Imperefct God

[gaffo]

She was right in this case. It doesn't mean intuition will be right in every case, nor that intuition was the reason she was right. The reason she was right is that her instincts were directing her to the moral conclusion...but that moral conclusion does not depend one whit on anybody's instincts.

The same would be true if somebody had an "instinct" to believe that jumping off a cliff would kill her. She would be right, and her instinct would be right; but the science of gravity would not depend on her instinct, nor would we need to offer her instinct as its proof. Hard facts would do that, anyway.


As above.

I've already addressed this nonsense here.

No feeling can tell you anything other than that you are having the feeling, and all emotional feelings are nothing more than physiological reactions to what one already thinks and believes. Human beings do not have instinct and intuition is just supersticious belief in mystic insight.

Humans did have instincts when they were animals back in the day… but have since lost their animal instinct due to dependence on technology and conceptual language.

Human babies are the only species that are totally helpless for the first couple of years, due to having lost all their natural animal instincts.

They are basically turning into A I robots

pure bullshit.

man today is the same animal he was 2 million yrs ago - and an 80 yr old man has the same instincts he had as a baby.

[gaffo]

I can imagine Jesus spinning in heaven knowing what atrocious behavior has been connected to the faith by way of very-bad-example institutional Christians. So many theists have created God’s nature in their own angry and vengeful image, especially the part insisting that ‘God hates ______’, etcetera. I can see them generally finding inconvenient, if not annoying, having to try reconciling the conspicuously contradictory fundamental nature, teachings and practices of the New Testament’s Jesus with those of the wrathful, vengeful and even jealous nature of the Old Testament's Creator. (Really, why couldn't Jesus have been one who’d enjoy a belly-shaking laugh over a good joke with his disciples, now and then?)

the OT god of vengense is found in the least of the OT - the Torah, there is another 1/2 - the minor prophts which ammends God's nature to more just.


folks just tend to ignore that other half.

Maybe the general human need for retributive justice can be intrinsically linked to the same terribly flawed aspect of humankind that enables the most horrible acts of violent cruelty to readily occur on this planet, perhaps not all of which we learn about. Meanwhile, when a public person openly fantasizes about world peace, a guaranteed minimum income and/or a clean, pristinely green global environment, many ‘Christians’ reactively presume he/she must therefore be Godless thus evil or, far worse, a socialist. This, despite Christ's own teachings epitomizing the primary component of socialism — do not hoard morbidly superfluous wealth when so very many people have little or nothing.

I can picture many institutional Christians who would prefer that Jesus had not been so publicly contrary to contemporary conservative values thus politics. I’d suggest they might seek out a faith that’s more reflective of their own true values and behavior.

I think we have that new religion covered - blind consumerism and materialism and me-ism.

[Immanuel Can]

glad you are back!

Likewise. Thank you.

[Immanuel Can]

But in point of fact, I find Nietzsche very useful.

I know nothing about him - ...seemed an asshole...

I can say this for him: he was a nearly-honest Atheist. That is, he was nearly ready to face all the consequences that automatically follow if one rejects God from the premises of one's equations. And after that, he was mostly quite logical and rigorous with his conclusions.

His main problem was that his first premise, "God is dead," was gratuitous and false. Of course, he only meant that man's belief in God was "dead," since he would never have believed God to be alive in the first place...but once he had settled on that, he pretty much stuck to the implications.

He was a miserable person, and he died insane...probably of syphilis, though we don't know that beyond doubt. In any case, if Atheists would actually listen to Nietzsche, they'd be terrified. It seems that most of them don't, though. They only pay attention to the parts they like...the parts that help them smugly dismiss God...but they ignore him when he speaks of what that entails for meaning, morality, justice and power.

God from time immammoral are not need to make man good - he is born that way as a social animal. via evolution.

You think so?

Well, let's prove that. At least, let's show it rationally.

What is it, in specific, about evolution that morally compels "goodness" in man? In other words, why MUST an Atheist be moral? Why can't he be like Nietzsche or Stalin or Epstein, if he likes things that way? Is there any feature in being the accidental byproduct of an indifferent universe, or in disbelieving in God, that requires a man to be good not evil?

You'll have to make that case to me.

[Immanuel Can]

of course i fear death - as i have always - even prior to 1977.

But why? Why fear what must be?

And since, if Atheism is right, you'll have no consciousness of it -- ever again, for eternity -- what's to fear?

[Immanuel Can]

So you saying the Cross is what matters - period.

I don't say it. Christ says it. I just believe Him.

why dont you guys worship both of the theivs that died on corss next to your Messiah - since the cross is all that matters.

