, (will you be dressed as one too?  :o 8) )
Thanks for the nomination.  Having to deal with two jobs again is a bummer all on its own, missing post-mania just makes it worse.  Oh well...(http://dl4.glitter-graphics.net/pub/2274/2274234usdxrzsah2.gif) (http://www.glitter-graphics.com)[cheer] "Totally, for sure. I think I need a manicure.
The sun, I swear, it's bleaching out my gorgeous hair.
64, 24, I don't even know the score!
Go, go! Fight, fight!
Gee, I hope I look alright!"


Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 01, 2012, 04:44:57 pm
Yes, you are special. 

Then I'm fortunate that my parents had the foresight not to name me "Ed", nyet?

I only have 2 options.  :(  (Permission granted, of course...)  Sometimes messages in bottles do wash-up on shore.  Sometimes the finders are lucky in that they are able to find the person's information inside the bottle so that they can let them know where their message travelled to, but NOT always.  Sometimes all they get is the 'address of the company that made the bottle' , example "Friggin' China".  If the founder tried to return it there, all they would do is return it to "Friggin' China support".

Your coded response has been decrypted and understood.  Another 'bottle' will be tossed out to sea along with your 'sekret decoder ring'.

    Anyway, I am cheering for you in the post-mania contest---I would enter, but I think that I will have to work at that time.  (I finished my training yesterday and am back to some sixteen hour shifts again between two jobs.)
     Good Luck (not that you need it, you're a "platinum pro")!!  :thumbsup:   

Quote from: falcon9
It's a bummer that you'd have to work during Post Mania.  I did attempt to "nominate" you for it but, Kohler wants willing victims ... er, volunteers -  yeah, that's it.  Thanks for cheerleading, (will you be dressed as one too?  :o 8) )


Thanks for the nomination.  Having to deal with two jobs again is a bummer all on its own, missing post-mania just makes it worse.  Oh well...(http://dl4.glitter-graphics.net/pub/2274/2274234usdxrzsah2.gif) (http://www.glitter-graphics.com)[cheer]
"Totally, for sure. I think I need a manicure.
The sun, I swear, it's bleaching out my gorgeous hair.
64, 24, I don't even know the score!
Go, go! Fight, fight!
Gee, I hope I look alright!"


Thanks, that's a fun cheer, (although it may have been too much to expect such as this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEXF78SREnM

 :o :-X
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: gamerpeeps on June 01, 2012, 05:12:55 pm

Simple! We aren't scared. We don't get frightened by this mysterious universe and it's age and therefore accept the most-likely possibility that this is the only life we get. I'm extremely happy to be living in a time where we're actually shedding our ancient beliefs (slowly) and finally discovering the truths about the universe around us.  That being the case, it's best to enjoy life to the fullest and try to answer these mysteries through rational/realistic means instead of wasting it on ancient mythology and man-made gods that promote the concept of a rewarding afterlife with not one ounce of proof to give it credibility. I honestly cannot understand how anyone would favor an afterlife with a god who promotes an "OBEY ME OR SUFFER FOR ETERNITY!" philosophy rather than giving the thought that this might be their one shot at life. Respectfully perhaps you can answer that one, Waterbearer?

Well said, Falconer02! I so do agree with enjoying life to the fullest, as well as with the rest that you have said. Oftentimes I hear "god is love!" and also question how can they say that when the treat of eternal suffering is the only option in Chistendom.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 01, 2012, 05:22:01 pm
I so do agree with enjoying life to the fullest, as well as with the rest that you have said. Oftentimes I hear "god is love!" and also question how can they say that when the treat of eternal suffering is the only option in Chistendom.

"Religion is based ... mainly upon fear ... fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the
parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand . . . . My own view
on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the
human race."
-- Bertrand Russell

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are
conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do
I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls."
-- Albert Einstein
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: gamerpeeps on June 01, 2012, 05:29:18 pm

The brief 'answer' I'd theorize is 'fractal emergence', (the longer theories arise from a complex interconnected group of mathematics concerning multiple dimensions, chaos, superstring, fractal and emergence theories).  Emergence theory is technically speculative, (pends verifying evidence), but is based upon existing tangible evidence and 'mathematical proofs' to support the viability of such theories...

I'm impressed, falcon9. Are you a physicist, a fan of TED TV or simply well read? Yes, theories are speculative but are supported by evidence to start those theories on their paths. I much rather base my view points/opinions on logical theories rather than blind faith in anything.


Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 01, 2012, 05:39:58 pm

The brief 'answer' I'd theorize is 'fractal emergence', (the longer versions of the theories arise from a complex interconnected group of mathematics concerning multiple dimensions, chaos, superstring, fractal and emergence theories).  Emergence theory is technically speculative, (pends verifying evidence), but is based upon existing tangible evidence and 'mathematical proofs' to support the viability of such theories...

I'm impressed, falcon9. Are you a physicist, a fan of TED TV or simply well read?

Let's go with well-read, (since I only watch movies on TV and don't know what "TED TV" is plus, I don't really count taking college-level physics while in the 11th grade of high school after mathematically-demonstrating the the prof teaching the 101 course to students older than I was incorrect regarding singularities ... for some reason, he wasn't pleased that a 'younger' student did so).

Yes, theories are speculative but are supported by evidence to start those theories on their paths. I much rather base my view points/opinions on logical theories rather than blind faith in anything.

I'm glad at least some people can tell the difference between religious speculations based upon "faith" and rational theories based upon reason.  Realizing that fractal emergence theories are complex, it doesn't surprise me when religious adherents opt-in for a 'simplier' explanation, (the "g-ddidit" theory), which has no rational basis.

"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
Scriptures, n. The sacred books of 'our holy religion', as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based."
-- Ambrose Bierce
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: gamerpeeps on June 01, 2012, 05:57:34 pm
... HOW DO YOU THINK EXISTENCE STARTED?...  ... my main concern is something after death... like what if its really bad being trapped for eternity in your mind or consicousness or your existence never ending?

It is our nature to ask why about everything but we must also accept the possibility that we may never find all the answers to that which we seek. I'm not saying to stop questioning/discussing but worrying about it is not going to help any. One explanation about something from nothing was well presented by falcon9 and the fractal emergence theory and there are numerous religious theories. I am very interested in some of the answers you will be getting and I think there will be some good ones.  In the mean time, do enjoy life to the best of your ability.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: duroz on June 01, 2012, 06:27:45 pm
Sometimes messages in bottles do wash-up on-shore. 

I only have 2 options.  :(  (Permission granted, of course...)  Sometimes messages in bottles do wash-up on shore.  Sometimes the finders are lucky in that they are able to find the person's information inside the bottle so that they can let them know where their message travelled to, but NOT always.  Sometimes all they get is the 'address of the company that made the bottle' , example "Friggin' China".  If the founder tried to return it there, all they would do is return it to "Friggin' China support".

Oooooh......you two are being VEWY mystewious.

Your coded response has been decrypted and understood.  Another 'bottle' will be tossed out to sea along with your 'sekret decoder ring'.

(http://i.imgur.com/iB1X9.jpg)


Quote from: falcon9
  Thanks for cheerleading, (will you be dressed as one too?  :o 8) )

         (http://i.imgur.com/OltCX.jpg)       (http://i.imgur.com/EZrv2.jpg)
          ;D         :D        ;D           :D

                        (http://i.imgur.com/a9uLQ.jpg)


I'm impressed, falcon9.
As am I...... :notworthy:

I much rather base my view points/opinions on logical theories rather than blind faith in anything.
Glad to hear that someone else thinks this way.

I'm glad at least some people can tell the difference between religious speculations based upon "faith" and rational theories based upon reason. 
Again....as am I.  (Can't we clone gamerpeeps??  :dontknow: )
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: SherylsShado on June 01, 2012, 06:33:30 pm
Yes, you are special.  

Quote from: falcon9
Then I'm fortunate that my parents had the foresight not to name me "Ed", nyet?
Yes indeed... ;D

I only have 2 options.  :(  (Permission granted, of course...)  Sometimes messages in bottles do wash-up on shore.  Sometimes the finders are lucky in that they are able to find the person's information inside the bottle so that they can let them know where their message travelled to, but NOT always.  Sometimes all they get is the 'address of the company that made the bottle' , example "Friggin' China".  If the founder tried to return it there, all they would do is return it to "Friggin' China support".

Quote from: author falcon9
Your coded response has been decrypted and understood.  Another 'bottle' will be tossed out to sea along with your 'sekret decoder ring'.
Very well understood too, I might add.  I would love to know how 'she' did what I can't.  I mean, I did a few times (exactly as you had once described).  It all ended as quickly as it began.  (It was the old "you-can-have-it, no-you-can't" trick).  It ended for once, it ended for all.  Perhaps you're just "blessed"...lol

 
   Anyway, I am cheering for you in the post-mania contest---I would enter, but I think that I will have to work at that time.  (I finished my training yesterday and am back to some sixteen hour shifts again between two jobs.)
     Good Luck (not that you need it, you're a "platinum pro")!!  :thumbsup:    

Quote from: falcon9
It's a bummer that you'd have to work during Post Mania.  I did attempt to "nominate" you for it but, Kohler wants willing victims ... er, volunteers -  yeah, that's it.  Thanks for cheerleading, (will you be dressed as one too?  :o 8) )


Thanks for the nomination.  Having to deal with two jobs again is a bummer all on its own, missing post-mania just makes it worse.  Oh well...(http://dl4.glitter-graphics.net/pub/2274/2274234usdxrzsah2.gif) (http://www.glitter-graphics.com)[cheer]
"Totally, for sure. I think I need a manicure.
The sun, I swear, it's bleaching out my gorgeous hair.
64, 24, I don't even know the score!
Go, go! Fight, fight!
Gee, I hope I look alright!"


Quote from: falcon9
Thanks, that's a fun cheer, (although it may have been too much to expect such as this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEXF78SREnM

 :o :-X
Yes, well... :o
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: duroz on June 01, 2012, 06:38:45 pm
SherylsShado....
that's a very cute baby face you have for your avatar

(sorry....WAY off topic, I know)
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: SherylsShado on June 01, 2012, 06:43:32 pm
SherylsShado....
that's a very cute baby face you have for your avatar

(sorry....WAY off topic, I know)

Thanks, it's not one of my cats but...I can wish   :) 
Way off topic?  (That's where I spend alot of time... ;D)
Speaking of "off topic", where have you been????  The forums just aren't the same without you (in other words, I missed you!!  :) )
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 01, 2012, 06:44:40 pm
Oooooh......you two are being VEWY mystewious.

Not really, since you're in on it too.  ;->

Your coded response has been decrypted and understood.  Another 'bottle' will be tossed out to sea along with your 'sekret decoder ring'.

(http://i.imgur.com/iB1X9.jpg)
[/quote]

Something like that or, this ...

(http://i50.tinypic.com/68991j.jpg)


Quote from: falcon9
 Thanks for cheerleading, (will you be dressed as one too?  :o 8) )


         (http://i.imgur.com/OltCX.jpg)       (http://i.imgur.com/EZrv2.jpg)
          ;D         :D        ;D           :D

                        (http://i.imgur.com/a9uLQ.jpg)

If that's you, it's my turn to be impressed.   :male:


I'm impressed, falcon9.
As am I...... :notworthy:

I much rather base my view points/opinions on logical theories rather than blind faith in anything.
Glad to hear that someone else thinks this way.

I'm glad at least some people can tell the difference between religious speculations based upon "faith" and rational theories based upon reason.  

Again....as am I.  (Can't we clone gamerpeeps??  :dontknow: )

You may have illuminated the central reason why human cloning isn't currently legal, (notwithstanding 'someone' who'd want, say, a cheerleading squad cloned ... for instance).
 :-X  :angel12:
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 01, 2012, 06:50:07 pm
Yes, you are special.  

Quote from: falcon9
Then I'm fortunate that my parents had the foresight not to name me "Ed", nyet?

Yes indeed... ;D

Quote from: author falcon9
Your coded response has been decrypted and understood.  Another 'bottle' will be tossed out to sea along with your 'sekret decoder ring'.

Very well understood too, I might add.  I would love to know how 'she' did what I can't.  I mean, I did a few times (exactly as you had once described).  It all ended as quickly as it began.  (It was the old "you-can-have-it, no-you-can't" trick).  It ended for once, it ended for all.  Perhaps you're just "blessed"...lol

Perhaps someone needs to lay off the 'intercessory magical rituals' which may or may not be infusing any other hypothetical 'magical rituals' too,
(just speculating ...)

   Anyway, I am cheering for you in the post-mania contest---
    Good Luck (not that you need it, you're a "platinum pro")!!  :thumbsup:    

Quote from: falcon9
Thanks for cheerleading, (will you be dressed as one too?  :o 8) )


Thanks for the nomination.  
url=http://www.glitter-graphics.com](http://dl4.glitter-graphics.net/pub/2274/2274234usdxrzsah2.gif)[/url][cheer]
"Totally, for sure. I think I need a manicure.
The sun, I swear, it's bleaching out my gorgeous hair.
64, 24, I don't even know the score!
Go, go! Fight, fight!
Gee, I hope I look alright!"


Quote from: falcon9
Thanks, that's a fun cheer, (although it may have been too much to expect such as this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEXF78SREnM

 :o :-X

Yes, well... :o

Pretty close or, miles away? 
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: SherylsShado on June 01, 2012, 07:08:17 pm
Quote from:  falcon9
Perhaps someone needs to lay off the 'intercessory magical rituals' which may or may not be infusing any other hypothetical 'magical rituals' too,
(just speculating ...)

I would have to think that if anyone is doing any 'intercessory magical rituals', it would have to be you since you have accomplished what I bet most others can't.  ;D  "Hypothetical 'magical rituals'"?   I was just kidding you since you have something that I don't, so I said you were "blessed".  Perhaps I should have said you were "lucky" instead...however, I don't believe in 'luck'.

Quote from: falcon9
Pretty close or, miles away? 
Are you kidding me?  Miles and miles and more miles than that away... in fact, "somewhere OVER the rainbow..."
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 01, 2012, 07:25:12 pm
I would have to think that if anyone is doing any 'intercessory magical rituals', it would have to be you since you have accomplished what I bet most others can't.  ;D  "Hypothetical 'magical rituals'"?   I was just kidding you since you have something that I don't, so I said you were "blessed".  

Presumably, we each have somethings the other does not, (especially if you're a woman and I'm not ...).

Perhaps I should have said you were "lucky" instead...however, I don't believe in 'luck'.

Neither do I however, there is a theory of 'fortuitous coincidence' ... *chuckle*

Quote from: falcon9
Pretty close or, miles away?  

Are you kidding me?  Miles and miles and more miles than that away... in fact, "somewhere OVER the rainbow..."

Pretend that someone caught you 'bathing' and use this as your avatar?
(http://i45.tinypic.com/ohl2et.png)
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: duroz on June 01, 2012, 07:27:55 pm
Pretend that someone caught you 'bathing' and use this as your avatar?
(http://i45.tinypic.com/ohl2et.png)


(http://i.imgur.com/a9uLQ.jpg)

I'm not sure......but I think my smokin' baby avatar is smokin' faster...... :confused1:
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: SherylsShado on June 01, 2012, 07:34:19 pm
Pretend that someone caught you 'bathing' and use this as your avatar?
(http://i45.tinypic.com/ohl2et.png)


(http://i.imgur.com/a9uLQ.jpg)

I'm not sure......but I think my smokin' baby avatar is smokin' faster...... :confused1:

LOL, yep...I think so too!  ;D
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 01, 2012, 07:38:56 pm
Pretend that someone caught you 'bathing' and use this as your avatar?
(http://i45.tinypic.com/ohl2et.png)

I'm not sure......but I think my smokin' baby avatar is smokin' faster...... :confused1:

That desert 'babe' is "smokin'" but, doesn't hold a candle to my gf, (although she likes candles around the tub when she soaks).

(http://i49.tinypic.com/4i0nm9.gif)

[that's not her]  :-X
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 01, 2012, 07:41:12 pm
(http://i45.tinypic.com/ohl2et.png)

I'm not sure......but I think my smokin' baby avatar is smokin' faster...... :confused1:

LOL, yep...I think so too!  ;D

I'd offer you a towel after you're done tubbing but, all I have is this small hankie ... here.
 :o
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: SherylsShado on June 01, 2012, 07:49:42 pm
So..."riddle me this"...
An "envelope" I have not, nor any "bubbles"...
I have a flag, and a person...
and a message from an envelope 'within a message':
 Could not perform this operation because the default mail client is not properly installed.  :dontknow:
 
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 01, 2012, 07:56:39 pm
So..."riddle me this"...
An "envelope" I have not, nor any "bubbles"...
I have a flag, and a person...
and a message from an envelope 'within a message':
Could not perform this operation because the default mail client is not properly installed.  :dontknow:

Sounds like a 'purloined letter' alright.

I don't know what mail client you're using, (for instance, if you're on a Mac or different PC OS, it may not be configured for that option).
The solution to your riddle is that you cannot perform this operation unless your mail client is changed, (not male client, although that might be more amusing for you).
 :-X
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: lbryanwf on June 01, 2012, 08:37:25 pm
I am up in the air about all of that, but I do believe in God, I pray, and I am a believer that there is someone in the universe that is a power greater than myself. I struggle with wondering how all the life forms, so perfectly formed, so  built for survival, so functional could all have appeared so randomly. I do lean toward all of this being a grand design of some sort. If we evolved from apes, what did a ladybug evolve from? It is a conundrum.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: SherylsShado on June 01, 2012, 08:44:43 pm
@falcon9,
Haven't "thrown in the , towel yet".  Will work more on the situation tomorrow.  I have to be at work early tomorrow so have to get some zzz's.  Have a great night, you too duroz!!
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 02, 2012, 12:40:17 am
I am a believer that there is someone in the universe that is a power greater than myself.

Yet, there is no valid evidence to support such a belief therefore, it remains an unsupported opinion.

I struggle with wondering how all the life forms, so perfectly formed, so  built for survival, so functional could all have appeared so randomly.

Again, there is zero evidence to support the creationism hypothesis that life 'appeared' fully-formed etc., whereas a theory that lifeforms evolved and adapted to their environments has at least more plausible than "g-ddidit".

I do lean toward all of this being a grand design of some sort. If we evolved from apes, what did a ladybug evolve from? It is a conundrum.

Such argument are based in superstitous beliefs, not evidence or reasoning.  The only "conundrum" extant is the continued presentation of this 'false argument' in lieu of logical rebuttal.  There's nothing that forces anyone to put forth either illogical or, logical arguments however, this misses the more subtle meta-argument's basis.  That concept has been right here all along, visible to any who aren't self-blinded to discern, (intangible concepts are a different tangential discussion, however).

"If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call in question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it - the life of that man is one long 'sin' against mankind."
-- William Clifford
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 02, 2012, 12:46:36 am
@falcon9,
Haven't "thrown in the , towel yet".  Will work more on the situation tomorrow.  I have to be at work early tomorrow so have to get some zzz's.  Have a great night, you too duroz!!

Okay.  I may have a suggestion or two, depending upon which OS you're using.  Have a day tomorrow.

(http://i48.tinypic.com/2l8uhhk.png)
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: queenofnines on June 02, 2012, 10:26:47 am
HOW DO YOU THINK EXISTENCE STARTED?

ZzzzzZz...really, this one again?

Quote
i don't understand how something could come out of nothing

Something didn't come out of nothing if we're tracing back to the Big Bang.  Your confusion stems from the fact that you are clearly not educated on this matter.  There was a singularity that contained all of the matter of the universe at the time of the Big Bang.  That sure ain't "nothing"!

Quote
or how a god could just be there

Exactly.  Kudos to you for realizing the double standard religious people have when it comes to this issue.  It's okay for god to have always existed, but not some form of universe(s)?!  And all of the evidence lies with the latter as actually being plausible...

Quote
i've heard that ppl can come from the stars like the stars contain the elements of life

There's not much difference between you and the desk in front of you; it's just a different configuration of atoms!  And yes, you "share" atoms with the stars, dinosaur poop, Hitler...when you die, the atoms that made you up don't.

"Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today." - Lawrence Krauss

Quote
in the nothingness how could the conditions become right for life...

