Questions for theists

Now why did the rest become irrelevant Mr Truman? i'll remind you of the quote if you like:



I rather think FF made a very relevant point. The reason you side stepped it was becasue he was speaking 100% of the truth, and that made you very uncomfortable.

The society you despise so much has developed to the point where you can communicate to anyone in the world at the press of a key. If you want to be like an animal, turn your PC off, leave your house and go live in the bush, simples.

REPLY to Numpty

(Rest became irrelevant)

Now why did the rest become irrelevant Mr Truman? i'll remind you of the quote if you like:
Because, all the remaining examples were things that only come about as a result of human technologial societies. I rejected these human socities, therefore the answer should have been obvious to everyone - it is the same.

Quote:
Without society modern medicine would be nonexistent.Ironic, no?
Simple. Yes, modern medicine would not exist. That is obviously so. TV would not exist, cars etc. Are we going to list them all? Of course not.
Society and Truth are not incompatible, per se. Human societies (past, present and future) are. Theoretically, a human society based on Truth would be no problem, it is just an impossibility because humans cannot recognise Truth.

"Without society you would not be able to express your arrogant views over the internet" - Fatal Freedoms.
I know. But I would not either know nor care about it if I did know. I would not need to, I would not be any worse off. I would have a life as nature intended : based on the Truth, pure Truth, 24/7.

I rather think FF made a very relevant point. The reason you side stepped it was becasue he was speaking 100% of the truth, and that made you very uncomfortable.
It is a shame your brain continues to misfunction and waste precious oxygen.
The reason is thus : Hypothetical example : Mr X rejects ALL brick production. Mr Y asks about certain types of brick. Mr X makes a SWEEPING statement and reminds him they are refering to ALL bricks. Mr Z asks : "What about this type of brick, you did not mention it."
THE REASON IS OBVIOUS - THEY ALL FOLLOW ON FROM WHAT WAS SAID NO MATTER WHICH SIDE YOU ARE ON. THERE WAS NO DISAGREEMENT ON THAT FACET OF THE QUESTION.

The society you despise so much has developed to the point where you can communicate to anyone in the world at the press of a key. If you want to be like an animal, turn your PC off, leave your house and go live in the bush, simples.
Incorrect. Although in SOME ways it has developed, in other is has devolved under the rotting collective corpse of human brain misfunction. Wars, genocide, extinction of Superior species, mental illness (which is on the rise) and so on. Having internet access does not justify these problems.
The ONLY reason you need "something to do" is because society has taken the natural things to do away.

**I cannot just "go" into the nature/bush etc. WHY? Because I am a tortured victim-creation of a human society. So are you. It's all in your mind, your location does not matter. You can't gointo the wilderness and become an animal, because you will never be what you should have been in your mind.

Beside, modern society's conviences have illegitimately changed (evolved) us so that we can no longer survive in the wilderness. We do not have the hair coverage, thicker skin etc. Why? Society changed the environmental conditions we have to face.

So, no, no-one can make this choice by merely changing physical locations.

:rollinglaugh:


It's a shame you have so much hate in you.



Well, you rather simplified thay didn't you? The point is as society makes progress, other challenges present themself, we understand and tackle the challenge, complete it move to the next one.



Well I need to look after and nurture my offspring, has society taken that from me?

Sometimes I sit and think you may have a point with what you say regarding some of the subjects you discuss. unfortunatley your inability to engage in civil converstation when people disagree with you really does you an injustice.

Reply to Numpty :

It's a shame you have so much hate in you.
I was just stating a fact, your brain misfunctions because it is deseased, adn that wastes oxygen. I was not trying to have a go at you. I was not saying that out of emotion. It's just a factual statement.

Who says I do have this hate in Me, anyway? You? I never said that, I say "I hate this" "I hated that", and you presume I feel that way all the time.

Even if I did, that just shows how much of a brainwashed citizen-slave you are. Hate is an emotion. Why would I deny it if that is what I feel at the time?

That's just another thing society does. It tries to dictate how to feel, and whether or not to express yourself. Society says : Bottle yourself up, conform, obey.

I previously said :
Having internet access does not justify these problems.

Well, you rather simplified thay didn't you? The point is as society makes progress, other challenges present themself, we understand and tackle the challenge, complete it move to the next one.

