Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

Interesting how the conditioning have those stories types one that is is allow to out grow and one type of stories you are to believe for the rest of your life that are no more logical.

An interesting area of study indeed on why we have this two layers of fairy tales and how for most people the conditioning hold for the one class even as the second class of fairy tales are allow to be rejected.

You would off hand assume that the rational and thinking part of the human brain would function so that all irrational beliefs of childhood are rejected during the time frame that the Santa Claus type myth get **** can and for most people that seems not to happen.

From my own childhood the two classes of myths got rejected fairly close together in time and I can even remember my surprise when I found that the grown ups wish me to continue to pay lip service to the god myths while looking at the rejection of the Santa Claus/tooth fairy myths as part of the passage out of early childhood.

I think, Bill, that your having seen through the Christian belief system at such an early age has gone completely to your head. It must have been very rewarding to have had proof that you were so much cleverer than everybody else whilst still in short pants and we all know how powerful a conditioning agent such satisfying rewards as that are.

Do you reject lip service to all myths? Do you think that the Narcissus myth has no validity?

Your continuous harping on about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy is a bit infantile. From a scientific point of view being an American is a myth.

I um, don't think I can add..

grew up, when the **** did that happen

The thing to do, dj, is to grow up fast and then you get to your second childhood quicker and have all the experience of growing up to consider with a childlike innocence. It's funnier I'm sure than never growing up at all.

Think of all the jokes you wouldn't get, like the one about the ration book, if you never grew up.

I assumed at the time that every one had used the same reasoning and was shock to find otherwise!!!!!!

As I had said the devil/head angel rebelling against an all powerful god story a god that he knew up close and personal was the straw that broke the back of my young believe system.

In fact it was uncomfortable to not be a believer in this culture and even more so in the 1950s to 1960s.

I got no enjoyment in not being a believer in my childhood and being told that such people was going to hell and burn forever.

I am grateful that I ran into such books as the Age of Reason and knew that even some of the founding fathers shared my opinion and that I was not alone.

Now as an old man I am kind of proud of that young boy however I am still more shock that other grown ups can be believers in such clear nonsense.

Logical fallacies are propositional, I never denied your propositions on the basis of that assertion, though I also did not anticipate that you would agree.

You are an athest, by culture, and NOT by metaphysics?



If there are subjective moral values, there are also grammer nazis.

This is error of subjective truths, it is a meta-contradiction.

Does natural science require subjective constructs of the mind?

It is simply the propagation of organic matter, where is the physical description of morality, the good/bad spectrum is immaterial.



The science is by definition a subset of knowledge.

Formal logic is necessary for the existence of natural science, in fact the method is defined by reverse engineering deductive inferences.

Also, natural science only apears to advance when there are formal advances.



You conform to "social science" in your arguements, just as you did in the vegan arguement, in my concluding post I stated that it is an anthropomorphic fallacy, being that there is no genotype definition for the necessity of artifacts, yet you continued to appeal to the "social scince" of anthropology.

In this case you appeal to the emotional values of morality, for example:
Setanta said:


Why are these conditions good or bad?

You may only contemporarily generalise this emotional appeal to humans that agree, natural science does NOT acknowledge such values, philosophical ethics and "social science" do.



You fail to acknowledge normative implications, these are personal, anecdotal arguements, a prior analysis or positivist analysis are truth reliable, we are NOT arguing politics.



Colloquial, informalised utters are reserved for "social science", "small talk" and "art".

Perhaps it is being?

You acknowledge syntactical errors, yet you continue erroneous semantics.



Abductions have a normative basis, therefore your arguement is invalid.

However, I was referring to a prokaryon on the basis of evoltionary implications and a relative trait (extreamophile) that is interpreted to"benefits the community".

This conditionally negates your false attributions of life by natural scientific reductionalism to unicellular organisms, or do we positively refer to it as "benefits the community"?



YES, they do, in fact that is why it is referred to "social science".

