spendius
 
  1  
Fri 24 Jan, 2014 02:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Unfortunately for all humans, unhappiness is all part and parcel of living.


Isn't that the point ci.? Knowledge renders us unhappy and if things don't improve we might have some way to go before we have experienced unhappiness to the full. Knowledge is a temptation. It leads to power over others and over the environment. That's why some on here have such a high regard for it. It is the proper meaning of sadism.

What about the underpants?

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 24 Jan, 2014 02:31 pm
@spendius,
I wear boxers now!
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 24 Jan, 2014 02:42 pm
@spendius,
Chapter 3 verse 22

"Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil...."

Who or what is "us"? The God of monotheism is an "I".
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 24 Jan, 2014 02:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I wear boxers now!


Now you know why.

Does anything in evolution wear them?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 24 Jan, 2014 03:51 pm
@spendius,
You'll have to ask all the men who wear underwear. Mr. Green Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 24 Jan, 2014 04:27 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The thing is that trying to read the G of E story in a frame of mind where thought is dominated by "what a load of rubbish this is", "it's incoherent", "it's a joke", "how can anybody in their right mind take this **** seriously?", "it's all messed up" etc etc, is to render yourself unable to read it. Any sort of pre-judgement blinds.

The likeliest source of the pre-judgement has been mentioned often enough for me to need to repeat it. It obviously wasn't money in Apisa's case.

Take the word "helpmeet" (chap. 2). All the animals had been given a go and were no good as "helpmeets". So God made him a proper helpmeet: woman. She is not yet Eve. And neither had underpants and "were not ashamed" at that stage.

And then in 3 : 17 God says "Because thou has hearkened unto the voice of thy wife. . . . .in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of they life." Too true eh Romeo?

That's when she is given the name Eve: the mother of all living.

It is well known that Socrates took no notice of his wife; Xanthippe. Which gives us a notion of what "corrupting the youth" meant in the charges he faced. At least to those who were under the cosh at home.

And now an ad on our telly, which we see often, for an insurance company, has a middle-aged lower-middle class lady (see decor and ornaments) triumphantly braying at the camera--"I'm off to Benidorm with the girls!!!"
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 24 Jan, 2014 04:35 pm
@spendius,
Frank can't get past his one dimensional definition for proof as it applies to philosophy. Any individual who believes in any assertion to be true is their "proof." That's proven by all those who believe in their god and religion. That also applies to all philosophical questions facing man's belief system. Those are the facts that passes through Frank's perception of reality.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Fri 24 Jan, 2014 05:16 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Frank can't get past his one dimensional definition for proof as it applies to philosophy.


ci can't get past the fact that he barely can write a comprehensible sentence. But what the heck...ci's reasoning doesn't come up with ideas worthy of decent writing.

Quote:
Any individual who believes in any assertion to be true is their "proof." That's proven by all those who believe in their god and religion. That also applies to all philosophical questions facing man's belief system. Those are the facts that passes through Frank's perception of reality.


Sure!

You've got a long way to go before you can start lecturing on philosophy, ci...a very long way.

Try starting with checkers...or tic tac toe first.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 24 Jan, 2014 05:19 pm
Let me know when Frank says anything worth reading. Thx. Mr. Green Drunk Drunk Drunk Drunk
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 24 Jan, 2014 06:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Apisa reminds me of the Queen Mother at the races when her racing manager asked her if he might borrow her binoculars which she graciously handed over with the words --"they bring things up closer you know".
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 24 Jan, 2014 06:16 pm
@spendius,
Frank doesn't even have a parachute.
http://i1031.photobucket.com/albums/y375/imposter222/2014-01-18009_zpsbd48f840.jpg
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Sat 25 Jan, 2014 07:13 am
@Frank Apisa,
God did not punish Adam and Eve because what they did was wrong or evil. It was not. He punished them because they disobeyed his command. Think of it as a variant of doggie training, only with humans. Your dog, if you have one, doesn't know right from wrong either. But if you tell it not to eat **** and it does, anyway, you may well punish it with a slap on the butt, and nobody will think less of you for it.