No I did not simplify. No, that was not the point, and that point does not matter. Is it not obvious, or do we have to apply the principal of what was said to every single possibility before you can understand?

So ...to answer what has already been explained to everyone : No, society may solve technological problems, but that was not the point. In terms of Truth-handling and recogntion ability and mental integrity (THE POINT OF THE WHOLE THING) society has NOT solved, understood , tackled or even attempted to do any of these. It HAS gone backwards, and IS going backwards.

I said : The ONLY reason you need "something to do" is because society has taken the natural things to do away.

Well I need to look after and nurture my offspring, has society taken that from me?
You take My quote out of context, but I can still answer. Your brain does not work properly. It is not a case that you AGREE OR DISAGREE with the posts, it is a case that you CANNOT understand the point I am making.

I will not go into the problem of human offspring raising here. It is simple, Numpty (almost called you Carico). I did not mean that society has taken away EVERYTHING, although it has taken away some activities or activity levels and replaced them with unnatural ones.

The difference is that you NEED to have an activity, where a wild gorilla or tiger does not. It is not really if you can physically do it or not, it is whether or not you NEED to do something to "spend" your time.
Society gives you a need, it gives you time to spend. The gorilla just rests, it is content, is has balance. It has it's peace. Sure, a gorilla does not have the internet. Sure, humans would hot have same wihout society. The gorilla does not NEED a computer or an internet connection. *EDIT* To make it clearer, a gorilla would not WANT one either.

Sometimes I sit and think you may have a point with what you say regarding some of the subjects you discuss. unfortunatley your inability to engage in civil converstation when people disagree with you really does you an injustice.
Presuming that this is the case, why would I have to engage in conversation in a civil way? I am against society.

Travis suffers from something I like to refer to as "Hyperbolic Cynicism"

Basically, through his cynicism anything that does not meet his expectations are evil and then these deficiencies are exaggerated and demonized to the point of absurdity all the while ignoring the good aspects about the very things he despises.

because of his mentally impaired state, he is only capable of seeing bad, and the bad he sees looks a x100 times worse than it actually is. This makes it rather difficult to take travis seriously.

You are trying to escape My Post #40. You are going down the whirlpool in your sinking ship of lies. You are attacking Me, by presuming that My "expectations" or Truth/claim/opinion what ever have you, even though you fail to disprove to them. [I know someone who has a guilt manifestation.....I know someone who needs to defend society......I know someone was is living a lie....he doesn't know why....But I do.]

Don't mind me. I have a habit of looking for patterns in people's speech. I evaluate it thusly.

REply to Fatal Freedoms :

I am STILL wondering if you can attempt to answer post #40. You dont like post #40, do you?

I haven't even read it.


To be honest I take you about as seriously as I take this guy seriously:

Reply to FF : "I haven't even read it."

Sure you did. You read the posts. You know you are beat, again. Are you ever going to answer to post #40? Or when you can't answer to Me do you to over and pick on Carico?

Your arguments are comprised of excuses, blame and bald assertions. Your entire stance is assuming you have the truth and asserting that you are always right.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a pullstring doll that just repeats the same phrases over and over again. So excuse me if I don't bother to read everything you write, it's becoming tedious at this point.

Generally I do not argue with people who are so full of themselves, I made an exception with you, but at a certain point there is no reasoning with someone who falsely believes he already has THE TRUTH.

Reply to FF:

I make a distinction. I explain My arguments. Even though I do not deny the obvious fact that I know the Truth, I do not use this as an excuse. I answer all the questions put to Me. I am transparent, honest and admit Myself that I have to justify and explain My "assersions" (I.e. Truths).

It is unreasonable for you to state I just state "I know the Truth, I am correct".

No, FF, you simply wont answer because you were beat. Again.

Your hypocrisy is that you do not answer to everything I ask you. Like post #40.

As I've stated once before, every sentence I write you write a paragraph response to it, so the length of these arguments grows exponentially, are time consuming, no one really gets anywhere and I really don't care enough to bother responding to all of it. Argument by attrition is all you seem to be good at. The same reason I don't bother arguing with dattaswami.

As I've stated once before, every sentence I write you write a paragraph response to it, so the length of these arguments grows exponentially, are time consuming, no one really gets anywhere and I really don't care enough to bother responding to all of it. Argument by attrition is all you seem to be good at. The same reason I don't bother arguing with dattaswami.