1. We've established that the term "nothingness" is a fallacy.  2. Do you really think that out of BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of galaxies, none would be hospitable for life?  It may be a "small world", but it's NOT a "small universe", after all!

Quote
how he can send ppl to hell for eternity if the world is just made up by him seems too harsh for a pointless made up world...

Never forget this.  Anyone who gives a few moments of thought to the whole "hell" bit will ultimately come away repulsed by religion.

Quote
like culdnt god have made himself nonexistent if he was just there so nothing had to exist and possibly suffer?

You're forgetting that the Christian god is a  d i c k  who breaks all sorts of rules of logic, so no.  (But really, yes: http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm)

Quote
like what if its really bad being trapped for eternity in your mind or consicousness or your existence never ending?

Uh, yeah, it would be.  NEVER getting to die?  Now that's "hell"...unless your lord offers lobotomies.

Quote
HOW CAN YOU BE CONFIDENT YOU JUST DIE AND DONT GO ANYWHERE? please help

Because as dear ol' Mark Twain once said: "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: duroz on June 02, 2012, 10:52:44 am

I'd offer you a towel after you're done tubbing but, all I have is this small hankie ... here. :o

                (http://i.imgur.com/a9uLQ.jpg)


Now I am SURE my smokin' baby avatar is smokin' faster......
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: duroz on June 02, 2012, 10:53:03 am
So..."riddle me this"...
An "envelope" I have not, nor any "bubbles"...
I have a flag, and a person...
and a message from an envelope 'within a message':

I know I said this before.....but
(http://i.imgur.com/QkNEX.jpg)    NOW you two are REALLY sounding VEWY mystewious.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: JediJohnnie on June 02, 2012, 12:16:46 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/95j0l.jpg)

That about says it all. ;D
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 02, 2012, 01:22:38 pm
That about says it all. ;D

Only if the one saying "that" is woefully bereft of reasoning skills and relies upon specious beliefs in lieu of rational thought.

"The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science --or any honest intellectual inquiry."
-- Stephen J. Gould

"Physics isn't a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time raising money."
-- Leon Lederman
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 02, 2012, 01:41:31 pm
You're insights have been missed, QoN.

HOW DO YOU THINK EXISTENCE STARTED?

ZzzzzZz...really, this one again?
Quote

It does seem to be a cyclic, steady-state question however, this time a 'simple' fractal/multi-dimensional/chaos/superstring/emergence theory was introduced to counter dubious "intelligent-design" speculations.

i don't understand how something could come out of nothing ...

Something didn't come out of nothing if we're tracing back to the Big Bang.  Your confusion stems from the fact that you are clearly not educated on this matter.  There was a singularity that contained all of the matter of the universe at the time of the Big Bang.  That sure ain't "nothing"!
Quote

Presumably, the counter is that such begs the question of where the singularity came from; which brings us back to fractal/multi-dimensional/chaos/superstring/emergence theories and cyclic multi-verses.

...or how a god could just be there

Exactly.  Kudos to you for realizing the double standard religious people have when it comes to this issue.  It's okay for god to have always existed, but not some form of universe(s)?!  And all of the evidence lies with the latter as actually being plausible...
Quote

i've heard that ppl can come from the stars like the stars contain the elements of life ...

There's not much difference between you and the desk in front of you; it's just a different configuration of atoms!  And yes, you "share" atoms with the stars, dinosaur poop, Hitler...when you die, the atoms that made you up don't.

"Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today." - Lawrence Krauss
Quote

...in the nothingness how could the conditions become right for life...

1. We've established that the term "nothingness" is a fallacy.  2. Do you really think that out of BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of galaxies, none would be hospitable for life?  It may be a "small world", but it's NOT a "small universe", after all!
Quote

how he can send ppl to hell for eternity if the world is just made up by him seems too harsh for a pointless made up world...

Never forget this.  Anyone who gives a few moments of thought to the whole "hell" bit will ultimately come away repulsed by religion.
Quote

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty humans, and then
blames them for his own mistakes."
-- Gene Roddenberry

like culdnt god have made himself nonexistent if he was just there so nothing had to exist and possibly suffer?

You're forgetting that the Christian god is a  d i c k  who breaks all sorts of rules of logic, so no.  (But really, yes: http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm)
Quote

...like what if its really bad being trapped for eternity in your mind or consicousness or your existence never ending?

Uh, yeah, it would be.  NEVER getting to die?  Now that's "hell"...unless your lord offers lobotomies.
Quote

HOW CAN YOU BE CONFIDENT YOU JUST DIE AND DONT GO ANYWHERE? please help

Because as dear ol' Mark Twain once said: "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."   :thumbsup:

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
-- Mark Twain
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Falconer02 on June 02, 2012, 02:40:51 pm
Quote
That about says it all.

(http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/6/5319/Stupidism.jpg)

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3410/3188065543_593daf53dc.jpg)

Perhaps you should learn more about something before posting uninformed nonsense.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 02, 2012, 02:48:34 pm
That about says it all.

(http://i47.tinypic.com/2u63dkn.jpg)

Quote
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3410/3188065543_593daf53dc.jpg

Perhaps you should learn more about something before posting nonsense, christian.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 02, 2012, 04:07:52 pm
my big question QoN is that if we came from the singularity or what you are talking about... then where did that singularity come from? how could a singularity just be there?

That question was anticipated when I posted, 'Presumably, the counter is that such begs the question of where the singularity came from; which brings us back to fractal/multi-dimensional/chaos/superstring/emergence theories and cyclic multi-verses.'

"While speaking of origin of universe scientists believe that in the beginning there was nothing. Not even space existed. What existed was singularity with zero dimensions. What existed before that singularity is not at all known. Please note that no body knows what existed before singularity."

This is one of those "meta-questions"; 'how did the beginning begin?' However, positing a "super-singularity" is not equivalent to positing that
"g-ddidit", (unless one is redefining such a singularity as "g-d"), due to the fact that other singularities have been directly-observed and there's no similar tangible evidence that "g-d" has been observed.

Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 02, 2012, 04:24:57 pm
its like a never ending arguement it seems...

Until there's conclusive evidence, one way or the other, the debate will continue.

what could we do?
if its a singularity and before that something, maybe a god could of made that singularity but why would the god just be there...

There's no conclusive evidence to support speculations that "g-ddidit".  Conversely, there is conclusive evidence that singularities exist.

dang that sucks... i sure hope when i die nothing bad happens... i wish everything would just go away and then itd be okay but i would want everyone not to suffer ah
it seems its an open choice but either choice doesnt seem favorable... i just wish everyone had the choice not to exist!

Nihilism: it's not just for breakfast anymore?

"Physics isn't a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time raising money."
-- Leon Lederman
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: queenofnines on June 03, 2012, 03:18:06 pm
(http://exchristian.net/exchristian/uploaded_images/Religion_is_stupid5-749622.jpg)

Our stereotypical atheist poster makes more sense than your ridiculous Christian one...

You're insights have been missed, QoN.

Why, thank you.  I have to refrain from having them eat up too much of my time.  ;)

if its a singularity and before that something, maybe a god could of made that singularity but why would the god just be there...

I do think it's possible for the ingredients of universes to have always been around.  It's not that hard to wrap your brain around.  Whether they have always been around or not, it's not really important, in my opinion.  It doesn't change anything one way or another...you're still going to live a finite existence whether you know the answer to this question or not.  I think people who ask these questions are distracting from the real issue: that they're fearful regarding their own mortality.

Quote
i wish everything would just go away and then itd be okay but i would want everyone not to suffer ah

Well you're in luck, because all signs point to that being exactly what will happen (the "just going away" part).  Don't let religious loonies scare you with their hell crap.  It's downright shameful of them.

Quote
it seems its an open choice but either choice doesnt seem favorable... i just wish everyone had the choice not to exist!

There is no "choice" when you die.  We will all be gone forever.  I don't think it's scary ‐ just sad.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 03, 2012, 03:31:23 pm
(http://exchristian.net/exchristian/uploaded_images/Religion_is_stupid5-749622.jpg)

Our stereotypical atheist poster makes more sense than your ridiculous Christian one...

Stereotypical - do you mean a falconeer or, a falcon? *chuckle*

You're insights have been missed, QoN.

Why, thank you.  I have to refrain from having them eat up too much of my time.  ;)

That makes sense, (although I may have figured you two merely took a vacation).

if its a singularity and before that something, maybe a god could of made that singularity but why would the god just be there...

I do think it's possible for the ingredients of universes to have always been around.  It's not that hard to wrap your brain around.  Whether they have always been around or not, it's not really important, in my opinion.  It doesn't change anything one way or another...you're still going to live a finite existence whether you know the answer to this question or not.  I think people who ask these questions are distracting from the real issue: that they're fearful regarding their own mortality.

Quote
i wish everything would just go away and then itd be okay but i would want everyone not to suffer ah

Well you're in luck, because all signs point to that being exactly what will happen (the "just going away" part).  Don't let religious loonies scare you with their hell crap.  It's downright shameful of them.

The underLying concept of such religious proselytizations either doesn't make sense, (because it's basis is "belief/faith", which has no basis) or, is insidious, (because the purveyors of such proselytizations either intend to 'scare victims into believing' or, are attempting to 'feed a daemon they've misidentified as a benevolent g-d').

Quote
it seems its an open choice but either choice doesnt seem favorable... i just wish everyone had the choice not to exist!

There is no "choice" when you die.  We will all be gone forever.  I don't think it's scary ‐ just sad.

Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: queenofnines on June 04, 2012, 10:18:10 am
it seems like the bible hasn't been proven false and neither have the theories of the universe starting on its on... seems like its open to decide...

Check out the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) for lists of hundreds of different contradictions and absurdities found in the Bible.  Sure, you could still go on believing it, but it wouldn't be very wise to do so.  The difference between a believer and a nonbeliever boils down to critical thinking skills.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Abrupt on June 04, 2012, 11:58:37 am
it seems like the bible hasn't been proven false and neither have the theories of the universe starting on its on... seems like its open to decide...

Check out the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) for lists of hundreds of different contradictions and absurdities found in the Bible.  Sure, you could still go on believing it, but it wouldn't be very wise to do so.  The difference between a believer and a nonbeliever boils down to critical thinking skills.

These "contradictions and absurdities" are drawn from ignorance and a lack of understanding.  It doesn't even seem that the most simple inclusions of any concordance or lexicon were even attempted.

Why wouldn't it be wise?

I am a believer and I have superior critical thinking skills (compared to most), so am I to assume you are suggesting what I know you are not?
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 04, 2012, 01:46:03 pm
it seems like the bible hasn't been proven false and neither have the theories of the universe starting on its on... seems like its open to decide...

Check out the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) for lists of hundreds of different contradictions and absurdities found in the Bible.  Sure, you could still go on believing it, but it wouldn't be very wise to do so.  The difference between a believer and a nonbeliever boils down to critical thinking skills.

These "contradictions and absurdities" are drawn from ignorance and a lack of understanding.

Are you implicitly suggesting that intelligent non-believers who read the same contradictory and absurd religious material that believers do are somehow more 'ignorant' and lack the ability to 'understand' than your average 'thumper?  That unwarranted assumption notwithstanding, QoN's response to the OP was in reply to this:
it seems like the bible hasn't been proven false and neither have the theories of the universe starting on its on... seems like its open to decide...

As you are already aware that proving/disproving a negative assertions, (e.g., "prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist"), is a logical fallacy, no doubt that was quickly ignored in order to assert an ignorance/misunderstanding claim without evidence. Surely this wasn't done as a diversionary tactic of debate and that contextual aspect will soon be addressed by your arguments before tangential lexicons and such?

I am a believer and I have superior critical thinking skills (compared to most), so am I to assume you are suggesting what I know you are not?

Any inherent self-conceits of yours aside, if you do possess "superior critical thinking skills (compared to most)", why were these not applied to the glaringly-obvious logical fallacy which sparked QoN's reply?  Surely such "critical thinking  skills" are not 'selectively-applied' to everything except your own religious beliefs?

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Abrupt on June 04, 2012, 02:53:09 pm
These "contradictions and absurdities" are drawn from ignorance and a lack of understanding.

Are you implicitly suggesting that intelligent non-believers who read the same contradictory and absurd religious material that believers do are somehow more 'ignorant' and lack the ability to 'understand' than your average 'thumper?  That unwarranted assumption notwithstanding, QoN's response to the OP was in reply to this:
it seems like the bible hasn't been proven false and neither have the theories of the universe starting on its on... seems like its open to decide...

No.  I am saying that the link she referenced and it's conclusions are drawn out of an ignorance and lack of understanding.  When dealing with translations of texts it is minimal to at least use a concordance when studying the subject.  If one hasn't even taken that step then to draw conclusions about the subject is entirely ignorant.  The meanings of words often change over time (sometimes to even stray into nothing like they originally were:  e.g. "liberal" and "regulate").  Sometimes phrases and sayings of a time have particular relevance to something common, but when viewed from across the ages this meaning is lost and all you have left is an odd saying or phrase.

I am a believer and I have superior critical thinking skills (compared to most), so am I to assume you are suggesting what I know you are not?

Any inherent self-conceits of yours aside, if you do possess "superior critical thinking skills (compared to most)", why were these not applied to the glaringly-obvious logical fallacy which sparked QoN's reply?  Surely such "critical thinking  skills" are not 'selectively-applied' to everything except your own religious beliefs?

Well what I posed was my best version of a humorous conundrum and its construction was entirely deliberate.  Possibly I do not posses the sort of witty humor I wished to display, but my conceit does prevent me from dismissing such a possibility entirely as I gaze upon the classic lines of my pose.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 04, 2012, 03:07:12 pm
These "contradictions and absurdities" are drawn from ignorance and a lack of understanding.

Are you implicitly suggesting that intelligent non-believers who read the same contradictory and absurd religious material that believers do are somehow more 'ignorant' and lack the ability to 'understand' than your average 'thumper?  That unwarranted assumption notwithstanding, QoN's response to the OP was in reply to this:
it seems like the bible hasn't been proven false and neither have the theories of the universe starting on its on... seems like its open to decide...

No.  I am saying that the link she referenced and it's conclusions are drawn out of an ignorance and lack of understanding.  When dealing with translations of texts it is minimal to at least use a concordance when studying the subject.  If one hasn't even taken that step then to draw conclusions about the subject is entirely ignorant.  The meanings of words often change over time (sometimes to even stray into nothing like they originally were:  e.g. "liberal" and "regulate").  Sometimes phrases and sayings of a time have particular relevance to something common, but when viewed from across the ages this meaning is lost and all you have left is an odd saying or phrase.

That's a tangential argument to which QoN may or may not elect to reply. My only comment on it for now is that your remarks contain the inherent assumption that some others are not aware that the meanings of words can change over time or, that even with many of those changes that QoN's point regarding underlying inconsistancies, absurdities and contractions remains valid, (even taking a concordance lexicon into account).

I am a believer and I have superior critical thinking skills (compared to most), so am I to assume you are suggesting what I know you are not?

Any inherent self-conceits of yours aside, if you do possess "superior critical thinking skills (compared to most)", why were these not applied to the glaringly-obvious logical fallacy which sparked QoN's reply?  Surely such "critical thinking  skills" are not 'selectively-applied' to everything except your own religious beliefs?

Well what I posed was my best version of a humorous conundrum and its construction was entirely deliberate.  Possibly I do not posses the sort of witty humor I wished to display, but my conceit does prevent me from dismissing such a possibility entirely as I gaze upon the classic lines of my pose.

So, it is but a side-stepping of the logical fallacy white elephant.  I see however, your statement that "I am a believer and I have superior critical thinking skills ..." contains another logical fallacy; internal inconsistency.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Abrupt on June 04, 2012, 03:48:01 pm
These "contradictions and absurdities" are drawn from ignorance and a lack of understanding.

Are you implicitly suggesting that intelligent non-believers who read the same contradictory and absurd religious material that believers do are somehow more 'ignorant' and lack the ability to 'understand' than your average 'thumper?  That unwarranted assumption notwithstanding, QoN's response to the OP was in reply to this:
it seems like the bible hasn't been proven false and neither have the theories of the universe starting on its on... seems like its open to decide...

No.  I am saying that the link she referenced and it's conclusions are drawn out of an ignorance and lack of understanding.  When dealing with translations of texts it is minimal to at least use a concordance when studying the subject.  If one hasn't even taken that step then to draw conclusions about the subject is entirely ignorant.  The meanings of words often change over time (sometimes to even stray into nothing like they originally were:  e.g. "liberal" and "regulate").  Sometimes phrases and sayings of a time have particular relevance to something common, but when viewed from across the ages this meaning is lost and all you have left is an odd saying or phrase.

That's a tangential argument to which QoN may or may not elect to reply. My only comment on it for now is that your remarks contain the inherent assumption that some others are not aware that the meanings of words can change over time or, that even with many of those changes that QoN's point regarding underlying inconsistancies, absurdities and contractions remains valid, (even taking a concordance lexicon into account).

They are either aware and deliberately being dishonest or they are unaware and ignorant or they are lazy and deliberately being ignorant.  I don't care to speculate, but after viewing the effort that some put in to discredit so much I am often left wondering. 

I am a believer and I have superior critical thinking skills (compared to most), so am I to assume you are suggesting what I know you are not?

Any inherent self-conceits of yours aside, if you do possess "superior critical thinking skills (compared to most)", why were these not applied to the glaringly-obvious logical fallacy which sparked QoN's reply?  Surely such "critical thinking  skills" are not 'selectively-applied' to everything except your own religious beliefs?

Well what I posed was my best version of a humorous conundrum and its construction was entirely deliberate.  Possibly I do not posses the sort of witty humor I wished to display, but my conceit does prevent me from dismissing such a possibility entirely as I gaze upon the classic lines of my pose.

So, it is but a side-stepping of the logical fallacy white elephant.  I see however, your statement that "I am a believer and I have superior critical thinking skills ..." contains another logical fallacy; internal inconsistency.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

There is no side stepping involved.  I presented exactly what I wanted to exactly how I wanted to.  The puzzle is left to the reader.  Prove this internal inconsistency you speak of as I am curious to see it, because the only construct that seems available is mutual exclusion or contradictory claims.  Mutual exclusion is easily dismissed and contradiction would would be impossible to prove even if it were true and speculated.  Of course you could mean something else, but your post makes me think it is something that should be obvious and I don't see anything else (but I didn't see that squirrel I ran over today either -- no really I didn't see it I just happened to swerve that way at the time).
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 04, 2012, 04:08:39 pm
There is no side stepping involved.  I presented exactly what I wanted to exactly how I wanted to.  The puzzle is left to the reader. Prove this internal inconsistency you speak of as I am curious to see it ...

There isn't much to a "puzzle" which involves an attempt to divert attention away from the facts.  Those facts consist of your assertion to be both "a believer", (xtian), and to "have superior critical thinking skills". That assertion isn't being contending, (much). What is being contended
is an inherent implication that any such critical thinking skills are being fully-applied to those religious beliefs.  That contention includes a somewhat 'selective' application of critical thinking when it comes to such challenges to the basis of belief/faith being that for which there is no evidence.  Critical thinking would require that accurately attributible evidence support a contention, otherwise the logical conclusion is that the questionable contention of belief-without-evidence, (the basis - not the declaration), is specious.

... because the only construct that seems available is mutual exclusion or contradictory claims.  Mutual exclusion is easily dismissed ...

The inherent implication, (that "superior critical thinking skills" are being applied to religious belief), is not so easily dismissed, as previously iterated.
 
...and contradiction would would be impossible to prove even if it were true and speculated.  

The implicit contradiction is that, if critical thinking skills are not being applied to "belief", then the claims are contradictory.

Of course you could mean something else, but your post makes me think it is something that should be obvious and I don't see anything else (but I didn't see that squirrel I ran over today either -- no really I didn't see it I just happened to swerve that way at the time).

Metaphorically, that squirrel may be said to represent self-declared "superior critical thinking skills" and hubris, (literally, it represented an bad day for the squirrel).

“Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense.”
-- Voltaire


Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Abrupt on June 04, 2012, 09:04:26 pm
There is no side stepping involved.  I presented exactly what I wanted to exactly how I wanted to.  The puzzle is left to the reader. Prove this internal inconsistency you speak of as I am curious to see it ...

