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?
Community Forum
Topic: origin of life... (Read 28815 times)
June 07, 2010, 09:52:22 am