Take a look at the "abortion?" thread. GO ON! My post #65 on "abortion?" is a perfect example of what tactics you use. You argue about things where the outcome if irrelavent. You made a mistake, you said Identical twins has Identical DNA. You were wrong. Did you admit it? NO! You are trying to make as many outlandish claims as you possibly can to simply bury your blunder under a mountain of posts. I would not have to keep posting if you would answer the posts properly, and stop making ridiculous claims.

You misquote Me. You say I claimed things that I did not claim. You deliberately warp the meaning and context of My posts so you can pretend you are right, when you are wrong. This means more and more posts because you wont listen, and wont be honest.

So it seems. And whichever post of yours I skip over just happens to be the one argument of yours with absolute proof. ha!

And if it makes you happy no identical twins do not have the "EXACT" same DNA, perhaps i should have said they have the same DNA sequence, I don't see what difference it makes anyway. It's just one more thing for you to complain about.

Just like how you complain about me arguing against the logical implications of your argument, take for instance:

You argue that zygotes are a separate entity and therefore we should care about their existence

and when I say mosquitoes are separate entities

you will say it's irrelevant or that you didn't say anything about that.


-this is the kind of crap I have to put up with and after 16 or 17 pages of this **** it gets to be annoying and not worthy of my effort or time.

So it seems. And whichever post of yours I skip over just happens to be the one argument of yours with absolute proof. ha!
You just made that up. Pathetic.

And if it makes you happy no identical twins do not have the "EXACT" same DNA, perhaps i should have said they have the same DNA sequence, I don't see what difference it makes anyway. It's just one more thing for you to complain about.
I not complaining. I am trying to explain to you that you are wrong. Your arguments are illogical, based on fallacies, and poor understanding of DNA technology.

Just like how you complain about me arguing against the logical implications of your argument, take for instance:
No, your implications are illogical. It is called a strawman argument, in your preious vocabulary.

You argue that zygotes are a separate entity and therefore we should care about their existence
That is correct. Science proves they are seperate entities. Something you keep trying to deny.

and when I say mosquitoes are separate entities
you will say it's irrelevant or that you didn't say anything about that.
Correct. That is because it has no bearing on what I said. Your total lack of both common sense and scientific understanding are bad enough. Your denial of reality is even worse.

-this is the kind of crap I have to put up with and after 16 or 17 pages of this **** it gets to be annoying and not worthy of my effort or time.
Language, FF. If you bothered to read the posts and the science in the first place, there would have been only a few posts. The reason why there is so many page (9, actually) is because you are deliberetly abusing the forum by posting the same nonsense you know to be wrong to bury your errors behind the posts.

AS you will see, I have presented My final post in the abortion? page/ You will either conceed you are wrong, and continue to the next step in the debate, or not. If you do, I will defeat you on your final "point". Don't worry, I always win.

Then demonstrate this to me. You can't. Do you know why? Because whether or not you want to accept it, this argument is my opinion versus yours. The issue of abortion is a very complex subject. It is not black and white. This is why it is such a controversial subject.





See, how did I know you would say that? You are way too predictable.

There is a pattern here, whenever I provide an example that renders you point moot, you have to dismiss it as irrelevant. You ignore unfavorable examples, this is special pleading, you do it a lot.

Your argument lacks consistency. Why is being separate indicative of life value in some things and not others? Why do you assume DNA is different for clones but not for other mitosis-based growths? Why is a fertilized egg deserving of life and not an un-fertilized egg? Why do humans require a mother to be separate from and/or alive but not other organisms?



-this is the kind of crap I have to put up with and after 16 or 17 pages of this **** it gets to be annoying and not worthy of my effort or time.



English.

Though I suppose you can handle socially taboo words, correct?



Make no mistake this is a moral issue not a scientific one, otherwise you would not be so vehement in defending the rights of a cell.



Oh, you've got me all excited!

But I suppose if you had a tide-turning argument you would've used it by now. So let's see what you got.

Don't bother posting a "word wall", be concise and to the point, I don't want to have to wade through all of the verbal fluff.