There isn't much to a "puzzle" which involves an attempt to divert attention away from the facts.  Those facts consist of your assertion to be both "a believer", (xtian), and to "have superior critical thinking skills". That assertion isn't being contending, (much). What is being contended
is an inherent implication that any such critical thinking skills are being fully-applied to those religious beliefs.  That contention includes a somewhat 'selective' application of critical thinking when it comes to such challenges to the basis of belief/faith being that for which there is no evidence.  Critical thinking would require that accurately attributible evidence support a contention, otherwise the logical conclusion is that the questionable contention of belief-without-evidence, (the basis - not the declaration), is specious.

Well the puzzle was meant in reference to my other statement (my attempt at a humorous conundrum).  I didn't exactly imply that my critical thinking capabilities were applied to my belief.  I know it was implied earlier by QoN that they were somehow incongruous in the same person.  To a simple thinker, that might be a conclusion that would come to regarding belief, but it would also apply to a multitude of other things such as any emotion and especially declarations of love.  Would QoN or you be lying to someone if you stated your love for them?  After all such a thing is completely impossible to prove and the implications of its substance are entirely irrational.  You know very well that there are other ways to puzzle solutions when certain data is limited or unknown and deduction is one of these methods.  To this day I question certain aspects and I try to find answers and develop an understanding regarding my belief.  I would share the most puzzling parts I have, but I know that would be foolish to do here. 

... because the only construct that seems available is mutual exclusion or contradictory claims.  Mutual exclusion is easily dismissed ...

The inherent implication, (that "superior critical thinking skills" are being applied to religious belief), is not so easily dismissed, as previously iterated.
 
...and contradiction would would be impossible to prove even if it were true and speculated.  

The implicit contradiction is that, if critical thinking skills are not being applied to "belief", then the claims are contradictory.

I found it quite easily dismissed actually.  Realize, though, your supposition is flawed as the original contention it is derived from is that critical thinking skills are 'missing' or maybe 'flawed' in those who believe, and not any direct application to the belief in particular.  Regardless I gave indication that I do apply it to my belief and I also cited a critical thinking skill that can solve for the unknown indirectly.  Even if they were not applied to the belief, the statement wouldn't be contradictory.  The logical error here is that you are making a connection between critical thinking and belief where no such connection was ever directly indicated. 

Of course you could mean something else, but your post makes me think it is something that should be obvious and I don't see anything else (but I didn't see that squirrel I ran over today either -- no really I didn't see it I just happened to swerve that way at the time).

Metaphorically, that squirrel may be said to represent self-declared "superior critical thinking skills" and hubris, (literally, it represented an bad day for the squirrel).

“Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense.”
-- Voltaire

No, it was just a squirrel and now it is a spot, although it was indeed a terrible day for the squirrel.  I haven't salvaged a peach off my trees in years because of these clever thieves.  Now my garden is also at risk it seems.  I have tried owl and snake decoys, water bowls strategically placed for them, fencing and netting.  The only thing I haven't used is fox urine (too many dogs around my parts and here animals are kept free to do that) or bagging each cluster (might try that next year as it is too late this year).  In addition it seems that every woodpecker and bluejay and martin within 20 miles of me knows of the 'free meal' (I will not go offensive on the birds though so I have to try moving the owl decoy about a couple times a day I suppose).
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 05, 2012, 01:30:23 am
I didn't exactly imply that my critical thinking capabilities were applied to my belief.  I know it was implied earlier by QoN that they were somehow incongruous in the same person.
 

... because the only construct that seems available is mutual exclusion or contradictory claims.  Mutual exclusion is easily dismissed ...

The inherent implication, (that "superior critical thinking skills" are being applied to religious belief), is not so easily dismissed, as previously iterated.

????????????
 
...and contradiction would would be impossible to prove even if it were true and speculated.  

The implicit contradiction is that, if critical thinking skills are not being applied to "belief", then the claims are contradictory.

I found it quite easily dismissed actually.

Of course you did; after all, they contradict your contentions, however easily you may find your contrary contentions to dismiss, others do not, (because they aren't applied bias self-interest to your asserted contention).

Realize, though, your supposition is flawed as the original contention it is derived from is that critical thinking skills are 'missing' or maybe 'flawed' in those who believe, and not any direct application to the belief in particular.  

The supposition was unflawed due to the inherent inclusion of it's opposite; that, if critical thinking skills are being applied to religious
beliefs, (that is, satisfying such burden of proof requirements for claims made resulting from those religious beliefs), the the claimed "superior critical thinking skills" are flawed/missing in that regard.

Regardless I gave indication that I do apply it to my belief and I also cited a critical thinking skill that can solve for the unknown indirectly.  Even if they were not applied to the belief, the statement wouldn't be contradictory.  The logical error here is that you are making a connection between critical thinking and belief where no such connection was ever directly indicated.

The "logical error" you're looking for lies within the two contrary, (and therefore, mutually-exclusive), assertions you just made, above.  Specifically, that "... I gave indication that I do apply it to my belief ..." and you thereby " ... making a connection between critical thinking and belief where no such connection was ever directly indicated" and "I didn't exactly imply that my critical thinking capabilities were applied to my belief ...".  As you can see from your own statements within this post, you first indicated that you applied critical thinking to your belief, followed that with a statement that there was no such connection being made as to that application and then contradicted yourself by asserted that you didn't "imply" what you'd just asserted.

On my planet, (which is earth - contrary to any speculations that it may be "Vulcan"), that sort of thing constitutes both an irrational/illogical position and an inability to apply critical thinking skills, (despite unsupported claims to the the contrary).  Unless you're an alien precurser to invasion from the planet "Contrarian", your contentions practically refute themselves.  Now we shall apparently speak more of squirrels and sealing wax and sailing ships ...

I didn't see that squirrel I ran over today either -- no really I didn't see it I just happened to swerve that way at the time ...

Metaphorically, that squirrel may be said to represent self-declared "superior critical thinking skills" and hubris, (literally, it represented an bad day for the squirrel).

“Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense.”
-- Voltaire

No, it was just a squirrel and now it is a spot, although it was indeed a terrible day for the squirrel.  I haven't salvaged a peach off my trees in years because of these clever thieves.  Now my garden is also at risk it seems.  I have tried owl and snake decoys, water bowls strategically placed for them, fencing and netting.  The only thing I haven't used is fox urine (too many dogs around my parts and here animals are kept free to do that) or bagging each cluster (might try that next year as it is too late this year).  In addition it seems that every woodpecker and bluejay and martin within 20 miles of me knows of the 'free meal' (I will not go offensive on the birds though so I have to try moving the owl decoy about a couple times a day I suppose).

Although not a particularly subtle observation on my part, surely you're aware that squirrels are attracted to nuts ...

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
-- Gene Roddenberry
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Cuppycake on June 05, 2012, 06:52:42 am
He was asking a question about the afterlife, if I understood is question correctly.

Actually, two questions were asked.  The first related to the origins of existence/life and the second to any potential "afterlife" existence.  Being xtian, presumably you skipped the more complex question and simply posted a parroted religious/blind-faith POV instead.

How would atheism "help" with this matter, if you don't even believe in an afterlife? Besides, it's good for him to hear another POV, isn't it?

Where did I state that I was either atheist or, didn't speculate upon an "afterlife"?  Did you bother to read and comprehend the posted reply to "waterbearer" before you jumped to unwarranted conclusions?  That's one of the main problems with blind faith; that jumping to conclusions based upon the specious religious beliefs of others, (such as the collection of fictions in 'the bible'), instead of using reasoning.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/34p0uvo.gif)

"Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced
people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day.
And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these
ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send to
live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you!"
-- George Carlin, (from his album "You Are All Diseased")

I am much more likely to believe that we are part of the insides of another being (hence the darkness of space) rather then an invisible man in the sky hahaha ! My made up theory is more believable then the  :bs: in the bible tbh.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: jordandog on June 05, 2012, 08:04:15 am
Quote
I am much more likely to believe that we are part of the insides of another being....

hand up, waving furiously: Please, please can I be in the stomach? I love my food! :D ;D
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: duroz on June 05, 2012, 08:15:13 am
Quote
I am much more likely to believe that we are part of the insides of another being....

hand up, waving furiously: Please, please can I be in the stomach? I love my food! :D ;D

NOW jordandog....don't hog all the fun....there's probably room for a couple of people in there......
(& have you checked out the internet "G-SEA" for bottles with mysterious messages lately?)
(http://i.imgur.com/pLlDZ.jpg)
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: queenofnines on June 05, 2012, 09:38:57 am
These "contradictions and absurdities" are drawn from ignorance and a lack of understanding.

Yes, that is the token response that believers give.  It just sounds like an excuse if you ask me.  One doesn't need to read the "Cliff's Notes" of what is wrong with the Bible on some site to be convinced; just read the Bible on your own from start to finish, and if you don't walk away repulsed, your need for a security blanket surpasses your own logical ability.

Quote
Why wouldn't it be wise?

Your only guaranteed life is a terrible thing to waste running around believing in a bunch of falsehoods.  Also, some of the rubbish a believer adheres to can actually be harmful; not only for them, but for others around them.

Quote
I am a believer and I have superior critical thinking skills (compared to most), so am I to assume you are suggesting what I know you are not?

Ha, too funny.  Plenty of smart people can compartmentalize their thoughts/beliefs and be incredibly intelligent in one instance and incredibly stupid in another.  We all decide what's most important: the actual truth (regardless of what we wish it would be), or a safe haven for our primitive fears surrounding purpose, death, etc.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: gamerpeeps on June 05, 2012, 09:50:46 am
WOW. Just deep.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 05, 2012, 12:03:04 pm
These "contradictions and absurdities" are drawn from ignorance and a lack of understanding.

Yes, that is the token response that believers give.  It just sounds like an excuse if you ask me.  One doesn't need to read the "Cliff's Notes" of what is wrong with the Bible on some site to be convinced; just read the Bible on your own from start to finish, and if you don't walk away repulsed, your need for a security blanket surpasses your own logical ability.
Quote

Indeed.  I'd briefly considered responding to that portion of "Abrupt's" missive with 'the failure to discern such contradictions and absurdities is far more likely to arise from not apply critical thinking skills than from belief/faith'.

Why wouldn't it be wise?

Your only guaranteed life is a terrible thing to waste running around believing in a bunch of falsehoods.  Also, some of the rubbish a believer adheres to can actually be harmful; not only for them, but for others around them.
Quote

Much of it is harmful; either to the physical or, mental well-being of both the partipant-adherents to such beliefs or, to the innocent bystanders those beliefs are inflicted upon.

I am a believer and I have superior critical thinking skills (compared to most), so am I to assume you are suggesting what I know you are not?

Ha, too funny.  Plenty of smart people can compartmentalize their thoughts/beliefs and be incredibly intelligent in one instance and incredibly stupid in another.  We all decide what's most important: the actual truth (regardless of what we wish it would be), or a safe haven for our primitive fears surrounding purpose, death, etc.

That's why such compartmentalization was characterized as 'selectively' applying critical thinking/reason to some facets of life while electing to not apply them to religious beliefs', (even if a claim is made that they are applied to religious beliefs when they demonstrably are not).

As your Carl Sagan quote reminds those who choose otherwise; "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: queenofnines on June 05, 2012, 05:12:49 pm
Hi falcon,

You said you were confused in your message; well I'm confused as I have no idea how you were able to send me a PM...I thought this option was disabled for all members!  It is for me.

In answer to your question, I use Windows Vista.  But I don't think that's what it is, as I wade through all of my quotes manually and delete all of the unnecessary junk; that's why mine always look so pretty.  ;)
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 05, 2012, 05:25:05 pm
Hi falcon,

Hello, QoN.

You said you were confused in your message; well I'm confused as I have no idea how you were able to send me a PM...I thought this option was disabled for all members!  It is for me.

We shouldn't be able to send PMs, true.  Must have been a 'message in a bottle' that fortuitiously washed-ashore from the 'net-sea ... ;->

In answer to your question, I use Windows Vista.  But I don't think that's what it is, as I wade through all of my quotes manually and delete all of the unnecessary junk; that's why mine always look so pretty.  ;)

Upon further reflection, it's probably a result of something else entirely, (since I too use win-vista).  Yes, your post formating is real 'purdy', QoN.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Abrupt on June 05, 2012, 06:52:18 pm
I didn't exactly imply that my critical thinking capabilities were applied to my belief.  I know it was implied earlier by QoN that they were somehow incongruous in the same person.
 

... because the only construct that seems available is mutual exclusion or contradictory claims.  Mutual exclusion is easily dismissed ...

The inherent implication, (that "superior critical thinking skills" are being applied to religious belief), is not so easily dismissed, as previously iterated.

????????????
 
...and contradiction would would be impossible to prove even if it were true and speculated.  

The implicit contradiction is that, if critical thinking skills are not being applied to "belief", then the claims are contradictory.

I found it quite easily dismissed actually.

Of course you did; after all, they contradict your contentions, however easily you may find your contrary contentions to dismiss, others do not, (because they aren't applied bias self-interest to your asserted contention).

There is absolutely zero contradiction in my statements.

Realize, though, your supposition is flawed as the original contention it is derived from is that critical thinking skills are 'missing' or maybe 'flawed' in those who believe, and not any direct application to the belief in particular.  

The supposition was unflawed due to the inherent inclusion of it's opposite; that, if critical thinking skills are being applied to religious
beliefs, (that is, satisfying such burden of proof requirements for claims made resulting from those religious beliefs), the the claimed "superior critical thinking skills" are flawed/missing in that regard.

You display the flaw again in that you assume opposition where none exists.  The inclusion of critical thinking skills does not necessitate that they are adamantly applied to whatever rule-set you would impose -- even science should have taught you that as there are vastly different critically thought out theories that are not agreeable (e.g. various higgsless vs higgs models).  The conclusion doesn't govern the process nor does the process validate the conclusion.

Regardless I gave indication that I do apply it to my belief and I also cited a critical thinking skill that can solve for the unknown indirectly.  Even if they were not applied to the belief, the statement wouldn't be contradictory.  The logical error here is that you are making a connection between critical thinking and belief where no such connection was ever directly indicated.

The "logical error" you're looking for lies within the two contrary, (and therefore, mutually-exclusive), assertions you just made, above.  Specifically, that "... I gave indication that I do apply it to my belief ..." and you thereby " ... making a connection between critical thinking and belief where no such connection was ever directly indicated" and "I didn't exactly imply that my critical thinking capabilities were applied to my belief ...".  As you can see from your own statements within this post, you first indicated that you applied critical thinking to your belief, followed that with a statement that there was no such connection being made as to that application and then contradicted yourself by asserted that you didn't "imply" what you'd just asserted.

On my planet, (which is earth - contrary to any speculations that it may be "Vulcan"), that sort of thing constitutes both an irrational/illogical position and an inability to apply critical thinking skills, (despite unsupported claims to the the contrary).  Unless you're an alien precurser to invasion from the planet "Contrarian", your contentions practically refute themselves.  Now we shall apparently speak more of squirrels and sealing wax and sailing ships ...

There is no contrary statements being made by me.  To make it easier for you to figure out your error, I will absolutely agree that those were the things I said.  I will also absolutely state that there was no contradiction in anything I said.  You are effectively chasing your own shadow here.  My confidence is such that if this were a bet I would immediately go "all in" without the slightest bit of hesitation.  You need to look back closely at the posts and observe their place and relevance.  To help you out, follow this chain (in the correct order this time, not juxtaposed as you indicated above):

earliest statement in reply to a post of yours:  "I didn't exactly imply that my critical thinking capabilities were applied to my belief ..."

next statement in a separate paragraph referencing new information in a previous paragraph that was a reply to your earlier post:   "... I gave indication that I do apply it to my belief ..."

It is amazing what happens when you actually put them in the order they appeared.

Related, but somewhat off topic I will highlight that I have great difficulty with three dimensional spatial tests.  I try to train and improve this skill but it is something that is innately difficult for me.  I have noticed on a few occasions you display sequence and flow discrepancies.  I wonder if you are a hand speed reader and you don't use it on your display or if you might know if you possibly have a sequence synesthesia? 

I didn't see that squirrel I ran over today either -- no really I didn't see it I just happened to swerve that way at the time ...

Metaphorically, that squirrel may be said to represent self-declared "superior critical thinking skills" and hubris, (literally, it represented an bad day for the squirrel).

“Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense.”
-- Voltaire

No, it was just a squirrel and now it is a spot, although it was indeed a terrible day for the squirrel.  I haven't salvaged a peach off my trees in years because of these clever thieves.  Now my garden is also at risk it seems.  I have tried owl and snake decoys, water bowls strategically placed for them, fencing and netting.  The only thing I haven't used is fox urine (too many dogs around my parts and here animals are kept free to do that) or bagging each cluster (might try that next year as it is too late this year).  In addition it seems that every woodpecker and bluejay and martin within 20 miles of me knows of the 'free meal' (I will not go offensive on the birds though so I have to try moving the owl decoy about a couple times a day I suppose).

Although not a particularly subtle observation on my part, surely you're aware that squirrels are attracted to nuts ...

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
-- Gene Roddenberry

I would be the last to insist that I was sane.

"You'd better believe it Gene Roddenberry, and now .... get off my bridge!"
-- Shatner to Roddenberry
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 05, 2012, 07:08:07 pm
There is absolutely zero contradiction in my statements.
"... I gave indication that I do apply it {critical thinking} to my belief ..."
There is no contrary statements being made by me.
thereby " ... making a connection between critical thinking and belief where no such connection was ever directly indicated"
I will absolutely agree that those were the things I said.  I will also absolutely state that there was no contradiction in anything I said.



The "logical error" you're looking for lies within the two contrary, (and therefore, mutually-exclusive), assertions you just made, above.  
Specifically, that "... I gave indication that I do apply it to my belief ..." and you thereby " ... making a connection between critical thinking and belief where no such connection was ever directly indicated" and "I didn't exactly imply that my critical thinking capabilities were applied to my belief ...".  As you can see from your own statements within this post, you first indicated that you applied critical thinking to your belief, followed that with a statement that there was no such connection being made as to that application and then contradicted yourself by asserted that you didn't "imply" what you'd just asserted. Simply denying your own words won't confer plausibility upon them.

On my planet, (which is earth - contrary to any speculations that it may be "Vulcan"), that sort of thing constitutes both an irrational/illogical position and an inability to apply critical thinking skills, (despite unsupported claims to the the contrary).  Unless you're an alien precurser to invasion from the planet "Contrarian", your contentions practically refute themselves. Simply denying your own words won't confer plausibility upon them.

...follow this chain (in the correct order this time, not juxtaposed as you indicated above):

earliest statement in reply to a post of yours:  "I didn't exactly imply that my critical thinking capabilities were applied to my belief ..."
next statement in a separate paragraph referencing new information in a previous paragraph that was a reply to your earlier post:   "... I gave indication that I do apply it to my belief ..."
It is amazing what happens when you actually put them in the order they appeared.

Your mutually-contradictory statements were addressed in the sequential order in which you posted them.  Wriggle, squirm, or writhe you are unable to deceive since your own posted words betray you.

I have noticed on a few occasions you display sequence and flow discrepancies.

If so, indicate them by precise contextual quotes.  The example given above was false and did not constitute any out-of-sequence or "flow" discrepancies.  Since you've elected to make this claim, the burden of proof by actual evidence falls to you.

Although not a particularly subtle observation on my part, surely you're aware that squirrels are attracted to nuts ...

I would be the last to insist that I was sane.

Perhaps second-to-last.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Abrupt on June 05, 2012, 07:19:57 pm
Yes, that is the token response that believers give.  It just sounds like an excuse if you ask me.  One doesn't need to read the "Cliff's Notes" of what is wrong with the Bible on some site to be convinced; just read the Bible on your own from start to finish, and if you don't walk away repulsed, your need for a security blanket surpasses your own logical ability.

Just make sure that when you read the bible that you actually study it, particularly to the parts that seem difficult to you.  At least use a concordance, such as 'Strongs' and to be better look at some of the various translations and reasoning's for the usage and understand that some words in use in modern Bible's do not exist in the Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek of the time.  Understand that all of it isn't meant for everyone. 