Well, it's not just ANY cross that matters. It's the cross of Christ, because of who He is and what He did there. There, the Righteous One died for the unrighteous ones.

As for the thieves, the answer is simple: we don't worship them because they were sinful men like us. Only one of them was saved, and through no action of his own. (How could he do anything; his hands were nailed to a piece of wood?) He was saved by faith in Christ...the same way I am, and the same way all men must be.

he died for ME - and I'm all that matters

Not quite. What Christians say is, "He died for me, and He's all that matters."

If He had not, I'd be in just as bad a shape, and plausibly worse, than anybody else. Me, I've got nothing to offer God. That's why I need to be saved; I can't save myself. I don't deserve to.

Good thing Christ is the Saviour. (That's what that means, you see. Even the name, "Jesus" means "God saves.")

[RCSaunders]

She was right in this case. It doesn't mean intuition will be right in every case, nor that intuition was the reason she was right. The reason she was right is that her instincts were directing her to the moral conclusion...but that moral conclusion does not depend one whit on anybody's instincts.

The same would be true if somebody had an "instinct" to believe that jumping off a cliff would kill her. She would be right, and her instinct would be right; but the science of gravity would not depend on her instinct, nor would we need to offer her instinct as its proof. Hard facts would do that, anyway.


As above.

I've already addressed this nonsense here.

No feeling can tell you anything other than that you are having the feeling, and all emotional feelings are nothing more than physiological reactions to what one already thinks and believes. Human beings do not have instinct and intuition is just supersticious belief in mystic insight.

so untrue Man has as much instinct and is rule by it as much all all the other animals on the planet.

I've already addressed this nonsense here.

No feeling can tell you anything other than that you are having the feeling, and all emotional feelings are nothing more than physiological reactions to what one already thinks and believes. Human beings do not have instinct and intuition is just supersticious belief in mystic insight.

Humans did have instincts when they were animals back in the day… but have since lost their animal instinct due to dependence on technology and conceptual language.

Human babies are the only species that are totally helpless for the first couple of years, due to having lost all their natural animal instincts.

They are basically turning into A I robots

pure bullshit.

man today is the same animal he was 2 million yrs ago - and an 80 yr old man has the same instincts he had as a baby.

An animal's instinct provides it automatic behavior to provide itself all of it's biological needs. It doesn't have to discover or learn what food is appropriate for it, how to acquire it, how to be the kind of organism it is, how to mate, or anything other behavior its nature requires. Instinct provides all the right behavior.

A human must discover and learn everything one's nature requires for it to live. A human must learn what is and is not food (but poison), how to acquire and prepare it, how to care for it's physical needs from eliminating waste to protecting its body, how to build or acquire shelter, how to care for their young (which no animal has to learn), and how to do everything human nature requires, because a human has no instinctive guide for any of its behavior.

An animal does no have volition, because it does not have to figure out what to do or how to do it, instinct provides the, "choices," automatically. A human being is a volitional creature and must consciously choose everything one does, because they have no instinct that provides the right behavior.

[Dontaskme]

man today is the same animal he was 2 million yrs ago - and an 80 yr old man has the same instincts he had as a baby.

I'd like to see an 80 year old man put his money where his mouth is and put it to the test.


Modern man has lost his natural instincts, it's a fact, it's been proven in an experimental ''10,000 BC: New prehistoric-themed reality show''

Why be so naive about what is so obvious. I'm mainly focusing on the youth, but it would apply to almost any modern human. Imagine the youth of today being forced into doing a decent days hard grafting, the shock would kill them instantly.

If modern humans were forced back into the deep wild bowels of raw nature, having to start from scratch like stone age cave man, the'yd be clueless, hopeless, helpless and extremely distressed, some would draw upon their tenacity to survive, but most would probably die prematurely.


.

[Lacewing]

I can see you're not familiar with syllogisms. You have no middle terms.

I don't play by nonsense rules or conditions, which is what you are presenting.

Your ongoing personal rant against Atheism as if it were a foe, personified with characteristics, is absurd. It makes no sense because you are making no sense.

You spend more time and energy in trying to invalidate an imaginary opposition than you do in demonstrating and proving the god you claim to believe in, while most of your supposed proof/validation comes from the Bible.

Other than theism, is there any other idea/belief of human knowledge that is considered credible by being based on one book while dismissing/ignoring all else to the contrary?

[Immanuel Can]

I can see you're not familiar with syllogisms. You have no middle terms.

I don't play by nonsense rules or conditions...

They're actually Aristotle's rules of logic...not mine at all. Really, you can no more protest their use than you can protest the law of gravity. It's just what rationality consists in...it's not optional.

