Embrace Judeo-Christian culture and values! Is this politician serious?

by Greatest I am Sun Feb 08, 2015 2:17 am

First topic message reminder :

Embrace Judeo-Christian culture and values! Is this politician serious?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H2ED8A8RXeY

The apostle’s creed shows that Christianity is based on having to embrace barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that the guilty should be forgiven if a suitable human sacrifice is made to God.

I suggest that having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. Immoral regardless of the victim volunteering or not which is not the case with Jesus.

That is one of many moral tenets that have caused secular governments to reject Judeo-Christian culture and values.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

The bible is a compilation of evil acts by a satanic God and no moral man would every push to have Judeo-Christian culture and values implemented as our law. The U.S. is the closes to that ideal and their jail statistics are the most dismal in the free world.

Would you promote Judeo-Christian culture and values?

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Sat Mar 07, 2015 3:44 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
You must be the best example on the site to prove how dim a linguist you are.

Seriously, did everyone else laugh as hard as I did when they read this? He MUST be pretending mustn't he? Surely?

Still snarfing, Doc Smile

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Mar 07, 2015 7:58 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
You must be the best example on the site to prove how dim a linguist you are.

Seriously, did everyone else laugh as hard as I did when they read this? He MUST be pretending mustn't he? Surely?

Still snarfing, Doc

I know, bless. Still no more funny than this:

Polyglide wrote:I, or anyone with common sense could predict, that if you built a house of straw and it set on fire it would burn, so it would be advisable to use something else.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:The best example of a "STRAW" man polemic ever?

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Or this...

Polyglide wrote:What you think you are as a linguist, is lost in your lack of common sense.

by Greatest I am Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:38 am

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Greatest I am wrote: If we are many, then being gay or not does not really matter so the condition I would call benign and not worthy of thought. If we were on an island with gayness taking over a population, then it would be disastrous. That is why I call it a condition.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Homosexuality is not a condition.

"Since the 1970s, the consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions globally is that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives followed in 1975. Thereafter other major mental health organizations followed and it was finally declassified by the World Health Organization in 1990. The current research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, reflecting the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association."

Greatest I amAre you a parent? What would you prefer, a gay child or a straight one? Do you want a child who is more likely to pass on their genes or would you prefer a child who is gay and less likely to pass on their genes?
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I find this deeply offensive, and as long as the child was happy and healthy I'd not care. I certainly find the idea that if any of my grandchildren happened to be gay I'd love them less or find it "undesirable" not just offensive but ludicrous.

Greatest I amI am a parent and although I would hope to love a gay child as much as the straight children that I have. I do not discriminate against the gay condition but I do not think it is the best condition for any child or any genetic or family line that wants to continue.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Being gay is not a condition, and you are discriminating right here.

No argument that all should want their children to be happy, gay or not.

What was ludicrous was your deflection away from an honest answer as to your preference.

Why did you dance away from an honest answer? Care to give it now?

If being gay is not a condition then what would you call it?

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:41 am

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Greatest I am wrote: Science has yet to catch up to the cause of gayness other than it's expression through our DNA as the controller of everything about us. No other end point is possible and that is why we are going nowhere.

I have yet to see you show any evidence that homosexuality is genetic, you simply keep claiming that everything about us is determined by our genes, which isn't evidence just a repetition of the claim.

I gave way back. Do your own leg work instead of just denying without your own evidence.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:47 am

snowyflake wrote:
Greatest I Am wrote:Are you a parent? What would you prefer, a gay child or a straight one? Do you want a child who is more likely to pass on their genes or would you prefer a child who is gay and less likely to pass on their genes?

I would think as a parent your primary desire for your children is that THEY (not you) would be happy and to live a productive, fulfilled life. Of course, grandchildren would be ideal but these days a gay couple can have children through artificial means that ensures passing on genes.

Is it more important that your children are taught to be kind, caring, considerate citizens or is their sexual orientation more important? I think you have to examine your own personal feelings about this. I might be wrong but your language suggests that you do harbour some prejudices about this issue.

The bottom line is it doesn't matter what sexual orientation someone is and in evolutionary terms it wouldn't affect a population since the prevalence is always very low.

I also desired grand children and am pleased that I did not produce children that would not reproduce.

You are politically correct to the point of not being able to answer a straight question.

"I would think as a parent your primary desire for your children is that THEY (not you) would be happy and to live a productive, fulfilled life."

Yes. But does the productive life that you want in your as yet unborn child include reproducing?

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:50 am

polyglide wrote:Greatest I am,
I am talking about the actual condition and not the person involved. I use the word condition because I can think of no other way of expressing it.

Of course there are homosexuals who offer vastly different benifits to society, I have homosexual friends who are great entertainers who would be missed, however, that is not the point in question.

Thanks for retracting your idiocy but not actually recanting.

Is everybody a hypocrite in this place and on this topic.

What a bunch.

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:32 am

Greatest I am wrote:
snowyflake wrote:
Greatest I Am wrote:Are you a parent? What would you prefer, a gay child or a straight one? Do you want a child who is more likely to pass on their genes or would you prefer a child who is gay and less likely to pass on their genes?

I would think as a parent your primary desire for your children is that THEY (not you) would be happy and to live a productive, fulfilled life. Of course, grandchildren would be ideal but these days a gay couple can have children through artificial means that ensures passing on genes.

Is it more important that your children are taught to be kind, caring, considerate citizens or is their sexual orientation more important? I think you have to examine your own personal feelings about this. I might be wrong but your language suggests that you do harbour some prejudices about this issue.

The bottom line is it doesn't matter what sexual orientation someone is and in evolutionary terms it wouldn't affect a population since the prevalence is always very low.