Your only guaranteed life is a terrible thing to waste running around believing in a bunch of falsehoods.  Also, some of the rubbish a believer adheres to can actually be harmful; not only for them, but for others around them.

If a belief comforts someone, whether it is true or false, is that bad, especially, as you seem to suggest, that our existence is but a fleeting dream?  Every belief can be harmful.

Ha, too funny.  Plenty of smart people can compartmentalize their thoughts/beliefs and be incredibly intelligent in one instance and incredibly stupid in another.  We all decide what's most important: the actual truth (regardless of what we wish it would be), or a safe haven for our primitive fears surrounding purpose, death, etc.

I agree with you entirely here on how we can all be both intelligent and stupid.  We all do decide what is most important -- for ourselves, but notice you are also deciding what is important for others and surely you can understand the problems of that (would you enter another's dreams as they slept and dictate their actions?  Would you force another to play a game according to your rules when it was a game that we must all ultimately play alone?).  I understand that others actions can influence those not involve, but if they cannot live to their pursuits and must instead conform to yours, then how can they truly live this one shot instantaneous existence that has no substance or permanence or relevance or meaning -- other than personal enjoyment (as I believe you have defined it -- but correct me if I am wrong here).
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Abrupt on June 05, 2012, 07:51:29 pm
There is absolutely zero contradiction in my statements.
"... I gave indication that I do apply it {critical thinking} to my belief ..."
There is no contrary statements being made by me.
thereby " ... making a connection between critical thinking and belief where no such connection was ever directly indicated"
I will absolutely agree that those were the things I said.  I will also absolutely state that there was no contradiction in anything I said.



The "logical error" you're looking for lies within the two contrary, (and therefore, mutually-exclusive), assertions you just made, above.  
Specifically, that "... I gave indication that I do apply it to my belief ..." and you thereby " ... making a connection between critical thinking and belief where no such connection was ever directly indicated" and "I didn't exactly imply that my critical thinking capabilities were applied to my belief ...".  As you can see from your own statements within this post, you first indicated that you applied critical thinking to your belief, followed that with a statement that there was no such connection being made as to that application and then contradicted yourself by asserted that you didn't "imply" what you'd just asserted. Simply denying your own words won't confer plausibility upon them.

On my planet, (which is earth - contrary to any speculations that it may be "Vulcan"), that sort of thing constitutes both an irrational/illogical position and an inability to apply critical thinking skills, (despite unsupported claims to the the contrary).  Unless you're an alien precurser to invasion from the planet "Contrarian", your contentions practically refute themselves. Simply denying your own words won't confer plausibility upon them.

...follow this chain (in the correct order this time, not juxtaposed as you indicated above):

earliest statement in reply to a post of yours:  "I didn't exactly imply that my critical thinking capabilities were applied to my belief ..."
next statement in a separate paragraph referencing new information in a previous paragraph that was a reply to your earlier post:   "... I gave indication that I do apply it to my belief ..."
It is amazing what happens when you actually put them in the order they appeared.

Your mutually-contradictory statements were addressed in the sequential order in which you posted them.  Wriggle, squirm, or writhe you are unable to deceive since your own posted words betray you.

I have noticed on a few occasions you display sequence and flow discrepancies.

If so, indicate them by precise contextual quotes.  The example given above was false and did not constitute any out-of-sequence or "flow" discrepancies.  Since you've elected to make this claim, the burden of proof by actual evidence falls to you.

Although not a particularly subtle observation on my part, surely you're aware that squirrels are attracted to nuts ...

I would be the last to insist that I was sane.

Perhaps second-to-last.

Here you go, drawn out so you can more easily see it:
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 05, 2012, 11:23:49 pm
Here you go, drawn out so you can more easily see it:

No, my virus software won't open a suspicious .png file extension.
Doubtless you are continuing to argue a moot point of contention.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Abrupt on June 06, 2012, 11:08:36 am
Here you go, drawn out so you can more easily see it:

No, my virus software won't open a suspicious .png file extension.
Doubtless you are continuing to argue a moot point of contention.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins


I agree that it is moot, but you are the one that brought it up and put up the challenge so deal with it.

results of virus scan upon the image:  https://www.virustotal.com/file/b0faa7cfa248643409006c943b8ef1f9828869c1e6bcedb2b258b53258c4eb9a/analysis/1339005773/
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 06, 2012, 12:45:48 pm
Doubtless you are continuing to argue a moot point of contention.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

I agree that it is moot, but you are the one that brought it up and put up the challenge so deal with it.

You misunderstand; the point is now moot because you've demonstrated an inability to comprehend that your own posted words contradict themselves by denying that they do, (and prevaricating in that regard), after being challenged on that point.  It was dealt with down-thread.

results of virus scan upon the image:  https://www.virustotal.com/file/b0faa7cfa248643409006c943b8ef1f9828869c1e6bcedb2b258b53258c4eb9a/analysis/1339005773/

If what you want to write cannot be posted here, the link remains suspicious.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Abrupt on June 06, 2012, 01:18:46 pm
Doubtless you are continuing to argue a moot point of contention.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

I agree that it is moot, but you are the one that brought it up and put up the challenge so deal with it.

You misunderstand; the point is now moot because you've demonstrated an inability to comprehend that your own posted words contradict themselves by denying that they do, (and prevaricating in that regard), after being challenged on that point.  It was dealt with down-thread.

results of virus scan upon the image:  https://www.virustotal.com/file/b0faa7cfa248643409006c943b8ef1f9828869c1e6bcedb2b258b53258c4eb9a/analysis/1339005773/

If what you want to write cannot be posted here, the link remains suspicious.

The point was moot when you made the original charge.  I demonstrated that your charge was also incorrect and you appeared to be confused about that so I drew you a 'map'.  You don't want to view the map that would clearly show you your error then you cannot also claim victory -- especially since you were already given written proof that you ignored.

As I said, I already showed written proof which for some reason you cannot grasp the sequence of the post so I drew you the map since to repost exactly what I just posted to you previously seems that it would result in the same confusion on your part.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 06, 2012, 01:35:29 pm
Doubtless you are continuing to argue a moot point of contention.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

I agree that it is moot, but you are the one that brought it up and put up the challenge so deal with it.

You misunderstand; the point is now moot because you've demonstrated an inability to comprehend that your own posted words contradict themselves by denying that they do, (and prevaricating in that regard), after being challenged on that point.  It was dealt with down-thread.

results of virus scan upon the image:  https://www.virustotal.com/file/b0faa7cfa248643409006c943b8ef1f9828869c1e6bcedb2b258b53258c4eb9a/analysis/1339005773/

If what you want to write cannot be posted here, the link remains suspicious.
[/quote]

The point was moot when you made the original charge.  I demonstrated that your charge was also incorrect and you appeared to be confused about that so I drew you a 'map'.

Your false characterization of the actual, archived exchange contributes to my contention that the point is moot, (and not that my point was moot).  On the contrary, claiming to demonstrate that my "charge", (reasoning supporting the contention that your mutually-contradictory assertions were/are inconsistant), was "incorrect" is itself an inaccurate claim.  There is no "confusion" on my part and this would be a specious and prevaricating "charge" of yours in lieu of providing attributible evidence to support it.

As I said, I already showed written proof ...

No, you proceeded to deny your own posted contradictory/inconsistant words, which does not constitute "written proof" of anything except your prevarications in that regard, (unless you now wish to claim that a dexterous spider monkey typed those posts instead of you?).

... which for some reason you cannot grasp the sequence of the post ...

Since I've not demonstrated any such inability to "grasp the sequence" of posted remarks, (whereas, oddly enough, you seem to), your insinuations are without evidence or merit.  Try 'grasping' this concept; denial and self-deceptions on your part.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: duroz on June 06, 2012, 01:43:56 pm

           (http://i46.tinypic.com/2wgc5jl.jpg)
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: JediJohnnie on June 06, 2012, 01:48:32 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/mFGE3.jpg)
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 06, 2012, 01:51:08 pm
[...]

(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: queenofnines on June 06, 2012, 02:24:39 pm
If a belief comforts someone, whether it is true or false, is that bad, especially, as you seem to suggest, that our existence is but a fleeting dream?  Every belief can be harmful.

If most people believe they don't actually die when they die, where is the motivation for developing the scientific technology to try and extend our natural lifespans?  If this life is just the doormat where we wipe our feet until we get to the "real life" in eternity, why bother trying to contribute anything of significance to better humanity?

Any belief that isn't true is inherently harmful.  You can put yourself and others around you through some pretty nasty stuff clinging to the "comfort" of your beliefs.  There are tons of examples of this, from germaphobes to doomsday worriers to wacky diet enthusiasts.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 06, 2012, 02:39:21 pm
If a belief comforts someone, whether it is true or false, is that bad, especially, as you seem to suggest, that our existence is but a fleeting dream?  Every belief can be harmful.

If most people believe they don't actually die when they die, where is the motivation for developing the scientific technology to try and extend our natural lifespans?  If this life is just the doormat where we wipe our feet until we get to the "real life" in eternity, why bother trying to contribute anything of significance to better humanity?

Any belief that isn't true is inherently harmful.  You can put yourself and others around you through some pretty nasty stuff clinging to the "comfort" of your beliefs.  There are tons of examples of this, from germaphobes to doomsday worriers to wacky diet enthusiasts.

Although it can be anticipated that some will claim that there are/may be such extant "beliefs" which arent' inherently harmful, (generally, those being "beliefs" which remain within the skulls of such 'believers' and doesn't leave those environs ... once it does leave, however ...).

[@QoN] - 'message in a bottle'
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: duroz on June 06, 2012, 03:08:58 pm
(http://i49.tinypic.com/9u7t41.jpg) 


WTF?? If
1) THERE IS NO GOD
thennn........
2) HOW THE x@#x IS IT POSSIBLE TO HATE him??

  ??? :BangHead: - -(ouch)- -

  ???
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Abrupt on June 06, 2012, 03:13:03 pm
Doubtless you are continuing to argue a moot point of contention.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

I agree that it is moot, but you are the one that brought it up and put up the challenge so deal with it.

You misunderstand; the point is now moot because you've demonstrated an inability to comprehend that your own posted words contradict themselves by denying that they do, (and prevaricating in that regard), after being challenged on that point.  It was dealt with down-thread.

results of virus scan upon the image:  https://www.virustotal.com/file/b0faa7cfa248643409006c943b8ef1f9828869c1e6bcedb2b258b53258c4eb9a/analysis/1339005773/

If what you want to write cannot be posted here, the link remains suspicious.

The point was moot when you made the original charge.  I demonstrated that your charge was also incorrect and you appeared to be confused about that so I drew you a 'map'.

Your false characterization of the actual, archived exchange contributes to my contention that the point is moot, (and not that my point was moot).  On the contrary, claiming to demonstrate that my "charge", (reasoning supporting the contention that your mutually-contradictory assertions were/are inconsistant), was "incorrect" is itself an inaccurate claim.  There is no "confusion" on my part and this would be a specious and prevaricating "charge" of yours in lieu of providing attributible evidence to support it.

As I said, I already showed written proof ...

No, you proceeded to deny your own posted contradictory/inconsistant words, which does not constitute "written proof" of anything except your prevarications in that regard, (unless you now wish to claim that a dexterous spider monkey typed those posts instead of you?).

... which for some reason you cannot grasp the sequence of the post ...

Since I've not demonstrated any such inability to "grasp the sequence" of posted remarks, (whereas, oddly enough, you seem to), your insinuations are without evidence or merit.  Try 'grasping' this concept; denial and self-deceptions on your part.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
[/quote]

What game is this you are playing here?  I know you must know you are incorrect (since you actually even posted my statements out of order) and that you cannot actually be trying to convince me of something.  It doesn't make sense that you would be trying to persuade the other readers as your error is so glaringly obvious and I highlight it so visibly that you couldn't be trying to do that -- no that doesn't make sense as even you are not that vain or egocentric.  I don't think you are toying with me as you know very well that I am just as doggedly stubborn as you (either of us would fight over the scrap of an argument to a degree that most would consider insane) and so you clearly couldn't choose the wine in front of me.  I am left to conclude that either you honestly believe you are correct or that you are gaming with me.  It doesn't make sense that you would believe you were correct as I am sure you would have looked back at least once and your error is so obvious that you would have picked up on it.  If you are gaming with me then I will play as I am curious to see where this goes.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 06, 2012, 03:24:20 pm
(http://i49.tinypic.com/9u7t41.jpg) 

WTF?? If
1) THERE IS NO GOD
thennn........
2) HOW THE x@#x IS IT POSSIBLE TO HATE him??

  ??? :BangHead: - -(ouch)- -

  ???

Apparently, the OP is still laboring under the self-delusion that if it's possible to "love" a hypothetically supernatural entity whose existence is dubious at best, then it's possible to "hate" it as well.  Sure, it's illogical but, that has not prevented the OP from engaging in it so far.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Abrupt on June 06, 2012, 03:29:00 pm
If a belief comforts someone, whether it is true or false, is that bad, especially, as you seem to suggest, that our existence is but a fleeting dream?  Every belief can be harmful.

If most people believe they don't actually die when they die, where is the motivation for developing the scientific technology to try and extend our natural lifespans?  If this life is just the doormat where we wipe our feet until we get to the "real life" in eternity, why bother trying to contribute anything of significance to better humanity?

Any belief that isn't true is inherently harmful.  You can put yourself and others around you through some pretty nasty stuff clinging to the "comfort" of your beliefs.  There are tons of examples of this, from germaphobes to doomsday worriers to wacky diet enthusiasts.

I see it quite the opposite.  If we are as fleeting as you indicate then why prolong the agony.  Why extend life 100 years or 1000 years when ultimately each of those years is just another reminder of your coming demise -- what a wicked self inflicted wound that would be.  The contribution to humanity would be for the same reason the larvae eats while in that stage -- and that is because it is a development stage to what comes after.

I agree that suffrage can be shared with those around you, but so can the strength and courage and steadiness and absolution that can come from belief.  It all comes down to the person it seems to me.  There are externally beneficial and externally harmful people in virtually every single area that exists.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 06, 2012, 03:45:26 pm
If a belief comforts someone, whether it is true or false, is that bad, especially, as you seem to suggest, that our existence is but a fleeting dream?  Every belief can be harmful.

If most people believe they don't actually die when they die, where is the motivation for developing the scientific technology to try and extend our natural lifespans?  If this life is just the doormat where we wipe our feet until we get to the "real life" in eternity, why bother trying to contribute anything of significance to better humanity?

Any belief that isn't true is inherently harmful.  You can put yourself and others around you through some pretty nasty stuff clinging to the "comfort" of your beliefs.  There are tons of examples of this, from germaphobes to doomsday worriers to wacky diet enthusiasts.

I see it quite the opposite.

Of course you do; having taken the position of a religious adherent/'true believer' means a certain obligation to defend such a position, (even when at a tactical and strategic disadvantage). 

If we are as fleeting as you indicate then why prolong the agony.  Why extend life 100 years or 1000 years when ultimately each of those years is just another reminder of your coming demise -- what a wicked self inflicted wound that would be.  The contribution to humanity would be for the same reason the larvae eats while in that stage -- and that is because it is a development stage to what comes after.

Non sequitur.  This is contextually-equivalent to asking, "why live for even a moment?"  The questions aren't rhetorical since the main objective of being alive is to first to live; all else would follow that prerequisite.

I agree that suffrage can be shared with those around you, but so can the strength and courage and steadiness and absolution that can come from belief.  It all comes down to the person it seems to me.  There are externally beneficial and externally harmful people in virtually every single area that exists.

There are, however, significant differences between shared sufferings/shared pragmatic assistances and emcouraging/proselytizing spurious "beliefs/faith" which has no basis in reason/evidence.  The former is demonstrably more beneficial than the latter's harmful offer of ephemeral/"virtual", (as opposed to practical), "help".
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Falconer02 on June 07, 2012, 02:17:37 am
Quote
WTF?? If
1) THERE IS NO GOD
thennn........
2) HOW THE x@#x IS IT POSSIBLE TO HATE him??

In the same sense of how we hate Agent Smith, Lord Vader, Skeletor, Mumra, Bowser...

Being more realistic though- when you can both easily argue the point that this god (much like the other countless ones) is fake and that even if it did exist and it's jumbled texts were truthful, this deity would not be deserving of worship for anyone who has an ounce of morality within themselves. When one can easily compare a god to Hitler's horrific atrocities, one must either facepalm or chuckle at the absurdity.

(http://i.imgur.com/mXKrB.jpg)
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 07, 2012, 03:08:21 am
Quote
WTF?? If
1) THERE IS NO GOD
thennn........
2) HOW THE x@#x IS IT POSSIBLE TO HATE him??

In the same sense of how we hate Agent Smith, Lord Vader, Skeletor, Mumra, Bowser...

Being more realistic though- when you can both easily argue the point that this god (much like the other countless ones) is fake and that even if it did exist and it's jumbled texts were truthful, this deity would not be deserving of worship for anyone who has an ounce of morality within themselves. When one can easily compare a god to Hitler's horrific atrocities, one must either facepalm or chuckle at the absurdity.

(http://i.imgur.com/mXKrB.jpg)

It remains unclear whether or not such a comparison invokes "godwin's law", (of usenet), or "g-dloses law", (of any 'net).   :o
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: queenofnines on June 07, 2012, 10:55:08 am
I see it quite the opposite.  If we are as fleeting as you indicate then why prolong the agony.  Why extend life 100 years or 1000 years when ultimately each of those years is just another reminder of your coming demise -- what a wicked self inflicted wound that would be.

And how would living forever have any more of a point?  Life is special because it ends...  You are right that it ultimately doesn't make a difference whether you die today or 100 years from now; I see it as akin to what's the point of going to a movie if you know it's just going to end in two hours?  The point is to enjoy yourself, of course, and that enjoyment can carry over and last longer than just those two hours.  

It might sound cliche and like a Hallmark card, but your life is a gift; whether you throw it in the trash right away or ultimately play with it for awhile makes no difference.  However, since you're going to die anyway, why not make the most of the brief time you have?  Life can be quite enjoyable for those who get out there and live it to the fullest.  

We are also programmed with a survival instinct, which makes it pretty difficult for us to seriously contemplate killing ourselves even if we realize it's all pointless.


P.S. I am okay with receiving some bottles.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Abrupt on June 07, 2012, 11:14:44 am
If a belief comforts someone, whether it is true or false, is that bad, especially, as you seem to suggest, that our existence is but a fleeting dream?  Every belief can be harmful.

If most people believe they don't actually die when they die, where is the motivation for developing the scientific technology to try and extend our natural lifespans?  If this life is just the doormat where we wipe our feet until we get to the "real life" in eternity, why bother trying to contribute anything of significance to better humanity?

Any belief that isn't true is inherently harmful.  You can put yourself and others around you through some pretty nasty stuff clinging to the "comfort" of your beliefs.  There are tons of examples of this, from germaphobes to doomsday worriers to wacky diet enthusiasts.

I see it quite the opposite.

Of course you do; having taken the position of a religious adherent/'true believer' means a certain obligation to defend such a position, (even when at a tactical and strategic disadvantage). 

Tell me then, what it is you know, of a believer's obligation (mine) to defend a position of a desire to seek scientific advancements?  Furthermore stipulate and expound upon the tactical and strategic disadvantages I suffer from while so defending such quests for advances in these areas?

If we are as fleeting as you indicate then why prolong the agony.  Why extend life 100 years or 1000 years when ultimately each of those years is just another reminder of your coming demise -- what a wicked self inflicted wound that would be.  The contribution to humanity would be for the same reason the larvae eats while in that stage -- and that is because it is a development stage to what comes after.

Non sequitur.  This is contextually-equivalent to asking, "why live for even a moment?"  The questions aren't rhetorical since the main objective of being alive is to first to live; all else would follow that prerequisite.

You entirely miss the point of the message.  You claim to know that your existence is finite and ultimately entirely meaningless.  You claim to know this with certainty and tout your reason and logic.  What does reason and logic say about such a situation?  Does it say to pursue a pointless struggle that you are absolutely positive you will lose or does it say instead to listen to your own irrational emotions and genetic brainwashing to struggle to the end -- even though you are positively convinced that your struggle is absolutely without a chance?  You so love to be critical of faith and tack on the word 'blind' to it every time you use the word, but here you display even a greater blindness.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Abrupt on June 07, 2012, 11:29:22 am
I see it quite the opposite.  If we are as fleeting as you indicate then why prolong the agony.  Why extend life 100 years or 1000 years when ultimately each of those years is just another reminder of your coming demise -- what a wicked self inflicted wound that would be.