Reply to Fatal Freedoms :

Seer TT : "I not complaining. I am trying to explain to you that you are wrong. Your arguments are illogical, based on fallacies, and poor understanding of DNA technology."

Then demonstrate this to me.
I already did. Umpteen times. Although technically you have only one argument : your personal belief that a scientifically proven human entity is not human.

Because whether or not you want to accept it, this argument is my opinion versus yours.
You want to resort to "All opinions are equal" on a debate forum? FF, abortions are murders. Your attempts to suggest that a human offpring is not human or a part of the mother's body are without merit.

The issue of abortion is a very complex subject. It is not black and white.
Wrong. Abortion is a very simple subject, to the Seer. Abortions are the socetally sponsered murders of helpless womb-trapped human children.

This is why it is such a controversial subject.

Then why is the perception of musical taste not as controversial? No, it is contriversial because society is based on lies and myths, and the use of threats of violence, to control the citizen-slaves. However, abortion is such a blatantly obvious lie that some citizen-slaves can't help but see through the outer layers of deceit. However, only the Seer of Forbidden Truth can see through all the layers to the core of the lie....to get the Forbidden Truth.

There is a pattern here, whenever I provide an example that renders you point moot, you have to dismiss it as irrelevant.
But it did not render My point moot. It was just nothing to do with My point.

You ignore unfavorable examples, this is special pleading, you do it a lot.
You obviously mis-understand "special pleading". FF, stop visiting those logic fallacies websites to pretend you have a doctorate in philosophy.

It CANNOT be special pleading because your answer is nothing to do with what I am suggesting to you.

Your argument lacks consistency.
No, yours does. You try arguing science. Then, when you reveal what a fraud you are, you now say "it is not a scientific matter." What a comedown!

Why is being separate indicative of life value in some things and not others? The DNA test proved that the mother and the new lifeform were not part of the same body. THAT IS THIER CONCLUSION ALSO. The answer to your Q lies in the fact there are several things that prove it. You choose to answer to only one factor at a time.

It is almost like asking "Gee dur...why does petrol work in a car but not in a TV?" FF, your plant example is not even an animal, we are talking about human entities in the womb.

Why do you assume DNA is different for clones but not for other mitosis-based growths?
I did not say it was different. You just keep mis-interpreting everything I say because you lack common sense. Besides, things like fingernails, do not have all thier DNA active anyway. Only the DNA that is relavent to thier function. Hairs have only hair DNA active. Fingernails likewise. That is why they dont grow into hearts so on. Guess what is the exception? Your so-called "Zygotes"!

Why is a fertilized egg deserving of life and not an un-fertilized egg?
Because the egg is not human beforehand. That is why it waits for the sperm to decend into the womb. Humans have 46 chromosomes. Guess what? The un-fertilised egg has only 23. Of course, you already knew that.

Why do humans require a mother to be separate from and/or alive but not other organisms?
This is nothing to do with it.

Though I suppose you can handle socially taboo words, correct?
Be aware that foul language is against forum rules, regardless of whether I can handle it or not.

"Make no mistake this is a moral issue not a scientific one, otherwise you would not be so vehement in defending the rights of a cell."

You are so hopeless, FF. I am NOT defending anyones rights. It is a matter of the revealing the Truth. Can you imagine Me, Seer Travis, caring about the welfare of other humans? Don't be ridiculous. BTW, it can be both. The correct answr, however, is that it is ultimately a Forbidden Truth matter.

But I suppose if you had a tide-turning argument you would've used it by now. So let's see what you got.
The tide is against you, and you are in the position where the burden of proof is on you.

Don't bother posting a "word wall", be concise and to the point, I don't want to have to wade through all of the verbal fluff.
Liar. You want Me to simplify My posts so you can change thier intended meaning. Strawman.

No, not at all. I will be the first to say some opinions are much stronger and more eloquent than others. However to say your opinion is fact is utterly ridiculous.





What you mean to say is that you believe all abortions are wrong.

All I have said is that I am against Late-term abortions only.



Zygote =/= human child


To insist that a zygote is the same thing as an unborn baby is to completely miss everything that makes a child special.



Only a dogmatic fool would say abortion is a simple subject.




It is better for people to believe you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.



Whatever you say Cleopatra, queen of Denial.



Have you ever been in a REAL debate, ya know with rules and stuff? I have, and I am familiar with most of the logical fallacies that people use.