But if you don't know that, I guess you could look it up. That's all I can suggest. And when you do, you'll find out I'm not insulting you; I'm just telling you the truth. See for yourself.

https://examples.yourdictionary.com/exa ... ogism.html

[Immanuel Can]

Nope!

Yep.

we must agree to disagree Sir.

I think we can just disagree. You seem to think I'm wrong; I'm not.

But we can disagree without becoming unfriendly, of course.

[Lacewing]

I can see you're not familiar with syllogisms. You have no middle terms.

I don't play by nonsense rules or conditions...

They're actually Aristotle's rules of logic...not mine at all. Really, you can no more protest their use than you can protest the law of gravity.

If you use them for your distorted nonsense, they're meaningless. You know that, right? Why do you play such games?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't play by nonsense rules or conditions...

They're actually Aristotle's rules of logic...not mine at all. Really, you can no more protest their use than you can protest the law of gravity.

If you use them for your distorted nonsense, they're meaningless. You know that, right? Why do you play such games?

You can't "use" the rules of logic, anymore than you can "use" the law of gravity. It is what it is.
That's why I gave you the website: so you could see for yourself that I was telling you the truth.

Truth is truth. You may not like it, but it just is.

[Greatest I am]

Yes, that's a marvelous example of what I said above: asserting a right by way of nothing more than wishing it were so. So let me ask you the child's question: "What gives you that 'right'?"

Did you see "chose to defend".

I can defend any right I claim. Can't you?

I can do anything I want, within the bounds of nature. Even break some laws of men. Can't you?

Regards
DL

The question -- to be specific about it -- is not...

Can I shoot a man just to watch him bleed? (of course you can)

...but...

Should I shoot a man just to watch him bleed? (no, you shouldn't).

Seems we agree on some moral tenets.

Regards
DL

[gaffo]

But in point of fact, I find Nietzsche very useful.

I know nothing about him - ...seemed an asshole...

I can say this for him: he was a nearly-honest Atheist. That is, he was nearly ready to face all the consequences that automatically follow if one rejects God from the premises of one's equations. And after that, he was mostly quite logical and rigorous with his conclusions.

His main problem was that his first premise, "God is dead," was gratuitous and false. Of course, he only meant that man's belief in God was "dead," since he would never have believed God to be alive in the first place...but once he had settled on that, he pretty much stuck to the implications.

He was a miserable person, and he died insane...probably of syphilis, though we don't know that beyond doubt. In any case, if Atheists would actually listen to Nietzsche, they'd be terrified. It seems that most of them don't, though. They only pay attention to the parts they like...the parts that help them smugly dismiss God...but they ignore him when he speaks of what that entails for meaning, morality, justice and power.

you and i have both a heart and a mind - and why i like talkin gwiht you.

in the above you seem to "respect Nich" in some why - if so in what wy? - i know noting about him - i my col days i thought he was a blowhad and dick so did not botyher to learn from him. you sem to think that he had someting worthy of learning - what is that if i may ask?

a an aside - Atheist should be terrifid? why so?

God from time immammoral are not need to make man good - he is born that way as a social animal. via evolution.

You think so?

Well, let's prove that. At least, let's show it rationally.

What is it, in specific, about evolution that morally compels "goodness" in man?

survival as a social animal, otheriwse he would ahv sold out his neighbor and himself and the man line would be xtinct today.


for man is not a on-social animal must aninimals are social to some extent - not all but most - so being social adds to survival in this world - animal or man.

In other words, why MUST an Atheist be moral?

wow - thats a tangent and utterly irelivant!!!!!!

i was born a man before i became an atheist. my moral compass did not change at age 12.

i remain a man after my "conversion" to atheism. I'm the same "man" i was when a christian kid, as i am now.

why/how? becasue i was born with morality as a social animal.

Why can't he be like Nietzsche or Stalin or Epstein, if he likes things that way?

who is He? - atheists? - in your mind (that is your bias - not mine) - plenty of "Beleviers in histroy that murdered trillions.

Pol Pot killed a million the good Buddist he was.

lol. my advise - pull your head out and remove your bias per Atheists - the same numbe rof assholes are atheists and hindu/christian/zoro's/ jew/ muslims - etc.........the same percanted 10-percent, the other 90 are fine folks.

Is there any feature in being the accidental byproduct of an indifferent universe, or in disbelieving in God, that requires a man to be good not evil?

You'll have to make that case to me.

??????????????? have no clue what you are asking of me, clearify and i shall do my bst to addres your inquarly.

thanks for relpy - as always.