And how would living forever have any more of a point?  Life is special because it ends...  You are right that it ultimately doesn't make a difference whether you die today or 100 years from now; I see it as akin to what's the point of going to a movie if you know it's just going to end in two hours?  The point is to enjoy yourself, of course, and that enjoyment can carry over and last longer than just those two hours.  

It might sound cliche and like a Hallmark card, but your life is a gift; whether you throw it in the trash right away or ultimately play with it for awhile makes no difference.  However, since you're going to die anyway, why not make the most of the brief time you have?  Life can be quite enjoyable for those who get out there and live it to the fullest.  

We are also programmed with a survival instinct, which makes it pretty difficult for us to seriously contemplate killing ourselves even if we realize it's all pointless.


P.S. I am okay with receiving some bottles.

Here I agree it is in the journey that the importance exists.

It comes back to my previous questions about those who believe we are only temporary and meaningless and that nothing matters and one should simply live to enjoy.  Why don't such people do this then?  Why do they confine themselves to the wills of others (society/government/law) when they know that such ultimately deprives them of the best experiences they could obtain?  You mentioned before that you do so out of fear (being arrested/etc) but that is an irrational response to an emotion just as is the hard wired survival instinct.  If you have as much certainty in your temporary state as you maintain then these should be something you could overcome and then truly enjoy life as you wanted to instead of traveling blindly within the herd of society bending daily to the will of the pack and the oppression of those who have claimed authority.  You should actively pursue asserting your dominion over others, never toiling or doing anything that you absolutely did not honestly wish to do, and never tolerating even an instance of unhappiness (as unhappiness and hardship would be entirely manufactured by you since you are not bound by any reason to endure it otherwise).

That is my quandary with what you say you wish and know compared to what you do.  Maybe I am thinking about it too cold and logically to understand the emotional devotions that are implied by one who shares your views though -- I don't know but it puzzles me...
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 07, 2012, 03:13:16 pm
Tell me then, what it is you know, of a believer's obligation (mine) to defend a position of a desire to seek scientific advancements?  

That's not the obligation I wrote of.  In context, it remains the same burden of proof obligation for a believer making religious assertions.  I didn't include "a desire to seek scientific advancements" within the paradigm of specious religious beliefs, that's a tangetial diversion you introduced just now.  Such diversions aside, you still have failed to meet the burden of proof obligation for the religious assertions you've made thusfar.  Doubtless you'd prefer rehashing your rationale, (not "reasons"), for doing so however, we've previously argued these points inconclusively.  It was deemed moot to continue unless you either produce tangible/factual evidence to support your previous religiously-based, (not 'scientifically-based), claims under the burden of proof obligations, (or, simply concede that there is no such evidence; e.g., that "faith" is a belief which lacks evidence).  At this juncture, you've chosen neither option and wish to pursue a third; that of prevarications.


You entirely miss the point of the message.  You claim to know that your existence is finite and ultimately entirely meaningless. You claim to know this with certainty and tout your reason and logic.

Don't presume to tell me that I missed the point when you actually mean that you're perceiving that I've missed your point, (the two are not equivalent).  As I have addressed the point, (so far, to a limited extent), your first presumption is false.  As to your second presumption regarding a "claim" I never explicitly not, implicitly made; please quote where I made such a claim in context, otherwise your second
contention is also false.


What does reason and logic say about such a situation?  Does it say to pursue a pointless struggle that you are absolutely positive you will lose or does it say instead to listen to your own irrational emotions and genetic brainwashing to struggle to the end -- even though you are positively convinced that your struggle is absolutely without a chance?

Your conclusions proceed from a false premise; I've never maintained that life was "a pointless struggle ...".  As QoN has pointed out to you, being aware of having a finite lifespan isn't logically-equivalent to "a pointless struggle".  The point of life is to live while you are able and to make the best of the time you do have.  If someone irrationally takes that as some kind of narcisstic license to do whatever they want, in disregard of secular laws and infringes upon others in a negative way, such persons will be 'taken out' according to the precepts of secular laws, not "after life" by specious religious precepts.


You so love to be critical of faith and tack on the word 'blind' to it every time you use the word, but here you display even a greater blindness.

Your accusation is demonstrably false; critical thinking doesn't "blind" one to the active pursuit of accurate knowledge - that's the purview of blind religious faith.  Btw, such a 'do whatever you want' narcisstic philosophy you mention is exactly the same premise of the church of satan, (and even they proceed under secular laws so as not to end up imprisoned for any crimes).
- http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: queenofnines on June 07, 2012, 03:48:56 pm
It comes back to my previous questions about those who believe we are only temporary and meaningless and that nothing matters and one should simply live to enjoy.  Why don't such people do this then?  Why do they confine themselves to the wills of others (society/government/law) when they know that such ultimately deprives them of the best experiences they could obtain?

Running amok and breaking all sorts of laws is the entitlement you seek (as you've stated before).  Everyone has their own definition of what the "best experiences" are.  For some, it's doing drugs, for others (like me), it's traveling the world and engaging in as many unique activities as possible.  Most people hold themselves back, though, from obtaining their personal definition of the best experiences.  I try not to as much as reasonably possible.

Quote
You mentioned before that you do so out of fear (being arrested/etc) but that is an irrational response to an emotion just as is the hard wired survival instinct.

You're twisting my words.  Like I said before, the fear of being caught is not the primary reason for avoiding illegal activities.  It doesn't come naturally to most people to do harm just for the "fun" of it.

Quote
traveling blindly within the herd of society bending daily to the will of the pack and the oppression of those who have claimed authority.

I agree that most people do this; few people are truly unique and think for themselves.  However, as a rule, I don't blindly accept whatever society is selling and defy the status quo on many counts.  One example of how I do this is when it comes to wanting children.  Reproducing is an ingrained expectation and one that most people will oblige to without ever giving it a second thought.

Quote
never toiling or doing anything that you absolutely did not honestly wish to do, and never tolerating even an instance of unhappiness

Both of these are extremely unrealistic.  There are some things you just have to do if you wish to continue surviving.  You can't expect others to wait on you hand and foot when it comes to acquiring food just because you don't feel like working to earn it, for example.  And it's pretty much impossible to never experience unhappiness, as a breadth of situations are out of your control.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 07, 2012, 04:23:19 pm
Maybe I am thinking about it too cold and logically to understand the emotional devotions that are implied by one who shares your views though -- I don't know but it puzzles me...

One hypothesis regarding your puzzlement is that your contention is extremely hypocritical, (neither logical nor 'ironic').  That is, those "emotional devotions" are more accurately applied to faith-based non-reasoning and there's little of 'cold logic' in that, (due to "faith" being "blind" by definition and bereft of logical reasoning).
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Cuppycake on June 07, 2012, 04:41:36 pm
Maybe I am thinking about it too cold and logically to understand the emotional devotions that are implied by one who shares your views though -- I don't know but it puzzles me...

One hypothesis regarding your puzzlement is that your contention is extremely hypocritical, (neither logical nor 'ironic').  That is, those "emotional devotions" are more accurately applied to faith-based non-reasoning and there's little of 'cold logic' in that, (due to "faith" being "blind" by definition and bereft of logical reasoning).
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
Just so ya know ... I am soo stealing this (http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 07, 2012, 04:44:45 pm
Just so ya know ... I am soo stealing this
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)

You can't steal what's freely given, m'lady.  Enjoy.
 8)
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Cuppycake on June 07, 2012, 05:02:00 pm
Just so ya know ... I am soo stealing this
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)

You can't steal what's freely given, m'lady.  Enjoy.
 8)
Why thank you sir ! :)
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 07, 2012, 06:02:47 pm
Just so ya know ... I am soo stealing this ...

You can't steal what's freely given, m'lady.  Enjoy.
 8)

Why thank you sir ! :)

*tips cowboy hat*
{there's a surprise, although not usually worn when posting - moreso when riding along the fenceposts}
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Abrupt on June 08, 2012, 09:05:31 am
Tell me then, what it is you know, of a believer's obligation (mine) to defend a position of a desire to seek scientific advancements?  

That's not the obligation I wrote of.  In context, it remains the same burden of proof obligation for a believer making religious assertions.  I didn't include "a desire to seek scientific advancements" within the paradigm of specious religious beliefs, that's a tangetial diversion you introduced just now.  Such diversions aside, you still have failed to meet the burden of proof obligation for the religious assertions you've made thusfar.  Doubtless you'd prefer rehashing your rationale, (not "reasons"), for doing so however, we've previously argued these points inconclusively.  It was deemed moot to continue unless you either produce tangible/factual evidence to support your previous religiously-based, (not 'scientifically-based), claims under the burden of proof obligations, (or, simply concede that there is no such evidence; e.g., that "faith" is a belief which lacks evidence).  At this juncture, you've chosen neither option and wish to pursue a third; that of prevarications.

It is the only obligation available since you were addressing my reply to QoN and you have to follow what my reply to.  If you cannot keep up with the conversation, you shouldn't feel such an obligation to make a reply to every post made.  I have fully qualified every statement I have made -- where it was warranted.  I am not elusive at all, on the contrary it is you that follows a consistent duck, dodge, dip and obfuscate pattern.


You entirely miss the point of the message.  You claim to know that your existence is finite and ultimately entirely meaningless. You claim to know this with certainty and tout your reason and logic.

Don't presume to tell me that I missed the point when you actually mean that you're perceiving that I've missed your point, (the two are not equivalent).  As I have addressed the point, (so far, to a limited extent), your first presumption is false.  As to your second presumption regarding a "claim" I never explicitly not, implicitly made; please quote where I made such a claim in context, otherwise your second
contention is also false.

I just did tell you, though, so deal with it junkie.  It is quite obvious you missed the point as you couldn't even manage the simple task of following the topic the reply was in reference to.  My first point is dead on center, and my second could only be false if I didn't know what I was responding to in my response to QoN -- but I did and it was you that didn't, and still apparently doesn't, know.  I suppose now we will have to debate what I was replying to, and of course you would obviously know my own thoughts better than I would, eh?  You really need to pay closer attention to what is being said and to what it is being said to.


What does reason and logic say about such a situation?  Does it say to pursue a pointless struggle that you are absolutely positive you will lose or does it say instead to listen to your own irrational emotions and genetic brainwashing to struggle to the end -- even though you are positively convinced that your struggle is absolutely without a chance?

Your conclusions proceed from a false premise; I've never maintained that life was "a pointless struggle ...".  As QoN has pointed out to you, being aware of having a finite lifespan isn't logically-equivalent to "a pointless struggle".  The point of life is to live while you are able and to make the best of the time you do have.  If someone irrationally takes that as some kind of narcisstic license to do whatever they want, in disregard of secular laws and infringes upon others in a negative way, such persons will be 'taken out' according to the precepts of secular laws, not "after life" by specious religious precepts.

What conclusions?  I am asking questions in the above.  Again, go back and actually read what was said and to what it was said.  Remember, as much as you seem to want to make this about you, it was a point I was raising with QoN about my confusion on the subject.  I shared how I was able to consider it and expressed where I was having difficulty understanding how I would assume she was viewing it.  You do know how to recognized posited empathy don't you?  I find it often the best way to contrast and compare subject matter with another by directly lending how one would actually view the case from their side.  Again you are entirely missing the point and you seem unable to grasp the flow of the dialog.  I am taking every measure I can muster to be as clear and simple in my replies as I am able.  If you don't understand exactly what I am saying then ask me to stipulate and clarify (and no I am not saying that I think I am speaking too complex, I am saying that my meaning may not be reaching the intended target with the clarity that I desired -- oh wait it is you that considers that perfectly fine though and an insult upon the reader as you stated ever so conceitedly in your 'dumbing-down or wising-up' thread.  Do know that I consider the obligation of clarity to be the responsibility of the speaker and not the audience and so I would put myself at fault if there is uncertainty.).


You so love to be critical of faith and tack on the word 'blind' to it every time you use the word, but here you display even a greater blindness.

Your accusation is demonstrably false; critical thinking doesn't "blind" one to the active pursuit of accurate knowledge - that's the purview of blind religious faith.  Btw, such a 'do whatever you want' narcisstic philosophy you mention is exactly the same premise of the church of satan, (and even they proceed under secular laws so as not to end up imprisoned for any crimes).
- http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html

It isn't false at all.  You are very critical of others (well in areas you don't agree with them -- but less so in areas you do) and especially those with faith or religious beliefs.  If you are not aware of this then you posses little awareness or are incredibly narcissistic and you would actually be entirely "blind" in your faith of your own critical thinking abilities (that is sure to get your nostrils to flare I would imagine, unless you are like me and smile and think "oh good one").  Why would you bend your knee to secular law (which would actually qualify the same as a religion in regards to enforcing its doctrines of control measures upon your freedoms).  You mention fear and you hint with this, but fear is an irrational response to the prepared and capable.  Where is your confidence then?  Where is this mindset you hinted at when discussing your psychological evaluations for certain undisclosed military 'special' operations?  As Shakespeare wrote "To thine own self be true".

It is good to be back to a more adversarial exchange as we fair rather poorly when displaying niceties and it is always short lived and terse...
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Abrupt on June 08, 2012, 09:39:38 am
It comes back to my previous questions about those who believe we are only temporary and meaningless and that nothing matters and one should simply live to enjoy.  Why don't such people do this then?  Why do they confine themselves to the wills of others (society/government/law) when they know that such ultimately deprives them of the best experiences they could obtain?

Running amok and breaking all sorts of laws is the entitlement you seek (as you've stated before).  Everyone has their own definition of what the "best experiences" are.  For some, it's doing drugs, for others (like me), it's traveling the world and engaging in as many unique activities as possible.  Most people hold themselves back, though, from obtaining their personal definition of the best experiences.  I try not to as much as reasonably possible.

Well it isn't necessarily from a desire to break laws, but from a desire to do exactly what I want to when I want to.  If I truly believed as I seem to understand that you do then this is likely what I would do (perhaps I would add a degree of caution though and not make entirely foolish gambles).  In such a world why would I ever choose to do anything that I didn't want to do?  I think the reason they don't do this is because they act as sheep and are weak in will and only possess limited capacity to realize what they think they believe.  They can see the surface of the lake but not what lies within -- if the lake was their own true thoughts - that or they are afraid of the water.  This was my question to you and it is one that I don't understand. 

I know I don't think like others, I don't have the same emotional sympathies that most people display.  I don't really care so much if others have a bad day, even though I would tell them "sorry to hear that" (when I do this I am not lying I am honest as I am sorry that I had to hear it...jk (a little)).  I am not entirely cold-blooded in my emotions though.  I would prefer everyone to have an enjoyable time and I don't want any to suffer or be in misery.  It is just that I would much rather it be them a lot than me even a little.  This is the me at my natural core.

With my faith and belief it is different for me.  I put others before me even at greater expense to myself.  Now if you assume I am honest about how I tend to describe how I generally think then you must also get an understand of just how compelling my beliefs seem to be to me.  This is also why I previously described myself as a good candidate to justify faith and you likely wouldn't really want someone like me running around doing exactly 'everything' that I wanted to (not that I am as terrible in the ways you see 'bad' as you mentioned in another thread, but that I would be as terrible at the things I mentioned as understanding as 'bad' in that same thread).

Quote
You mentioned before that you do so out of fear (being arrested/etc) but that is an irrational response to an emotion just as is the hard wired survival instinct.

You're twisting my words.  Like I said before, the fear of being caught is not the primary reason for avoiding illegal activities.  It doesn't come naturally to most people to do harm just for the "fun" of it.

Sorry for reading into them differently.  Understand I am trying to read them as I would see them applying to myself in a manner to show my confusion with how I see your view.  This also highlights your confusion with my views (just as mine with yours) in where you mention harming others just for the fun of it.  To think as me it would be 'harming' them to 'remove' them from your area or a contested acquisition or some reason like that and not for 'fun' (but I suppose it could be fun to some in that same way but I am not such a person).

Quote
traveling blindly within the herd of society bending daily to the will of the pack and the oppression of those who have claimed authority.

I agree that most people do this; few people are truly unique and think for themselves.  However, as a rule, I don't blindly accept whatever society is selling and defy the status quo on many counts.  One example of how I do this is when it comes to wanting children.  Reproducing is an ingrained expectation and one that most people will oblige to without ever giving it a second thought.

Respect to you in not being a blind follower.  Still, though, are their things you don't do that you want to for reasons other than emotional considerations?

Quote
never toiling or doing anything that you absolutely did not honestly wish to do, and never tolerating even an instance of unhappiness

Both of these are extremely unrealistic.  There are some things you just have to do if you wish to continue surviving.  You can't expect others to wait on you hand and foot when it comes to acquiring food just because you don't feel like working to earn it, for example.  And it's pretty much impossible to never experience unhappiness, as a breadth of situations are out of your control.

Plausibly unrealistic but not absolutely.  One with will and clarity enough could effectively exert their will and achieve such things at a very minimum of effort (and certainly less effort and time than working).  The unhappiness is a bit different as it is a chemical and emotional response and not always entirely in ones control, but it too could be greatly eliminated if one simply had the desire to do it as much as the freedom their temporary state necessarily suggests.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 08, 2012, 01:16:37 pm
It is the only obligation available since you were addressing my reply to QoN and you have to follow what my reply to. 

My reply was contextual to the discussion underway and the "obligation" you chose wasn't the only one available since another was just indicated.

If you cannot keep up with the conversation, you shouldn't feel such an obligation to make a reply to every post made. 

Falsely insinuating such when my replies have been contextual to discussions responded to is a weak diversionary tactic on your part.

I have fully qualified every statement I have made -- where it was warranted.  I am not elusive at all ...

Denying that you prevaricate, when there is extant evidence of you doing so, (in your on words, unless your elusive squirrels have been posting in your stead), is disingenuous.

I just did tell you, though, so deal with it junkie. 

Junkie?  Where did that random ad hominem come from, a realization that you lost an argument and resorted to simple name-calling?

I shared how I was able to consider it and expressed where I was having difficulty understanding how I would assume she was viewing it.  You do know how to recognized posited empathy don't you?  I find it often the best way to contrast and compare subject matter with another by directly lending how one would actually view the case from their side.  Again you are entirely missing the point and you seem unable to grasp the flow of the dialog. 

If I were unable to "grasp the flow of the dialog", how is it that some portions of my replies have reflected and expanded upon what QoN has also posted in reply to the same "flow of dialog"?  Are you implicitly suggesting that she cannot follow that "flow", even though the replies from both of us have manifestly shown otherwise?  It's unclear whether you've marked this week on your calendar as "make false accusations & ad homs" week or, if this is merely the tactic you resort to when you've painted yourself into corners.  Either way, it's irrational and not indicative of critical thinking skills in action.

I am taking every measure I can muster to be as clear and simple in my replies as I am able.  If you don't understand exactly what I am saying ...

I never suggested that I didn't understand what you're saying, (or implying/insinuating or prevaricating about); that's your false insinuation.


You so love to be critical of faith and tack on the word 'blind' to it every time you use the word, but here you display even a greater blindness.

Your accusation is demonstrably false; critical thinking doesn't "blind" one to the active pursuit of accurate knowledge - that's the purview of blind religious faith.  Btw, such a 'do whatever you want' narcisstic philosophy you mention is exactly the same premise of the church of satan, (and even they proceed under secular laws so as not to end up imprisoned for any crimes).
- http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html

It isn't false at all. 

Your simple denial runs contrary to the extant evidence of your posts in this thread.

You are very critical of others (well in areas you don't agree with them -- but less so in areas you do) and especially those with faith or religious beliefs. 

More precisely, I am very critical of the specious beliefs that others hold, (not specifically of those holding them).

If you are not aware of this ...

My reply indicates that I am aware of consistently applying critical thinking to the concepts of 'belief-sans-evidence' therefore, any conclusions drawn from a premise of being unaware of this do not follow.

Why would you bend your knee to secular law (which would actually qualify the same as a religion in regards to enforcing its doctrines of control measures upon your freedoms).