I've heard that one before





Dylan "The french have never won a war."

Fatal "What about French colonialism? The french conquered the Netherlands during the middle ages."

Dylan "Your answer has nothing to do with what I was suggesting to you."





Science was involved but it isn't a scientific matter. Right and wrong is philosophical issue.



Proving the DNA is different only proves the DNA is different.


What about these girls? They share the same body.




watch this, you're gonna say it's irrelevant I know it.






You haven't even defined what you mean by "separate" to begin with and you won't accept the dictionary definition so you attempt are all for nothing.

You say by "separate" you're not talking about physically separate, as this would not support your argument.





Duh!





And why would it be the case in animals and not plants?

Do plants operate according to a different standard of Identity and if so, explain why.



Yes you did, I can quote you if you like:


TRAVIS: "Clones do not have identical DNA."

on 08-07-2009, 04:11 PM in post #50 of ABORTION thread.


You are such a liar!



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

I will respond to the rest of this later, i have to go for now...

Reply to Fatal Freedoms :

Seer TT: " You want to resort to "All opinions are equal" on a debate forum? "

FF : "No, not at all. I will be the first to say some opinions are much stronger and more eloquent than others. However to say your opinion is fact is utterly ridiculous."
What I reveal on the abortion page is the Truth, and you cannot handle the Forbidden Truths on abortion. Even the simple scientific facts you deny. The reason why you suggested it is "opinion vs opinion" is because you want to back-pedal over certain parts of your argument.

What you mean to say is that you believe all abortions are wrong.
Incorrect. What I said was clear : "Abortions are all murders".

All I have said is that I am against Late-term abortions only.
By stating this, you prove that you cannot either recognise or accept the Forbidden Truths on abortions.

Zygote =/= human child
Simply because you say so and use a ridiclulous symbol to lend legitimacy to your flagging arguments? The Forbidden Truth position was made clear : "Zygotes, embryos, fetuses, babies are ALL human children, and society invents needless and ridiculous labels so it can demonise and de-humanise them. Society does this to give you what you want : the legal right to murder helpless womb-trapped children".

To insist that a zygote is the same thing as an unborn baby is to completely miss everything that makes a child special.
There are differences between the 2. However, this is solely because we are dealing with 2 sepereate stages of development. The very term development is a good one, as it infers the Truth that we are dealing with the same thing.

***********
Only a dogmatic fool would say abortion is a simple subject.
Incorrect. A Seer can easily see the whole issue of abortion, and it is straightforward and crystal clear. Further, inferiors are confused on abortion because they find Truth so hard to see and accept.

In response to Fatal Freedom's claim abortion is contriversial because it is unclear :
Seer TT : "Then why is the perception of musical taste not as controversial? No, it is contriversial because society is based on lies and myths, and the use of threats of violence, to control the citizen-slaves. However, abortion is such a blatantly obvious lie that some citizen-slaves can't help but see through the outer layers of deceit. However, only the Seer of Forbidden Truth can see through all the layers to the core of the lie....to get the Forbidden Truth. "

Your response : "It is better for people to believe you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

A perfect example of how you do not answer. If abortion is contriversial because it is unclear, then why do other subjects that are unclear not carry such a heated exhange? FF it is partly because abortion is murdering children and is immoral, and primarily because abortion deals with Forbidden Truth.
**************

FF : "There is a pattern here, whenever I provide an example that renders you point moot, you have to dismiss it as irrelevant."
Seer TT : "But it did not render My point moot. It was just nothing to do with My point. "

Whatever you say Cleopatra, queen of Denial.
Another idiotic response. You make non-sensical responses, you refuse to respond to the point, or you ignore certain Q's altogether. Look at your above claim, then look at the material in the star 'brackets'.

Have you ever been in a REAL debate, ya know with rules and stuff? I have, and I am familiar with most of the logical fallacies that people use.
A) If you understood logic, you would realise that the idea of "real" debates is ridiculous.
B) You cannot fool Me that you simple read a website and use the terms to try and lend yourself legitimacy.

Seer TT : "It CANNOT be special pleading because your answer is nothing to do with what I am suggesting to you. "

I've heard that one before
I am sure someone like you would have heard that plenty of times, because you do not wither understand the terms propoerly, or cannot understand the point your opponent is making.