You need only naturally define this branch to satisfy positive conditions, though if this was semantically possible, it would be a cognitive synonyme for natural science.



Are you alleging that ants and bees can be measured by morality?

I am intrigued, how do we operate this definition for naturally occuring phenomena?



Yes, it is at least certainly human matter.



NO, this is an ontological and ethical arguement, not natural science, we do use "human societies", this is a normative misinterpretation.

As for artifacts, these are synthetic, the natural world is NOT a singular artifact, for example, acclimatization would not be possible in this case.



Perhaps you will reconsider my arguement.



Your arguement satisfies the required conditions of "social science", your moral concept is just as fuzzy in fact.

There was not logical fallacy, other than your use of straw men. "Grammar Nazis?" You're hilarious--my objection to your bullshit is that is jargon-ladden babbe-speal. my objections were not to the grmmar you employ. You're really grapsing at staws here. Naturalism doesn't "require" any kind of construct, but it does recognize them when they exist. The description is not of a physical morality, just the recognition that people use subjective morality, and use it effectively in ai of the group. Your babble-speak about knowledge does not serve to establish your alleged refutation. AT no time have i "appeale" to social sciences, and my remarks are not based on athropology--they are based on evolutionary science. It is hardly my fault if you are ignorant of recent evolutionary speculation about the utility of community, compassion an altruism. There was no appeal to emotionalism--it was a pragmatic description of how perceptions of good and bad have evolved. Once again,, i am not responsible for you inability to grasp the concept. The word you wanted was utterances, utters only exists as a conjugation form of the verb to utter, it is not a substantive.

As always you have used many words to say nothing.

Writing "beng" rather than "being" is not a syntactical error. As with biology, you expose your ignorance when you delve into areas outside that pathetically small body of knowledge whichyou claim to command.



First, one does not assume that a prokaryote is an extremophile by definition. Second, i did not allege that subjective morality is a trait of all forms of life, i referred only to human communities. It is a flaw of your goofy confusion of philosophical concepts which leads you to claim without foundation that i have logically estalished such a case.

You're playing more of your word games. I said nothing about morality in my remark about ants and bees . . .



. . . i responded to that remak. If you had morality in mind, it is no fault of mine that you failed to make that clear. Ants and bees are known as social insects--they form communities to prosper the reproductive function. That is a part of you natural science, even though you may not be bright enough to understand it.

Recognizing that humans are a part of the natural world, and that therefore human societies are natural artifacts is not an ontological statement, whether or not you are capable of understanding that. You are simply trying to insist on your jargon-laden babble-speak, and i am not obliged to play your game.

All you are saying is that think you are able to recast my arguments in your babble-speak terms for the convenience of your arguments. It is not, however, rhetorically valid. When you create inferences where none existed, or restate what i have stated in a manner which no more than convenience for your argument, you have indulged the straw man fallacy.

You are, apparently, unable to respond without resorting to straw men. It also appears that you are unable to express your thought clearly enogh to, for example, make clear that you refer to morality when you don't specify that in your statement. I see no value in continuing to play your jargon word games, because you can't proceed in a rhetorically coherent manner, and you fail completely to understand things outside your narrow, putative area of expertise--such as the distinction between spelling and syntax, or that there is no such thing as "extremophilic functionality." Organism which are called extremophiles don't suddenly display a "functionality" or a behavior. The reference is not to bahvior or function, but to the ecological niche which the oranixm occupies. Even the term extremophile is highly problematic, as it is subjective. Additonally, it is not known if extremophiles occupy such niches in preference or simply because they can tolerate them.

You just want to preen yourself of an illusion of profound knowledge which evaporates on close examination. You might have said you misspelled a word, or that it was a typographical error--instead, you make an hilarious reference to syntax, which suggests that you know no more about the language than you do about natural sciences.

You may repond if you wish, but i'll waste no more time on your bullshit, on your empty word games. Have fun stroking yourself here alone.