Secular laws do not require blind faith in them, nor worship, nor an unreasonable expectation that they are structured upon a lackof evidentiary procedures. Conversely, religious belief systems, precepts and strictures are exclusively dependent upon blind faith in their basis in order to induce a measure of control over 'believers'.  If you are unable to discern the differences between the two, your self-declared "critical thinking skills" would fall significantly short in this regard.

You mention fear and you hint with this, but fear is an irrational response to the prepared and capable. 

No, QoN mentioned fears in context.  If you are unable to follow the ebb and flow of who posted what, learn to correctly discern attributions.

It is good to be back to a more adversarial exchange as we fair rather poorly when displaying niceties and it is always short lived and terse...

It was not I who was operating under any false pretense, nor was I being sought when your squirrels were looking for nuts.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Cuppycake on June 08, 2012, 01:51:54 pm
Tell me then, what it is you know, of a believer's obligation (mine) to defend a position of a desire to seek scientific advancements?  

That's not the obligation I wrote of.  In context, it remains the same burden of proof obligation for a believer making religious assertions.  I didn't include "a desire to seek scientific advancements" within the paradigm of specious religious beliefs, that's a tangetial diversion you introduced just now.  Such diversions aside, you still have failed to meet the burden of proof obligation for the religious assertions you've made thusfar.  Doubtless you'd prefer rehashing your rationale, (not "reasons"), for doing so however, we've previously argued these points inconclusively.  It was deemed moot to continue unless you either produce tangible/factual evidence to support your previous religiously-based, (not 'scientifically-based), claims under the burden of proof obligations, (or, simply concede that there is no such evidence; e.g., that "faith" is a belief which lacks evidence).  At this juncture, you've chosen neither option and wish to pursue a third; that of prevarications.

It is the only obligation available since you were addressing my reply to QoN and you have to follow what my reply to.  If you cannot keep up with the conversation, you shouldn't feel such an obligation to make a reply to every post made.  I have fully qualified every statement I have made -- where it was warranted.  I am not elusive at all, on the contrary it is you that follows a consistent duck, dodge, dip and obfuscate pattern.


You entirely miss the point of the message.  You claim to know that your existence is finite and ultimately entirely meaningless. You claim to know this with certainty and tout your reason and logic.

Don't presume to tell me that I missed the point when you actually mean that you're perceiving that I've missed your point, (the two are not equivalent).  As I have addressed the point, (so far, to a limited extent), your first presumption is false.  As to your second presumption regarding a "claim" I never explicitly not, implicitly made; please quote where I made such a claim in context, otherwise your second
contention is also false.

I just did tell you, though, so deal with it junkie.  It is quite obvious you missed the point as you couldn't even manage the simple task of following the topic the reply was in reference to.  My first point is dead on center, and my second could only be false if I didn't know what I was responding to in my response to QoN -- but I did and it was you that didn't, and still apparently doesn't, know.  I suppose now we will have to debate what I was replying to, and of course you would obviously know my own thoughts better than I would, eh?  You really need to pay closer attention to what is being said and to what it is being said to.


What does reason and logic say about such a situation?  Does it say to pursue a pointless struggle that you are absolutely positive you will lose or does it say instead to listen to your own irrational emotions and genetic brainwashing to struggle to the end -- even though you are positively convinced that your struggle is absolutely without a chance?

Your conclusions proceed from a false premise; I've never maintained that life was "a pointless struggle ...".  As QoN has pointed out to you, being aware of having a finite lifespan isn't logically-equivalent to "a pointless struggle".  The point of life is to live while you are able and to make the best of the time you do have.  If someone irrationally takes that as some kind of narcisstic license to do whatever they want, in disregard of secular laws and infringes upon others in a negative way, such persons will be 'taken out' according to the precepts of secular laws, not "after life" by specious religious precepts.

What conclusions?  I am asking questions in the above.  Again, go back and actually read what was said and to what it was said.  Remember, as much as you seem to want to make this about you, it was a point I was raising with QoN about my confusion on the subject.  I shared how I was able to consider it and expressed where I was having difficulty understanding how I would assume she was viewing it.  You do know how to recognized posited empathy don't you?  I find it often the best way to contrast and compare subject matter with another by directly lending how one would actually view the case from their side.  Again you are entirely missing the point and you seem unable to grasp the flow of the dialog.  I am taking every measure I can muster to be as clear and simple in my replies as I am able.  If you don't understand exactly what I am saying then ask me to stipulate and clarify (and no I am not saying that I think I am speaking too complex, I am saying that my meaning may not be reaching the intended target with the clarity that I desired -- oh wait it is you that considers that perfectly fine though and an insult upon the reader as you stated ever so conceitedly in your 'dumbing-down or wising-up' thread.  Do know that I consider the obligation of clarity to be the responsibility of the speaker and not the audience and so I would put myself at fault if there is uncertainty.).


You so love to be critical of faith and tack on the word 'blind' to it every time you use the word, but here you display even a greater blindness.

Your accusation is demonstrably false; critical thinking doesn't "blind" one to the active pursuit of accurate knowledge - that's the purview of blind religious faith.  Btw, such a 'do whatever you want' narcisstic philosophy you mention is exactly the same premise of the church of satan, (and even they proceed under secular laws so as not to end up imprisoned for any crimes).
- http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html

It isn't false at all.  You are very critical of others (well in areas you don't agree with them -- but less so in areas you do) and especially those with faith or religious beliefs.  If you are not aware of this then you posses little awareness or are incredibly narcissistic and you would actually be entirely "blind" in your faith of your own critical thinking abilities (that is sure to get your nostrils to flare I would imagine, unless you are like me and smile and think "oh good one").  Why would you bend your knee to secular law (which would actually qualify the same as a religion in regards to enforcing its doctrines of control measures upon your freedoms).  You mention fear and you hint with this, but fear is an irrational response to the prepared and capable.  Where is your confidence then?  Where is this mindset you hinted at when discussing your psychological evaluations for certain undisclosed military 'special' operations?  As Shakespeare wrote "To thine own self be true".

It is good to be back to a more adversarial exchange as we fair rather poorly when displaying niceties and it is always short lived and terse...

(http://i.imgur.com/8c3kS.jpg)
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 08, 2012, 02:17:06 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/8c3kS.jpg)

Doubtless, so it would seem to a passerby to this thread.
 :o
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Abrupt on June 09, 2012, 01:27:08 pm
It is the only obligation available since you were addressing my reply to QoN and you have to follow what my reply to. 

My reply was contextual to the discussion underway and the "obligation" you chose wasn't the only one available since another was just indicated.

Of course it was the only one available and I find ti rather common of you to try and once again evade and imagine some other alternative.  You didn't even go back to look did you?  To make it easy for you let me post again what you said since you apparently refuse to look back and still continue with this false and nonsensical claim of yours:

I see it quite the opposite.

Of course you do; having taken the position of a religious adherent/'true believer' means a certain obligation to defend such a position, (even when at a tactical and strategic disadvantage).

That is where you jumped into my reply to QoN and made your false claim out of your inability to follow what my reply was to, and here is the rest of my reply so that the context will be readily obvious and irrefutable:

I see it quite the opposite.  If we are as fleeting as you indicate then why prolong the agony.  Why extend life 100 years or 1000 years when ultimately each of those years is just another reminder of your coming demise -- what a wicked self inflicted wound that would be.  The contribution to humanity would be for the same reason the larvae eats while in that stage -- and that is because it is a development stage to what comes after.

And to add the exclamation point on top let us show what my post was in reply to:

If most people believe they don't actually die when they die, where is the motivation for developing the scientific technology to try and extend our natural lifespans?  If this life is just the doormat where we wipe our feet until we get to the "real life" in eternity, why bother trying to contribute anything of significance to better humanity?

Once again I must play this rather boring game of demonstrating that your pointless lessons in obfuscation will not deter me in any way.  Honestly, I don't know why you even continue such a course with me as it is never to your benefit and it will not deter me in any way.

If you cannot keep up with the conversation, you shouldn't feel such an obligation to make a reply to every post made. 

Falsely insinuating such when my replies have been contextual to discussions responded to is a weak diversionary tactic on your part.

See above where my statement is reinforced and your claim is proved irrevocably false.

I have fully qualified every statement I have made -- where it was warranted.  I am not elusive at all ...

Denying that you prevaricate, when there is extant evidence of you doing so, (in your on words, unless your elusive squirrels have been posting in your stead), is disingenuous.

And making false claims without a shred of proof is what?  This is a typical pattern of you to make a charge without backing it up.  And who are you putting on this show for?  It cannot be for me as I know my mind and I am most open about sharing it and standing fast to the challenge.  It cannot be for other readers -- unless you think there are some that only read what you say and nothing of what anyone else says?  Is that who it is for?  Is it in some way to compliment your own delusions about this dialogue?  There isn't any other possibility so I suppose the readers must take their pick.

Additionally, I must make you aware of something that your appear to be blind to.  You realize that by glancing away and not looking the other in the eye and drawing your cloak tightly about you that you are not concealing anything.  Your actions actually make you all the more obvious.  Your method isn't unique and is one of the most obvious things interpreted in interrogation.

I just did tell you, though, so deal with it junkie. 

Junkie?  Where did that random ad hominem come from, a realization that you lost an argument and resorted to simple name-calling?

It wouldn't be ad hominem if you were a junkie!  This is a common saying that I would assume anyone would be aware of, pardon me for being unaware of your ignorance (pay careful attention to that last bit and challenge that if you wish to).

I shared how I was able to consider it and expressed where I was having difficulty understanding how I would assume she was viewing it.  You do know how to recognized posited empathy don't you?  I find it often the best way to contrast and compare subject matter with another by directly lending how one would actually view the case from their side.  Again you are entirely missing the point and you seem unable to grasp the flow of the dialog. 

If I were unable to "grasp the flow of the dialog", how is it that some portions of my replies have reflected and expanded upon what QoN has also posted in reply to the same "flow of dialog"?  Are you implicitly suggesting that she cannot follow that "flow", even though the replies from both of us have manifestly shown otherwise?  It's unclear whether you've marked this week on your calendar as "make false accusations & ad homs" week or, if this is merely the tactic you resort to when you've painted yourself into corners.  Either way, it's irrational and not indicative of critical thinking skills in action.

The proof is in the pudding.  What have you added?  Absolutely nothing except to draw out a side dialog that contributes not one thing and only demonstrates your confusion.  Take your own statements and follow them to their conclusions and you get "Since you have not reflected or expanded upon what QoN posted then you are unable to grasp the flow of the dialog".  Well, well, that is exactly proving of this entire post of yours.  It doesn't expand or reflect upon anything that QoN posted and only obfuscates and goes on some wild tangent that you seem to love to pursue but never for any gain.  You are so concerned about not putting yourself at risk that you would stack the whole ballroom with tables and chairs and claim "there is no room to dance". 

I am taking every measure I can muster to be as clear and simple in my replies as I am able.  If you don't understand exactly what I am saying ...

I never suggested that I didn't understand what you're saying, (or implying/insinuating or prevaricating about); that's your false insinuation.

Of course you never suggested this.  Your own guards prevent you from ever making such a claim -- especially to someone like me.  The very choice of words you picked here proves that.  Why would you be so defensive to such a simple statement of mine where I was actually pointing out that I may have failed in my duties to carry my meaning?  Instead you turn this back around to be about you and your pride/ego/conceit/vanity.  This is laughable and most obvious to everyone but you.


You so love to be critical of faith and tack on the word 'blind' to it every time you use the word, but here you display even a greater blindness.

Your accusation is demonstrably false; critical thinking doesn't "blind" one to the active pursuit of accurate knowledge - that's the purview of blind religious faith.  Btw, such a 'do whatever you want' narcisstic philosophy you mention is exactly the same premise of the church of satan, (and even they proceed under secular laws so as not to end up imprisoned for any crimes).
- http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html

It isn't false at all. 

Your simple denial runs contrary to the extant evidence of your posts in this thread.

What evidence?  There isn't any at all and this is just a simple distraction of yours and it reveals that you have already forgotten the context of the dialog.  You really need to address whatever the underlying cause of this weakness of yours is as it has a tendency to cause you to babble on.

Why would you bend your knee to secular law (which would actually qualify the same as a religion in regards to enforcing its doctrines of control measures upon your freedoms).

Secular laws do not require blind faith in them, nor worship, nor an unreasonable expectation that they are structured upon a lackof evidentiary procedures. Conversely, religious belief systems, precepts and strictures are exclusively dependent upon blind faith in their basis in order to induce a measure of control over 'believers'.  If you are unable to discern the differences between the two, your self-declared "critical thinking skills" would fall significantly short in this regard.

The differences are quite obvious, but once again it is you who is found lacking as you only see the surface of the implications of your observations.  You effectively state here that you are a beta pack animal and incapable of making your own decisions.  If you don't agree with that then you absolutely don't know the difference and your 'critical thinking skills' are truly feeble.

You mention fear and you hint with this, but fear is an irrational response to the prepared and capable. 

No, QoN mentioned fears in context.  If you are unable to follow the ebb and flow of who posted what, learn to correctly discern attributions.

... If someone irrationally takes that as some kind of narcisstic license to do whatever they want, in disregard of secular laws and infringes upon others in a negative way, such persons will be 'taken out' according to the precepts of secular laws, not "after life" by specious religious precepts.

That can only mean fear, a fear of being 'taken out' as the only justification you cited for not doing whatever one wished.  People don't obey the rules for the sake of obeying them.  They obey them out of the fear of the penalties.  I followed it quite well it seems and it is you, once again, that stumbled.  You are seemingly not very good at "critical thinking" are you?
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 09, 2012, 02:25:33 pm
My reply was contextual to the discussion underway and the "obligation" you chose wasn't the only one available since another was just indicated.

Of course it was the only one available and I find ti rather common of you to try and once again evade and imagine some other alternative.  You didn't even go back to look did you?  

I replied within the context of discussion at the time the reply was made, disregarding your tangential diversions:
« Reply #92 on: 06-06-2012, 15:45:26 » Message ID: 549257

I just did tell you, though, so deal with it junkie.

Junkie?  Where did that random ad hominem come from, a realization that you lost an argument and resorted to simple name-calling?

It wouldn't be ad hominem if you were a junkie!  This is a common saying ...

Perhaps it is more common among "junkies" than with those I associate with.  As such, your ad hom is on par with the more "common" colloquialism of asking "are you on drugs?"  This type of weak rhetoric from you helps to establish probable cause for contending that your claimed "superior critical thinking skills" are merely the product of egotistic vanity and have no evidentiary basis in fact.

Once again I must play this rather boring game of demonstrating that your pointless lessons in obfuscation will not deter me in any way.  Honestly, I don't know why you even continue such a course with me as it is never to your benefit and it will not deter me in any way.

After reading the pointlessly-false diatribe you go on to present, a conclusive pattern in your responses emerges.  That pattern is one of prevarication, tangential diversionary tactics and 'projection', (wherein a demonstrable preference for falsely accusing me of doing what you
are manifesting constitutes 'projection').  Such a pattern is common in narcissists, (c.f., your "I have superior critical thinking skills"), and the self-deluded, (c.f., your compulsive denials when conclusive evidence contrary to your assertions is presented), and trolls.  Based upon your own posted words which provide supporting evidence for these conclusions, continuing this particular dialog in the same mode would be a pointless exercise in illogic.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

                          (http://i50.tinypic.com/34p0uvo.gif)
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: madeara on June 10, 2012, 12:00:20 pm
Hello,
The Bible has been proven to be accurate.  The only way to Heaven is to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior.  Jesus died on the cross for our sins.  As a Christian, I believe that God created Earth.  The orgin of life is Creationism.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 10, 2012, 12:09:17 pm
Hello,
The Bible has been proven to be accurate.

Hi, no it hasn't.  Please provide tangible evidence to support your claim unless it's a spurious one.
  
The only way to Heaven is to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior.  Jesus died on the cross for our sins.  As a Christian, I believe that God created Earth.  The orgin of life is Creationism.

These are merely specious religious beliefs, (being such, rests upon "faith" which is that for which no evidence other than circular belief exists), not everyone shares them.  Therefore, your remarks consist entirely of proselytizing a religious opinion which lacks substantive basis.  If you're just coming back from church, what was the subject of today's "sermon", making empty pronouncements?*
(http://i50.tinypic.com/do7885.jpg)
 
*-postscript: These posts appear in the d&d subforum.  If there was no intention of debating & discussing the specious religious declarations, then the Off Topic forum is just down the hall to the right.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: madeara on June 10, 2012, 01:54:44 pm
Falcon,
There is not any reason to be disrespectful.  I am respectful of you.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 10, 2012, 02:04:26 pm
Falcon,
There is not any reason to be disrespectful.  I am respectful of you.

My reply was to the content of your post, any purely subjective interpretation of it being "disrespectful" is entirely your own perception.  Such perceptions are prone to inaccuracy if they are emotionally, (rather than factually), based.  As the postscript indicated at the end of my replied rebuttal; this is the d&d subforum.  If you do not wish to debate & discuss your contentions, then simply making proselytzing religious declarations 'disrespects' those who reject such propaganda.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: queenofnines on June 10, 2012, 05:33:54 pm
The Bible has been proven to be accurate.

*Shakes head*  Let me guess...a pastor type pointed out a passage this one time that has appeared to come true.  You thought to yourself, "Good enough for me!  I don't have to do any further investigation on this matter; here is my proof that the Bible is accurate.  Never mind the fact that I haven't read the damn thing for myself."  That last part is subconscious, obviously.   ;)  It is extremely detrimental to rely on bits and pieces of hearsay to form your entire outlook on life.

Quote
The only way to Heaven is to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior.

The Care Bears don't really live in the clouds, and neither does Jesus.  Every time someone mentions a belief in heaven after death, I think of the Care Bears.  They are basically the equivalent of what you believe in.

Quote
Jesus died on the cross for our sins.

And so did at least sixteen other godlike entities (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/chap16.html) before Jesus.  You'd think the Son of God could have chosen something a bit more original...like being stoned to death by those fish and loaves, or turning water into cyanide.   ;D

Quote
The orgin of life is Creationism.

Confucius says: If we were made out of dirt, can we ever truly get clean?
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: SherylsShado on June 15, 2012, 05:26:46 pm
***The "CareBears" aren't the "equivalent" of what Christians believe in.  The "CareBears" were created for "unbelievers"...         
http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/the-true-spirit-of-the-care/page-2/ (http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/the-true-spirit-of-the-care/page-2/)
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 15, 2012, 05:37:40 pm
***The "CareBears" aren't the "equivalent" of what Christians believe in.  The "CareBears" were created for "unbelievers"...         
http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/the-true-spirit-of-the-care/page-2/ (http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/the-true-spirit-of-the-care/page-2/)

"Conversely"(?), xtianity began as a Jewish sect in the mid-1st century.{10}{11} Both "belief systems" are manmade.

10. Robinson, Essential Judaism: A Complete Guide to Beliefs, Customs and Rituals, p. 229.
11. Esler. The Early Christian World. p. 157f.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: SherylsShado on June 15, 2012, 07:20:30 pm
***The "CareBears" aren't the "equivalent" of what Christians believe in.  The "CareBears" were created for "unbelievers"...        
http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/the-true-spirit-of-the-care/page-2/ (http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/the-true-spirit-of-the-care/page-2/)

"Conversely"(?), xtianity began as a Jewish sect in the mid-1st century.{10}{11} Both "belief systems" are manmade.

10. Robinson, Essential Judaism: A Complete Guide to Beliefs, Customs and Rituals, p. 229.
11. Esler. The Early Christian World. p. 157f.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

  I'm not sure what "man-made religions" has to do with the "CareBears" being created for "unbelievers"???  Many Christians believe that "trash" belongs in the trash, they don't "play" with it (such as a Believer would be doing with a "CareBear" if they considered the "message" behind the "CareBears").  
    
     Here's a chart for clarification purposes--
    Christianity vs. VooDoo
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Christianity_vs_Voodoo (http://www.diffen.com/difference/Christianity_vs_Voodoo)
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 15, 2012, 07:40:22 pm
I'm not sure what "man-made religions" has to do with the "CareBears" being created for "unbelievers"???