FF rather poor example , red highlights added:
{Dylan "The french have never won a war."

Fatal "What about French colonialism? The french conquered the Netherlands during the middle ages."

Dylan "Your answer has nothing to do with what I was suggesting to you."}
Yes, perfectly logical. BUT.... in your example, FF, 'Dylan' and 'Fatal' were both making statements about the french and war. You are making insane statements to attempt and derail concrete scientific test results that do not address the points that I make.

Seer TT: "You try arguing science. Then, when you reveal what a fraud you are, you now say "it is not a scientific matter." What a comedown! "

Science was involved but it isn't a scientific matter. Right and wrong is philosophical issue.
I agree. However, the sp,e of the points themselves were scientific matters, and you have rejected science for belief in the abortion issue.

Seer TT : "Why is being separate indicative of life value in some things and not others? The DNA test proved that the mother and the new lifeform were not part of the same body. "

Proving the DNA is different only proves the DNA is different.
Come on, there are logical conclusions we have to draw from a DNA test. You use such arguments against Carico in other threads. Q : How else can you possibly explain that the DNA is different in the womb-trapped life form (WTLF) and the mother? My conclusion fits all the facts. You position clashes with the scientific facts. Your suggestions include co-inidence and mutation. Come on, FF, I know you can do better than that.

What about these girls? They share the same body.
So What? What is the point? Stop pretending that you can't understand what "seperate life-form" means. I told you what I mean when I said that "a new entity, a unique life/being". It is in that vein, as I already told you.

You haven't even defined what you mean by "separate" to begin with and you won't accept the dictionary definition so you attempt are all for nothing.
What? I told you what I meant, and it is obvious to anyone with any degree of common sense what i meant due to the context of its use. You keep going back and saying "I can't understand what seperate means" when you can't answer. You know what I mean, and I know you know.

You say by "separate" you're not talking about physically separate, as this would not support your argument.
See? You can do it.

Seer TT : "You choose to answer to only one factor at a time. "
Duh!
Look at your crazy "hair" and "fingernail" comparisons to a WTLF. YOu use an analogy, you say all these have human DNA. True, but there are other factors. Like common-sense, visual analysis, the fact that the DNA in hair and fingernails has only a fraction of it's DNA active. The fact that a fingernail cannot grow into a new human being.

You narrow the field to having human DNA only, then you apply this single factor to the argument. Then you wonder why I keep posting and telling you to look at all the factors at once.
Errr......did you actually read about the various scientific tests and abortion information I provided links to?

Seer TT : "FF, your plant example is not even an animal, we are talking about human entities in the womb. "
And why would it be the case in animals and not plants?
Plants do not have wombs or abortions, FF. Plants were not a part of the DNA tests. What plants do to reproduce is has no bearing on humans. Whether a WTLF is alive or not is not dependant on the reproductive systems of plants. etc, etc etc etc.......

Do plants operate according to a different standard of Identity and if so, explain why.

Maybe they do. Does not matter. But we can still know that you and I are not the same entity. We know that. FF, face it, there is simply no reason to suggest that the baby is part of the mother's body. Every common-sense, rational and sane argument, every DNA test, everything is telling you that the WTLF is NOT a part of the mother's body.

You position has become that of god-pushers "I put no evidence or proof forward, prove Me wrong or I a right". You are resorting to a quasi-religious belief in what life constitues, one that you cannot prove nor explain.

TRAVIS (out of context): "Clones do not have identical DNA."
FF, that is not the meaning of what I was saying, you took that out of context. You keep getting what YOU would mean by statements....not what the opponent means by them. Ask if you are not sure, do not presume. It IS My position that clones do not have identical DNA, however, I do not suggest that this must be in the DNA sequence itself. We have copy number variation, expression of genes. Life being life, we all mutate, all face deasese, we all are all unique even if the DNA seq is the same.

You are such a liar!
I am not lying to you. You just mis-understand what My points are, then you do not ask for clarification.

I will respond to the rest of this later, i have to go for now...

POST any abortion argument to the "abortion?" thread in future. We are getting off topic.

I am STILL waiting for a reply to My post #40 on this thread. Perhaps if you want to continue on this thread, we should take things from there, in a new thread, or this one.