I may be wrong about this, Bill, but to be honest with you, it sounds to me as though you are a believer.

It sounds to me as though you believe there are no gods...and that you believe it is absurd even to consider the possibility of gods existing.

So...am I right? Are you a believer?

Or am I wrong...and you are of the opinion that there may be gods...and that it is not absurd to consider the possibility of gods existing?

I told you, and the world by posting it here? Why would it be different to say it to a stranger?? People on here are strangers to me...

The question would be more interesting to say...Would I feel comfortable telling my friends in the world what I say on here? and the answer is Yes, I have, and do...

You may be shocked by my answer...But think about it...Am I wrong??

I will prove it the reverse way for you....

If I post on here...And have people who I call friends, and people who I do not call friends...Then by my very action of posting...I am holding nothing back...and understand some are gonna agree, some just want to hear...and some are gonna pick apart what I said...

So therefor, I am holding nothing back...

You do the same exact thing...You post videos...and people may comment about how much they disproves of it (I hate to use this as an example...Nor am I bashing your videos) But you post them full knowing some may watch, and some may like it, some may tell you it is bullshit for you to do it...But it doesn't change the fact of you doing it...And you are who you are!! Which is good!

The same holds true in the world...

Or do you have a double life? Or split personality or something?

I will clarify...and give an example...

Do you post on here that your an atheist? But in real life, are really a theist?? It does not make sense to me, to think like that...

The only exception is posting to people in confidence...and in a pm or something...But that does not have to do with not wanting to post it in public for all to read...It has to do with the fact of understanding that in our human nature somethings are better in confidence...and between 2 people...And understanding that persons needs...As well as yours...

So in that case, There are certain things I take to the grave, and only things between myself, and God...

My question is how do you hold the value of such things personally? Do you only tell certain people what you want to tell them? and keep everything else to yourself? Who do you ultimately have confidence in, when you do not wish to say anything, Yourself??

I have said this to Bill before...He sounds very much like he is a person who believes there is a God...But in every way is desperately trying to show his disapproval of this being...And reject the faith he has...Which can not be done, and you can not hide from a God, if he is real....

He sounds like a closet worshiper...Defiantly not someone certain God is Non-existent....

But he does not seem to understand this....

Whoosh ! ! !

The "proprietary" nature of the word "believe" is such that getting past what people think is being said becomes difficult if not impossible.

To be fair, I have that same problem from the other side with regard to the expression, "non-believer!"

Hi Ryan, I know you like the bible and how much you value truth so I thought that you may have an interest in what this bible scholar has to share.

Good, whatever!...Vote my post down and say that, If it helps you...

Bill will validate it for me by his next post...

He will say something about how God is so evil based on the Bible's account, Which means he is not saying it to me...But he is speaking Directly over my head to the God he is voicing his disapproval at...

And directly to the God he closet worships...But "thinks is evil" not at all really anything directed toward me...

Jordan fades back, take a 16 ft. back foot jumper...Whoosh! And that's the game!

I don't vote on posts. What you missed, and perhaps are incapable of seeing, is that Frank is saying that Bill believes there is no god. Hence, my post to suggest that it went right over your head.

If one rejects a belief, they are a non-believer, without regard to any problems you might have. But, yeah, Spade sees Bill believing in god because that's what he wants to see.

Sorry, It seems I did not understand what this meant...

It is not what I want to see...What I want to see is if Bill believes God is real, and is a closet worshiper, than I want him to be aware of it...And embrace a God...

This is clear because Bill will come back with a post about how evil God of the Bible is...

He is not responding to me, but merely directing his post in my direction, but speaking the words straight over my head...To this God he has his displeasure with...It really has nothing at all to do with me...I just happen to be the person he is venting his frustration on because I embrace the same God, he has displeasure in and is disapproval of...

His problem is not with me, But with God...

If you don't see it...I can't force you to see it...