A juxtapositioning non-contrast was being made between two manmade "beliefs".  

Many Christians believe that "trash" belongs in the trash, they don't "play" with it (such as a Believer would be doing with a "CareBear" if they considered the "message" behind the "CareBears").  
    
     Here's a chart for clarification purposes--
    Christianity vs. VooDoo
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Christianity_vs_Voodoo (http://www.diffen.com/difference/Christianity_vs_Voodoo)

Are you sure you posted the intended chart?  That one shows some 'remarkable similarities' between 'voudoun' & xtianity.
 :o
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: SherylsShado on June 15, 2012, 07:45:10 pm
I'm not sure what "man-made religions" has to do with the "CareBears" being created for "unbelievers"???

A juxtapositioning non-contrast was being made between two manmade "beliefs".  

Many Christians believe that "trash" belongs in the trash, they don't "play" with it (such as a Believer would be doing with a "CareBear" if they considered the "message" behind the "CareBears").  
    
     Here's a chart for clarification purposes--
    Christianity vs. VooDoo
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Christianity_vs_Voodoo (http://www.diffen.com/difference/Christianity_vs_Voodoo)

Are you sure you posted the intended chart?  That one shows some 'remarkable similarities' between 'voudoun' & xtianity.
 :o

Yes, I posted the intended chart.   What remarkable similarites between 'voudoun' & xtianity are you referring to, that the chart doesn't explain?
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 15, 2012, 07:56:36 pm
Yes, I posted the intended chart.   What remarkable similarites between 'voudoun' & xtianity are you referring to, that the chart doesn't explain?

There wasn't a large degree of contrast between the two belief systems - the chart simply showed that.  This was not surprising to me since voudoun is largely based upon a form of catholicism.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: SherylsShado on June 15, 2012, 08:05:07 pm
Yes, I posted the intended chart.   What remarkable similarites between 'voudoun' & xtianity are you referring to, that the chart doesn't explain?

There wasn't a large degree of contrast between the two belief systems - the chart simply showed that.  This was not surprising to me since voudoun is largely based upon a form of catholicism.

The main contrast is the most important one of course, which is "Believing in Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior; and receiving Eternal Salvation from Him" and not placing one's faith in other "spirits".  For a Christian, there is only one God and one Satan that would like to be God.  Satan can't be God,  so he imitates God at every available opportunity which is why a Christian is to avoid things like "CareBears", "Pokemon", and anything else with voodoo-ish, occultic undertones/origins.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 15, 2012, 09:39:26 pm
The main contrast is the most important one of course, which is "Believing in Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior; and receiving Eternal Salvation from Him" and not placing one's faith in other "spirits".

The operative phrase there being "other spirits"; which directly implies xtian belief in "xtian spirits" is okay but, beliefs in other "spirits" is somehow not okay?

Doubtless there's some none-to-subtle esoteric distinction somewhere in there ...
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: queenofnines on June 16, 2012, 05:10:15 am
The "CareBears" were created for "unbelievers"...[/i]        

Uh, the last time I checked, the Care Bears were created for children...

From your site:

Start with the name first. Who can deny the similarity between the name Care Bears and Carefours, the district of Port au Prince which is the heart of the Voodoo world? Can the cloud city of Care-a-Lot be anything but an idealized 'holy city' of the Lwa - a divine reflection of Carefours? Then consider some of the terminology. The Care Bears constantly want to 'Share until you care', just as the Lwa want to share the bodies of their worshipers. The Care Bears are constantly trying to be children's 'friends', just as the Voodoo Lwa are often referred to by their followers as 'friendly spirits' or just 'friends'.

Are you freakin' kidding me?!  With this kind of p i s s poor logic, ANYTHING can be interpreted as being "evil".  I can't believe you are allowing yourself to be duped like this.  What a scary world you must think we live in when a children's show can't even be safe from the throws of Satan.

P.S. Kids don't have a clue what "voodoo" is!
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: SherylsShado on June 16, 2012, 05:35:19 am
The main contrast is the most important one of course, which is "Believing in Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior; and receiving Eternal Salvation from Him" and not placing one's faith in other "spirits".

The operative phrase there being "other spirits"; which directly implies xtian belief in "xtian spirits" is okay but, beliefs in other "spirits" is somehow not okay?

Doubtless there's some none-to-subtle esoteric distinction somewhere in there ...

According to the Bible, there is God and then there is Satan and the fallen angels that serve him.  The Bible is a guide to one having a personal relationship with God and things to avoid if one wishes to spend eternity with Him.  Having a "personal guide", trying to connect to the "spirits in the spirit world" and-the-like is not Godly behavior and is forbidden.  If one isn't on God's side, then they've sided with the enemy by default.  Why is that so hard to comprehend for so many?? :dontknow: 
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: SherylsShado on June 16, 2012, 07:04:33 am
The "CareBears" were created for "unbelievers"...[/i]        

Uh, the last time I checked, the Care Bears were created for children...

From your site:

Start with the name first. Who can deny the similarity between the name Care Bears and Carefours, the district of Port au Prince which is the heart of the Voodoo world? Can the cloud city of Care-a-Lot be anything but an idealized 'holy city' of the Lwa - a divine reflection of Carefours? Then consider some of the terminology. The Care Bears constantly want to 'Share until you care', just as the Lwa want to share the bodies of their worshipers. The Care Bears are constantly trying to be children's 'friends', just as the Voodoo Lwa are often referred to by their followers as 'friendly spirits' or just 'friends'.

Are you freakin' kidding me?!  With this kind of p i s s poor logic, ANYTHING can be interpreted as being "evil".  I can't believe you are allowing yourself to be duped like this.  What a scary world you must think we live in when a children's show can't even be safe from the throws of Satan.

P.S. Kids don't have a clue what "voodoo" is!
 

     What I said was "the CareBears were created for unbelievers" and it holds.  I think the "CareBears originally were greeting card characters, whether or not they stood for what they came to represent now---I am unsure of.  Still, it isn't the "children" that are running out and buying "CareBears", it's the grown-ups in their lives.  
    
     A "CareBear" has no place in a God-worshipping home or near their children.  If unbelievers wish to let their children play with such, it's their choice.   As for Christian kids though, it serves no Godly purpose and Christians shouldn't want their children playing with toys of satanic origins.  
    
     The kids that don't have a clue what voo-doo is, do they REALLY need things like the "CareBears" to make it look like "demon possession" is o.k. ("just as the Lwa want to share the bodies of their worshipers") ?   Christian children have no business trying to make friends with "spirits, friendly or not" ( Care Bears are constantly trying to be children's 'friends', just as the Voodoo Lwa are often referred to by their followers as 'friendly spirits' or just 'friends' ).  
    
     Therefore, when the CareBears were created, they were not created in hopes to appeal to the "Christian market" but rather to those that  either purposely worship satan/spirits and the people that are unaware of their origins.  
    
     No, children's shows CAN'T even be safe from the throws of satan, WHY would they be?   Surely satan delights in every childs life where he can get a foot-hold, and turn them away from God.  Satan is known as being the "great deceiver", the "master of deception".  What a clever scheme to have seemingly innocent looking, very kid-appealing "CareBears" in all the little kid-appealing colors with the kid-loving "CareBear" cartoons to-boot.  Deceive the little kiddies into thinking that voo-doo is totally acceptable right under their parent's unknowing noses.  (Clever indeed, as most parents wouldn't let a child watch "the voo-doo reality show",  buy them voo-doo dolls or let them participate in biting the heads off of chickens.)    
    
     The world isn't a "scary place" for Christian children, they don't need to rely on the "security" that a child gets from a "CareBear" as it is a "false security" (and coincidentally, those that follow satan whether unknowingly or not DOES receive a false "feeling of security" from him.  It's a common "benefit" one gets from "friending him".  However, it's all part of his deception.   (It isn't satan that is known as "the great protector" afterall, is it?  satan isn't known for loving anyone-- except himself.  It's common for SO MANY people that follow satan, they actually think that they are the one that satan will ultimately take care of for all their years of service to him. That would be another lie, he isn't going to "take care of anyone in a good way" in the end.  In the end, he loses.  Being on the losing side is NEVER the favorable side to be on.)
    
     Those that aren't following Christ, those that don't even believe in Him yet will so willingly defend things that have blatant satanic origins/or that which glorifies satan (many cartoons, music, movies, celebrities), why is that?  They will claim to being "secure, without fear" not realizing they should be...and never wondering if satan has worked his deception on them even though they are (and oftentimes unknowingly) serving his purpose.  I've seen some on this forum say things like they wouldn't serve the mean God of the Old Testament.  However "mean", God doesn't deceive people.  He has layed out His terms and given everyone a chance to decide for themselves who to follow.  There's no deception in Him.  Most people don't like finding out that someone has deceived them, scammed them.  People that are unknowingly (or knowingly) following satan most definitely have been scammed, sorry.  
    
     Time seems to be running out at a rapid pace, still there's time right now to end his "scamming" and get things right with God.  :peace:

  
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: queenofnines on June 16, 2012, 09:09:59 am
it isn't the "children" that are running out and buying "CareBears", it's the grown-ups in their lives.

As with any other toy or physical need a child requires. Kiddos don't have credit cards. What's your point?  
    
Quote
As for Christian kids though, it serves no Godly purpose and Christians shouldn't want their children playing with toys of satanic origins.

What a sad, joyless, deprived life these kids must lead if 95 percent of their entertainment options are banned. Put a stranglehold on a child's imagination and see what type of person they grow up to be. Hint: it won't be pretty.

Quote
The kids that don't have a clue what voo-doo is,

99 percent of them...

Quote
do they REALLY need things like the "CareBears" to make it look like "demon possession" is o.k.?

On the contrary, do they really need things like the cross, which looks like a modified version of the swastika? How about worshiping god, "a man on high" (heil, Hitler!)? Don't forget the hand gestures!

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4L8Jx9hEoWE/TN8B6fJGypI/AAAAAAAAASc/M2l0238TgUQ/s1600/hitler.gif) vs. (http://parishableitems.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/pope-benedict-sign-of-the-cross.jpg)

...Do you see how batty this way of thinking is?!

Quote
Care Bears are constantly trying to be children's 'friends', just as the Voodoo Lwa are often referred to by their followers as 'friendly spirits' or just 'friends'

As opposed to being their...enemy? Pedobear?

(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/315/038/55e.jpg)

AND DOESN'T JESUS WANT TO BE THEIR "FRIEND"??
    
Quote
The world isn't a "scary place" for Christian children

Except for the real-life invisible monster running around who wants to torture them in an oven forever if they don't believe in the other invisible guy. How's that for an after-school special?!
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Falconer02 on June 16, 2012, 11:49:00 am
I'm not here to take sides on this issue, but from my experience with arguing with you, Sheryl, I noticed a certain quality of being out-of-date with media interpretations when you and I argued about Dungeons and Dragons being satanic/demonic and causing harm to families and stuff. The whole idea was created from religious fearmongering zealots and the 'trend' got way too popular. I hate to sound like this paragraph is bashing, but I'd highly recommend you try to be more open-minded on these types of issues. Care Bears are evil in your eyes, D+D is evil in others' eyes, Smurfs are evil in Jehpvah's Witnesses eyes, etc... I can make junk up too- Nintendo's Zelda series promotes demon worship from having you talk to spirits who give you new fighting powers! BAN ZELDA! This is a very similar mindset that stems all the way back to the salem witch trials- labelling something and spreading needless fear without having any provable or logical basis for it while pretty much being hypocritical with the accuser's own belief system.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 16, 2012, 12:21:35 pm
According to the Bible, there is God and then there is Satan and the fallen angels that serve him.

Yes well ... are these "beings" depicted as physical ones or, "spirit beings"?  There's no significant difference in "spirits" other than labelling some as "bad spirits", ("fallen angels", "fallen archangels", fallen arches, , "lwa", etc.), and some as "good spitits", (preferred "g-ds", "angels", death-dealing archangels", "jesus", etc.).  They're all designated as "spirits" under various descriptive labels, depending upon subjective bias. According to the same "bible", "satan" was once designated as an "archangel of g-d" before "rebelling" and being redesignated as a "fallen angel".
 :o  :angel12:

The Bible is a guide to one having a personal relationship with God and things to avoid if one wishes to spend eternity with Him.

The kids that don't have a clue what voo-doo is, do they REALLY need things like the "CareBears" to make it look like "demon possession" is o.k. ("just as the Lwa want to share the bodies of their worshipers") ?   Christian children have no business trying to make friends with "spirits, friendly or not" ( Care Bears are constantly trying to be children's 'friends', just as the Voodoo Lwa are often referred to by their followers as 'friendly spirits' or just 'friends' ).

So, those xtians who have "let the spirit of jesus into their hearts" are 'completely different' than voudoun practicioners who believe they're sharing their bodies with Lwa "spirits"?  I contend there's no difference at all, especially if one considers the xtian "g-d/jesus" to be malevolent "spirits" who seek to "possess" their worshippers/followers.

Having a "personal guide", trying to connect to the "spirits in the spirit world" and-the-like is not Godly behavior and is forbidden.

Under those restrictions, having "jesus" or "g-d" as a personal guide to the xtian spiritual world would be prohibited, were it not for the biased hypocrisy, ("these spirits, not those spirits").  

If one isn't on God's side, then they've sided with the enemy by default.  Why is that so hard to comprehend for so many?? :dontknow:  

That part isn't difficult to comprehend.  The part that is more 'mystifying' is an arbitrary dividing of "spirits" into "good and evil" ones, depending upon any particular religious adherence, (or even of lack of specific religious adherences).  For instance, from a non-religious persepctive, the whole idea of "spirit possession" would be a 'bad idea', no matter what particular flavor of "spirit" is doing the possessing, ("jehovah" or "lwa").
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: SherylsShado on June 17, 2012, 04:07:28 pm
@qon, falconer02 and falcon9,
 
     Based on your recent replies to this thread, it seems as though none of you can tell the difference between  "God and His Heavenly Angels" and "Satan and the fallen angels". (from falcon9's quote "these spirits not those spirits"...). 
   
      For a child to own a Carebear probably isn't going to send them to hell...right away.  Let the child build their imagination and entertainment around satanic influences.  Let them grow to their teens and continue to build their imagination on satanic musical lyrics, role-playing and drugs.  If they are lucky enough to survive to adulthood, what type of person have they grown up to be...?  Most of the time, it isn't "pretty". (Is Lindsay Lohan a christian...or is "that mess" considered to be "pretty" these days?)  What starts out innocent enough has the capacity to end badly, sin never starts out as being shown as "ugly".  There's nothing wrong with Christians wanting better for their children.  Those that wish to toss all that worldly trash at their children and think it makes them better parents for it, thinks it gives them better kids then by all means indulge!!  I was simply pointing out that those kinds of things aren't for Christian children and so, therefore---there won't be any "Carebears" existing in the clouds with Jesus as Jesus doesn't tolerate sin. (ref: qon's initial carebear post).

     For fun, you each should take a piece of paper and write "GOD" at the top.  Use your search bar and write down as many Biblical qualities you can find about God.  Then write "satan" at the top of a second column and since satan is God's opposition ("opposite") write down the opposite of God's qualities under satan's column.  Example:  God is love, satan is hate.  God is truth, satan is a liar.  God is fair, satan is a cheat.  Go as far as you can with that list-building and when you're done, have a really good look at those qualities that belong to satan because if you should die before you can get yourselves right with God---THAT is what you are going to be spending an eternity with.  Don't you think that you DESERVE better than that???  :dontknow:
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 17, 2012, 04:34:26 pm
@qon, falconer02 and falcon9,
 
     Based on your recent replies to this thread, it seems as though none of you can tell the difference between  "God and His Heavenly Angels" and "Satan and the fallen angels". (from falcon9's quote "these spirits not those spirits"...).

From the content of your reply, I'm going to have to infer that you misunderstood the full intent of that "spirits" remark.  If there are such "spirits", (and I'm not contending that there are since that's your position), dividing them up into "good or bad"/"malevolent or benevolent" is largely arbitrarily-dependent upon either preconceived notions or, 'learned' ones.  The comparison between being being "possessed by the 'holy' spirit" and being "possessed by a demon" regards both as alleged "spirit possessions", (the former being generally approved of by most xtians and the latter, not so much).
 
      For a child to own a Carebear probably isn't going to send them to hell...right away.  Let the child build their imagination and entertainment around satanic influences.  Let them grow to their teens and continue to build their imagination on satanic musical lyrics, role-playing and drugs.

Simply designating "Carebears", unspecified music and roleplaying games as "satanic" doesn't confer satanism upon them.  Is there substantive evidence or, merely unsupported opinion for these claims?

What starts out innocent enough has the capacity to end badly ...

If you mean that indoctrinating "innocent" children with religious proselytizing has the potential to end badly, I agree.  If I can realize that wasn't your intent, you can realize what my intent there was, (if not, we could argue that religious fundamentalism being instilled at any age has just as much potential to end badly, no matter what that religion is - xtianity or satanism ... yes 'Virginia', satanism is a religion).

   For fun, you each should take a piece of paper and write "GOD" at the top. Use your search bar and write down as many Biblical qualities you can find about God.  Then write "satan" at the top of a second column and since satan is God's opposition ("opposite") write down the opposite of God's qualities under satan's column. 

That's not exactly my idea of "fun" however, comparing the arbitrary attributions of hypothetical entities serves as much purpose as comparing "Zeus & Hades", "Horus & Set", "Ahriman & Ahura Mazda" and so on.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Falconer02 on June 17, 2012, 05:20:48 pm
Quote
For a child to own a Carebear probably isn't going to send them to hell...right away.  Let the child build their imagination and entertainment around satanic influences.

Or, you know, maybe those "satanic influences" will help them visualize the next amazing cartoon, movie, book, game, etc. that's regarded as a work of art. Perhaps they could be the next Mark Twain or HG Wells! Nah. CARE BEARS ARE DEMONIC! AVOID CREATIVE IDEAS AT ALL COSTS IF THEY HAVE ANY SORT OF MAGICAL IDEAS IN THEM! This is literally Dark-Aged reasoning that's flaming with hypocrisy. That's no exhaggeration. You'd fit in quite well in a time where there was no media or culture. It's too bad you were born in a time where we value creativity. One can dream, right? But I'm assume you're against creative dreams too, so...nevermind.

Quote
I was simply pointing out that those kinds of things aren't for Christian children and so, therefore---there won't be any "Carebears" existing in the clouds with Jesus as Jesus doesn't tolerate sin. (ref: qon's initial carebear post).

Oh please. I imagine your heart starts pounding and you begin sweating when you hear a child singing "My Little Ponyyyyy....My Little Ponyyyy...."

Quote
Those that wish to toss all that worldly trash at their children and think it makes them better parents for it, thinks it gives them better kids then by all means indulge!

Right. Forget all that trashy media that's fun, entertaining, and morally lesson-based and make them study an ancient wordy book that says I should kill my kids if they're disrespectful. That'll get me father of the year for sure.

Quote
For fun, you each should take a piece of paper and write "GOD" at the top.  Use your search bar and write down as many Biblical qualities you can find about God.  Then write "satan" at the top of a second column and since satan is God's opposition ("opposite") write down the opposite of God's qualities under satan's column.  Example:  God is love, satan is hate.  God is truth, satan is a liar.  God is fair, satan is a cheat.  Go as far as you can with that list-building and when you're done, have a really good look at those qualities that belong to satan because if you should die before you can get yourselves right with God---THAT is what you are going to be spending an eternity with.  Don't you think that you DESERVE better than that???  