The Adam-and-Eve story is suspect to me on many levels --- God's lying, the serpent getting demonized for telling the truth --- but the point you raise isn't one of them.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 25 Jan, 2014 07:33 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

God did not punish Adam and Eve because what they did was wrong or evil.


There is no evidence there is a "God" nor that there ever was an Adam or Eve...so we are talking about what the story actually says...rather than what happened, Thomas. Your guess about "why" the god punished them is no better than anyone else's...and in my opinion, yours is just a way to tell me that I am wrong here.

Quote:
It was not. He punished them because they disobeyed his command.


Seems like a distinction without a difference. THEY DID NOT KNOW THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH DISOBEYING HIS COMMEND. So in effect, the god punished them for doing something wrong.


Quote:
Think of it as a variant of doggie training, only with humans. Your dog, if you have one, doesn't know right from wrong either. But if you tell it not to eat **** and it does, anyway, you may well punish it with a slap on the butt, and nobody will think less of you for it.


Punishing all of humanity for all of eternity...is not a slap on the butt. This punishment if transposed into your example here would not be slapping the doggie on his butt...it would be hitting the doggie in the head with a pick ax...and then running him over with a steamroller.

Quote:

The Adam-and-Eve story is suspect to me on many levels --- God's lying, the serpent getting demonized for telling the truth --- but the point you raise isn't one of them.


Yeah...well, you've been wrong before...and you certainly are this time. My guess is you probably will be often in the future.

hingehead
 
  1  
Sat 25 Jan, 2014 07:40 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
There is no evidence there is a "God" nor that there ever was an Adam or Eve...so we are talking about what the story actually says...rather than what happened, Thomas. Your guess about "why" the god punished them is no better than anyone else's...and in my opinion, yours is just a way to tell me that I am wrong here.

Orange juice moon one trick pony.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 25 Jan, 2014 08:05 am
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:

Quote:
There is no evidence there is a "God" nor that there ever was an Adam or Eve...so we are talking about what the story actually says...rather than what happened, Thomas. Your guess about "why" the god punished them is no better than anyone else's...and in my opinion, yours is just a way to tell me that I am wrong here.

Orange juice moon one trick pony.


Still kicking that OJ moon pony, I see. Wink
hingehead
 
  1  
Sat 25 Jan, 2014 08:08 am
@Frank Apisa,
Only when I see you do it frank.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 25 Jan, 2014 08:09 am
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:

Only when I see you do it frank.


No problem. I love when people allow me to lead them.
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 25 Jan, 2014 08:13 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
God did not punish Adam and Eve because what they did was wrong or evil. It was not. He punished them because they disobeyed his command.


He punished them for putting underpants on which is obviously a rebellion against His design. One only need watch a dog being walked, a cat with its tail in the air, or a cow having a **** to see that His design had no underpants. It was downright insolence. But Satan already occupied all the space reserved for cast-outs so the only solution was the one we are all familiar with and our destiny is to see whether putting underpants on is a better idea than otherwise.

The act of putting underpants on, a first in evolution, an epoch making event, might be seen as a ceremonial symbol for the ultimate blasphemy in God's eyes of Man setting himself above the animals and given free will to try out the hypothesis in his own time. God being off "paring his fingernails" and not in any hurry.

Perhaps the modern trend to getting the underpants off is a religious idea in the way of peace feelers to His Majestic Highliness. Salome is laughed at today in some circles.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Sat 25 Jan, 2014 08:53 am
@Frank Apisa,
Yes, I imagine it gives you a sense of self worth.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 25 Jan, 2014 09:06 am
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:

Yes, I imagine it gives you a sense of self worth.


If gives me a sense of how some people like to follow me around. Wink
 

Related Topics

The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Atheism
  3. » Page 391
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/15/2025 at 08:12:29