Since you cannot grasp the simple concepts that your god is not fair, is hateful, is a cheater, etc. etc. any rational person with your beliefs will easily conclude that a believer is screwed either way. I can easily provide examples if asked of why your god is troublesome, but I think it would be pointless considering the above and how you simply ignore the problems presented in favor of mindless, morally disgusting, and schlocky reasoning. One can conclude that you enjoy being ignorant to the fact that your beliefs are littered with simple problems that you intentionally fail to acknowledge. It's rather strange that you avoid such problems instead of tackling them head-on and try to make sense of them.

tl;dnr - Ignorance is bliss?  :dontknow:
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: SherylsShado on June 17, 2012, 06:38:00 pm
@qon, falconer02 and falcon9,
 
     Based on your recent replies to this thread, it seems as though none of you can tell the difference between  "God and His Heavenly Angels" and "Satan and the fallen angels". (from falcon9's quote "these spirits not those spirits"...).
From the content of your reply, I'm going to have to infer that you misunderstood the full intent of that "spirits" remark.  If there are such "spirits", (and I'm not contending that there are since that's your position), dividing them up into "good or bad"/"malevolent or benevolent" is largely arbitrarily-dependent upon either preconceived notions or, 'learned' ones.  The comparison between being being "possessed by the 'holy' spirit" and being "possessed by a demon" regards both as alleged "spirit possessions", (the former being generally approved of by most xtians and the latter, not so much).

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone claiming to be "possessed by the 'holy' spirit" before.  They can receive the gift of the holy spirit or be filled with the holy spirit.  At any rate, of those that have been filled with the Holy Spirit---I've never heard anyone complain about it, they are quite joyful about it and can manage to function like a normal human being...believe it or not.   Of those that are said to be "demon-possessed", they are not "joyful" but rather often fearful.  (A great book for you, qon & falcon02 to read is "The Beautiful Side of Evil" by Johanna Michaelsen.  It's available cheap at amazon.com.  It's a true story, very informative, very interesting.) 
 
      For a child to own a Carebear probably isn't going to send them to hell...right away.  Let the child build their imagination and entertainment around satanic influences.  Let them grow to their teens and continue to build their imagination on satanic musical lyrics, role-playing and drugs.

Quote from: falcon9
Simply designating "Carebears", unspecified music and roleplaying games as "satanic" doesn't confer satanism upon them.  Is there substantive evidence or, merely unsupported opinion for these claims?
   Seriously?  The voo-doo origins of the CareBears can be found using your search bar.  The instances mentioned in previous posts of "friending friendly spirits" has nothing to do with making friends with "angels".  Having spirit guides, spirit "friends" are popular with New Age and one can also find the difference between New Age and Chrisitanity by using their search bar.  Satanic musical lyrics---one can get the lyrics to any questionable rock song on-line.  If the lyrics don't boldly praise satan, then one can also check out the profiles of the singer(s) to see if their lives do.  As for questionable "role-playing games", God wants his children to keep their minds on good things (Phil 4:8), if those games are about honor, nobility, truth,  "doing the right thing" then they probably wouldn't be considered a bad thing.  But when role-playing starts screwing up a kids mind, when the kid no longer can distinguish between the real world and their role-playing character and "fantasyland" and thy need psychiatric help, that should surely be a sign that that particular role-playing is not a good thing.

What starts out innocent enough has the capacity to end badly ...

Quote from: falcon9
  If you mean that indoctrinating "innocent" children with religious proselytizing has the potential to end badly, I agree.  If I can realize that wasn't your intent, you can realize what my intent there was, (if not, we could argue that religious fundamentalism being instilled at any age has just as much potential to end badly, no matter what that religion is - xtianity or satanism ... yes 'Virginia', satanism is a religion).
  No that wasn't my intent and yes,I understand your intent.  However, Christians are "stewards" and responsible for all things given to them...including their children.  A Christian parent can only teach their children about God, at some point that child has to determine for themself to accept Jesus, or reject.  Christians don't live perfect lives and they aren't perfect people.  Their kids can live lives of heart-break just like the children of unbelievers.  Still, being a good steward means you give that child the best start toward a personal relationship with God and pray every day that God will guide their path and watch over them, while removing all things known to be evil from their path.  ("CareBears", cartoons, etc---people can and have survived for many, many years without them and did just fine.)

   For fun, you each should take a piece of paper and write "GOD" at the top. Use your search bar and write down as many Biblical qualities you can find about God.  Then write "satan" at the top of a second column and since satan is God's opposition ("opposite") write down the opposite of God's qualities under satan's column. 

Quote from: falcon9
That's not exactly my idea of "fun" however, comparing the arbitrary attributions of hypothetical entities serves as much purpose as comparing "Zeus & Hades", "Horus & Set", "Ahriman & Ahura Mazda" and so on.

Oh, well...I thought that perhaps since you probably had a "CareBear" in your youth and had all that "imagination" working at full speed, that you have no problem getting a little "creative". 

You know, I really do not "enjoy" discussing matters of God with you, qon or falconer02 because I know it is a subject of easy ridicule.  What I hate worse though, what bothers me more is to read many of the posts (by all three of you)and see just how badly deceived by satan you all are.  I'm not saying that to be "mean" because it is heartbreaking to me.  I like you guys, I want better for you.  No one that comes to God comes to Him "after" they have "gotten their life all in order", He takes people as they are and helps them work things out eventually.  There should be no fear in talking to God, faith is the opposite of fear and it is by faith that people pray.  He's not "scary", He loves you guys and He's waiting to hear from you...   
     Talk to Him just as you would a friend, and see how that goes.  I know you guys have said that you've tried it all before.  I believe you.  I also believe it's time to try it again...no excuses, just give it another shot beginning with a heart-to-heart prayer with just you and God.  Take a good look around you.  Time is running out.  MANY are saying so, NOT just the Christians.  I have non-believers every day telling me that things can't go on for much longer, even they can see that time is running out.   Make your list, choose who you're going to spend eternity with before it's too late. :peace:     
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: SherylsShado on June 17, 2012, 06:51:10 pm
@falcon02,
     I'm not so uncreative and unimaginative that I can't "hear a demon saying the words" in your posts as of late.  (Not literally of course but, you are full of hatred whether you realize it or not.  The evidence of it in your posts the past year speaks volumes.)  It's alarming because you don't realize that even when most Believers are "upset" at being insulted in these forums, for the most part...they don't post back with such apparent hate like you do.  Why don't they?  That would be God in them, because they certainly otherwise could.  I'm not trying to "insult you", I'm just trying to explain to you that God does make a positive difference in people. :heart:

     That being said, yes please.  I would like for you to provide Scriptural evidence of where God is not fair, is hateful, is a cheater, etc.  I don't wish to be "blasted" with paragraph after paragraph of words copied from other sites making it impossible for a response back due to time limitations on my part.  One instance at a time would be great.  If that one could be settled before going to the next---fantastic. 
      Thank you.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: falcon9 on June 17, 2012, 07:16:06 pm
@qon, falconer02 and falcon9,
 
     Based on your recent replies to this thread, it seems as though none of you can tell the difference between  "God and His Heavenly Angels" and "Satan and the fallen angels". (from falcon9's quote "these spirits not those spirits"...).

From the content of your reply, I'm going to have to infer that you misunderstood the full intent of that "spirits" remark.  If there are such "spirits", (and I'm not contending that there are since that's your position), dividing them up into "good or bad"/"malevolent or benevolent" is largely arbitrarily-dependent upon either preconceived notions or, 'learned' ones.  The comparison between being being "possessed by the 'holy' spirit" and being "possessed by a demon" regards both as alleged "spirit possessions", (the former being generally approved of by most xtians and the latter, not so much).

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone claiming to be "possessed by the 'holy' spirit" before.  They can receive the gift of the holy spirit or be filled with the holy spirit.  At any rate, of those that have been filled with the Holy Spirit-

Same packaging, different labels on the packages.  Regardless, being "filled with the 'holy spirit'" is precisely like "possession by an evil" one.  Some would contend that that "holy spirit" isn't so "holy" after all and is just another hypothesized "spirit" going around possessing far more hapless victims than so-called "demonic" ones are.
 :angel12:  :o

I've never heard anyone complain about it, they are quite joyful about it and can manage to function like a normal human being...believe it or not. 

Oh, they may put on sort of a convincing facade or 'normality' however, a seething froth of irrationality often awaits just below the surface of such an outer facade.  Of course, that's not exclusive to xtians either.
 
      For a child to own a Carebear probably isn't going to send them to hell...right away.  Let the child build their imagination and entertainment around satanic influences.  Let them grow to their teens and continue to build their imagination on satanic musical lyrics, role-playing and drugs.

Quote from: falcon9
Simply designating "Carebears", unspecified music and roleplaying games as "satanic" doesn't confer satanism upon them.  Is there substantive evidence or, merely unsupported opinion for these claims?
   

Seriously?  The voo-doo origins of the CareBears can be found using your search bar.

I mentioned 'substantive evidence', not speculation based upon religious bias, (which never, ever qualifies as substantive evidence).
 
The instances mentioned in previous posts of "friending friendly spirits" has nothing to do with making friends with "angels".  Having spirit guides, spirit "friends" are popular with New Age and one can also find the difference between New Age and Chrisitanity by using their search bar.

Conversely, a 'net search reveals a substantial amount of referential similarities between xtianity and "new age" stuff, (beyond some overt differences between new age polytheism and old age xtian monotheism, even after judaism stole the one g-d concept from the pre-existing Aegyptian concept of "Ra").

But when role-playing starts screwing up a kids mind, when the kid no longer can distinguish between the real world and their role-playing character and "fantasyland" and thy need psychiatric help, that should surely be a sign that that particular role-playing is not a good thing.

If so, then such xtian role-playing games extant should be avoided and condemned for the exactly the same "reasons":
http://www.ehow.com/list_5910351_christian-computer-role_playing-games.html

What starts out innocent enough has the capacity to end badly ...

Quote from: falcon9
  If you mean that indoctrinating "innocent" children with religious proselytizing has the potential to end badly, I agree.  If I can realize that wasn't your intent, you can realize what my intent there was, (if not, we could argue that religious fundamentalism being instilled at any age has just as much potential to end badly, no matter what that religion is - xtianity or satanism ... yes 'Virginia', satanism is a religion).

  No that wasn't my intent and yes,I understand your intent.  However, Christians are "stewards" and responsible for all things given to them...including their children.  A Christian parent can only teach their children about God, at some point that child has to determine for themself to accept Jesus, or reject.   

How is a young child, just learning to develop their reasoning abilities and heavily-influenced by such parental authority as imposes religious indoctrination upon their impressionable young minds, not being propagandized by any early religious proselytization?

   For fun, you each should take a piece of paper and write "GOD" at the top. Use your search bar and write down as many Biblical qualities you can find about God.  Then write "satan" at the top of a second column and since satan is God's opposition ("opposite") write down the opposite of God's qualities under satan's column. 

Quote from: falcon9
That's not exactly my idea of "fun" however, comparing the arbitrary attributions of hypothetical entities serves as much purpose as comparing "Zeus & Hades", "Horus & Set", "Ahriman & Ahura Mazda" and so on.

Oh, well...I thought that perhaps since you probably had a "CareBear" in your youth and had all that "imagination" working at full speed, that you have no problem getting a little "creative". 

Nope, I was active duty military in 1981, (when "carebears" were put on the market), and well beyond that degree of "youth".  Back to the moot parallels; you did catch the part about comparing biased attributes of different supernatural entities from different cultures, nyet?

You know, I really do not "enjoy" discussing matters of God with you, qon or falconer02 because I know it is a subject of easy ridicule. 

If such occurs, it has regarded the unsupported religious beliefs themselves and not necessarily the "believer".  I've tried, with limited success, to draw this distinction before.  A 'believer' is not their "belief", (even in such instances of extreme fundamentalism, a "believer" is one who "believes" something and this inherently separates a belief from believer).

What I hate worse though, what bothers me more is to read many of the posts (by all three of you)and see just how badly deceived by satan you all are. 

Say what?  If someone does not believe in the concept of "satan", (a disbelief), how can something someone else 'believes' be applicable outside of the believer's belief system?  That not only seems presumptuous, it Is presumptuous since "satanism" is largely 'inverted' xtianity.

I'm not saying that to be "mean" because it is heartbreaking to me.  I like you guys, I want better for you.   

Okay however, this isn't an open-ended 'license' to proselytize.  Sure, you can still do it but, it's unlikely to go over well.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Falconer02 on June 17, 2012, 09:03:55 pm
Quote
I'm not so uncreative and unimaginative that I can't "hear a demon saying the words" in your posts as of late.  (Not literally of course but, you are full of hatred whether you realize it or not.  The evidence of it in your posts the past year speaks volumes.)  It's alarming because you don't realize that even when most Believers are "upset" at being insulted in these forums, for the most part...they don't post back with such apparent hate like you do.  Why don't they?  That would be God in them, because they certainly otherwise could.  I'm not trying to "insult you", I'm just trying to explain to you that God does make a positive difference in people.

There's a major difference between hatred and frustration. I'm frustrated that people like you still cling to this irrational nonsense that stems back to horrific times in human history. I'm frustrated at the unwillingness to try to understand the other POV that's based upon simple logic. Not only that, but you implore this narrow-minded behavior. It's ridiculous. People with these irrational ideals (kids cartoons = evil) is nothing short of the same mindframe Westboro uses. Terrible, uneducated, and out-dated extremist ideals. What you think is love and positive is actually irrational fear and narrow-minded thinking.

/rant

Quote
That being said, yes please.  I would like for you to provide Scriptural evidence of where God is not fair, is hateful, is a cheater, etc.

Well I've already presented philosophical examples in the past (to which you've always just disappeared from...), what you're asking here is like shooting fish in a barrel. Before I begin, you must agree to these terms-

Evil- morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
       characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.


Unfair- not fair; not conforming to approved standards, as of justice, honesty, or ethics

Hateful- to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.

Cheat- to defraud; swindle

I just grabbed these from dictionary.com . Do you agree that these meanings describe these 4 words?
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: Octavia7 on June 17, 2012, 10:40:35 pm
Hey there is a god and he made us in his image, god loves us and if you dont live for christ then you go to hell, he dont send us to hell for little things it have to really be something serious and long as we give ourself to christ and get saved, because if you aint livin for christ you living for satan, everyone has a soul you just have to meditate their is life after death, there's 3 heaven's the first heaven is the earth, the second heaven is the sky and the third heaven is where god and Jesus are. :female:
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: champak97 on June 17, 2012, 10:59:40 pm
Hey there is a god and he made us in his image, god loves us and if you dont live for christ then you go to hell, he dont send us to hell for little things it have to really be something serious and long as we give ourself to christ and get saved, because if you aint livin for christ you living for satan, everyone has a soul you just have to meditate their is life after death, there's 3 heaven's the first heaven is the earth, the second heaven is the sky and the third heaven is where god and Jesus are. :female:
So, every human being on earth should be a christian, otherwise they go to hell ::) What about other religions? This is what happens with too much brainwashing :o
Title: Re: origin of life...
Post by: gamerpeeps on June 18, 2012, 11:35:56 am
Brainwashing is very difficult to undo! I must say, falconeer and falcon, you guys are doing a marvelous job in presenting arguments to enable the brainwashed to open their eyes to at least look at other opinions/evidence. Alas, some are simply not ready to listen/look.
Title: Re: origin of life...
Post by: JediJohnnie on June 18, 2012, 11:59:10 am
There are just as many "brainwashed" into rejecting the evidence of the Bible's accuracy because it doesn't fit into their narcissistic world-view.
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: queenofnines on June 18, 2012, 12:02:09 pm
What I hate worse though, what bothers me more is to read many of the posts (by all three of you)and see just how badly deceived by satan you all are.

And from my standpoint, I am sad by how deceived you are by religion. You are right about there being a definite pull and control over a person's life...you just don't realize it's yours.

Quote
I like you guys, I want better for you.

I want better for anyone who is wasting their life devoting it to ancient falsehoods. This is your only guaranteed life, and to have unnecessary restraints on it and to live in fear of hell thanks to religion is a shameful waste of life indeed.

Quote
I know you guys have said that you've tried it all before.

Just to clarify once again: I was every bit of a Christian as you are from January 2002 through March 2007. I sincerely believed in your god during that time.

Quote
Take a good look around you.  Time is running out.  MANY are saying so, NOT just the Christians.

Yes, that would be the other version of nut who thinks the apocalypse is impending. It's NOT. Statistically, I still have at least another 50 years before I kick the bucket. And I won't waste a single day of it leaving in fear of any fairytale. The only impending doom is the doom man generates for himself (overpopulation, nuclear warfare).

Quote
choose who you're going to spend eternity with before it's too late.

On the contrary, people should choose how their going to spend the rest of their finite time before it's too late! How many people would be pleased to know come their deathbed that they blew their only life believing in b.s.?!
Title: Re: origin of life...
Post by: queenofnines on June 18, 2012, 12:06:11 pm
There are just as many "brainwashed" into rejecting the evidence of the Bible's accuracy because it doesn't fit into their narcissistic world-view.

And JediJohnnie steps in awkwardly with yet another gem of insight...
Title: Re: origin of life...
Post by: falcon9 on June 18, 2012, 02:00:08 pm
Brainwashing is very difficult to undo! I must say, falconeer and falcon, you guys are doing a marvelous job in presenting arguments to enable the brainwashed to open their eyes to at least look at other opinions/evidence. Alas, some are simply not ready to listen/look.

By its very nature of irrationality and emotional 'appeal' to some, religious brain-washing remains largely impervious not only to rational dissuasion but, to arguments consisting of counter-emotional elements.  The presentation of counter-arguments and dissenting viewpoints to religious proselytization is not intended so much as a form of "cult deprogramming" as it is a method of revealing the insidious nature of religious belief to the unwary.

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”
--– Richard Dawkins
Title: Re: origin of life...
Post by: falcon9 on June 18, 2012, 02:10:51 pm
There are just as many "brainwashed" into rejecting the evidence of the Bible's accuracy because it doesn't fit into their narcissistic world-view.

And JediJohnnie steps in awkwardly with yet another gem of insight...

Apparently, such a "gem" is implicitly characterizing the ability to reason as being "brainwashed" and "narcissistic" in some bizarre inversion of a deficient ability to reason.  There's no substantive evidence of the "bible's accuracy" insofar as evidence supporting the specious religious beliefs contained within its pages goes.

"The Bible as we have it contains elements that are scientifically incorrect or even morally repugnant. No amount of 'explaining away' can convince us that such passages are the product of Divine Wisdom."
-- Bernard J. Bamberger
Title: Re: origin of life... calling falcon and others
Post by: jcribb16 on June 18, 2012, 07:02:35 pm
The "CareBears" were created for "unbelievers"...[/i]        

Uh, the last time I checked, the Care Bears were created for children...

From your site:

Start with the name first. Who can deny the similarity between the name Care Bears and Carefours, the district of Port au Prince which is the heart of the Voodoo world? Can the cloud city of Care-a-Lot be anything but an idealized 'holy city' of the Lwa - a divine reflection of Carefours? Then consider some of the terminology. The Care Bears constantly want to 'Share until you care', just as the Lwa want to share the bodies of their worshipers. The Care Bears are constantly trying to be children's 'friends', just as the Voodoo Lwa are often referred to by their followers as 'friendly spirits' or just 'friends'.

Are you freakin' kidding me?!  With this kind of p i s s poor logic, ANYTHING can be interpreted as being "evil".  I can't believe you are allowing yourself to be duped like this.  What a scary world you must think we live in when a children's show can't even be safe from the throws of Satan.

P.S. Kids don't have a clue what "voodoo" is!
I have to admit, I have never ever heard of Care Bears being similar to Carefours.  Care-a-Lot has always been known to be based on King Arthur's Camelot.  The names of the bears represent different emotions, character, and feelings that kids deal with on a real basis, and help the kids to learn how to do or achieve things like sharing, caring, loving, forgiving, cheering others.  They learn that it's okay to be grumpy, sad, and upset at times, but there are ways to change them into positive thoughts and behaviors. 

Blogs sometimes can come across opinionated or biased, especially if based on the bloggers points of views.  In this particular one that was provided in here, I have never heard of this person, and frankly do not accept his "opinion" as truth.  If I am wrong and can be shown proof from the makers' and developers' "secret" files and conversations, then I'll look at it.  But, I agree with you, Care Bears are made for children.  In later years, the Care Bears, who represent the good side, even win over the evil side.  That's not voodoo in my thoughts.
Title: Re: origin of life...
Post by: Administrator on June 19, 2012, 07:14:35 am
Kind members, please wrap up this discussion as soon as possible.  I will be locking this thread in the next day or two.  I recognize that there's some coherent debate going on, but this thread started out as a (informally forbidden) call-out thread and has now devolved into a private chatroom among a few members (also informally forbidden).  So it's gotta go.