I also desired grand children and am pleased that I did not produce children that would not reproduce.

You are politically correct to the point of not being able to answer a straight question.

"I would think as a parent your primary desire for your children is that THEY (not you) would be happy and to live a productive, fulfilled life."

Yes. But does the productive life that you want in your as yet unborn child include reproducing?

Regards
DL

A productive life does not necessarily include reproducing since many heterosexual couples choose not to reproduce. That is a personal choice not down to the parents.

I am not speaking from political correctness. just so we're clear. I speak from knowing the heart ache and trauma and anguish that gay people suffer at the hands of bigots, and the stigma that religion and religious bigots placed on them for centuries, because they are the way they are. It is no more a lifestyle choice than heterosexuality is and as such shouldn't have ever been an issue.

I think you're not being entirely honest with yourself by claiming that you wouldn't want a gay child because you desire grandchildren. I think you actually have an issue with the idea of homosexuality if you're honest. You don't have a choice in the sexuality of your children.

Would you still love your son if he was homosexual?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:32 am

Greatest I am wrote:If being gay is not a condition then what would you call it?

Regards
DL

It's not a condition because all the scientific and medical evidence says so, and all the world's major health organisations agree. I have posted this information more than once and provided links, if you'd read my posts you'd know this, and wouldn't be making silly and false claims about deflection to obfuscate the fact that you are the one who claimed it was genetically inherited yet can provide not one shred of evidence to my request.

Has that changed or is this faux outrage just the next piece of obfuscation to try and reverse the burden of proof. I'll bullet point this for simplicity.

You claimed

1. Homosexuality is genetically hereditary.
2. You claimed repeatedly it is a condition.
3. I asked you for evidence for 1, and you have none else you'd have posted it.
4. I pointed out that 2 was refuted by all the scientific and medical research globally, and by all the world's major health organisations, including the WHO.
5. Instead of accepting the evidence you try to reverse the burden of proof by asking me to evidence it's not a condition.

Now have you any evidence at all for your two claims (1) and (2) above? Or can are we done here and can we move on with the debate? FYI if you''re going to make outlandish claims that you can't properly evidence in an open debate then getting annoyed when someone points it out is rather silly.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:41 am

Greatest I am wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Greatest I am wrote: Science has yet to catch up to the cause of gayness other than it's expression through our DNA as the controller of everything about us. No other end point is possible and that is why we are going nowhere.

I have yet to see you show any evidence that homosexuality is genetic, you simply keep claiming that everything about us is determined by our genes, which isn't evidence just a repetition of the claim.

I gave way back. Do your own leg work instead of just denying without your own evidence.

Regards
DL

Ah, the old "I've already given the evidence" lie. Do you really think we're fooled by this ploy? You showed one research study for a small subject group that the researchers themselves implied without evidence that homosexuality might be hereditary and if it was the case what might be concluded from this. You didn't read it all then, why am I not surprised, Well I did. Now have you any evidence that homosexuality is a condition, or are you going to continue to pretend my denial of your claim is in fact a claim and that the burden of proof is mine?

Tell you what I'll indulge you anyway as I'm in a fairly good mood.

"Psychology was one of the first disciplines to study homosexuality as a discrete phenomenon. Prior to and throughout most of the 20th century, common standard psychology viewed homosexuality in terms of pathological models as a mental illness. That classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in the research, which consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality. As a result of such accumulated research, professionals in medicine, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences, opposing the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, claimed the conclusion that it was inaccurate, and that the DSM classification reflected untested assumptions that were based on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples. "

"Since the 1970s, the consensus of the behavioural and social sciences and the health and mental health professions globally is that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives followed in 1975. Thereafter other major mental health organizations followed and it was finally declassified by the World Health Organization in 1990. Consequently, while some still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, the current research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, reflecting the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association."

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:51 am

snowyflake wrote:A productive life does not necessarily include reproducing since many heterosexual couples choose not to reproduce. That is a personal choice not down to the parents.

I am not speaking from political correctness. just so we're clear. I speak from knowing the heart ache and trauma and anguish that gay people suffer at the hands of bigots, and the stigma that religion and religious bigots placed on them for centuries, because they are the way they are. It is no more a lifestyle choice than heterosexuality is and as such shouldn't have ever been an issue.

I think you're not being entirely honest with yourself by claiming that you wouldn't want a gay child because you desire grandchildren. I think you actually have an issue with the idea of homosexuality if you're honest. You don't have a choice in the sexuality of your children.

Would you still love your son if he was homosexual?

Very well put if I may say so. My wife and I have no children together, but because my wife had three children from her first marriage I am now a grandparent, the fantastic thing about it, apart from the obvious that is, is that children don't know how many grandparents they should have, and respond to how they are treated. I find the idea that I could love any of them any less or view them as "undesirable" if they happen to be gay is as absurd as it is offensive. Tagging the word gay in front of people doesn't change the fact that they are people, any more than tall people or short people or old people, though these adjectives are often used to define who people are it can be deeply harmful. It should also be noted that people have no choice about being gay or straight, and I find the idea that geneticists one day might discover, what GIA implied is a cure, deeply offensive as well. The gay people i know don't view themselves in this way, nor should we.

by Greatest I am Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:53 pm

snowyflake wrote:Would you still love your son if he was homosexual?

I would hope to, yes.

You are still deflecting to avoid the simple question of what a heterosexual man would prefer for his offspring.

No one sets out to reproduce wanting to create an end to their genetic line. All will want their line to continue to grand children of their own blood line. That usually is seen as a heterosexual offspring.

No one that I know of sets out to produce a gay offspring.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:58 pm

Variations are like entities with different conditions that discriminates or shows the difference of one as compared to another.

Back to morality.

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Sun Mar 08, 2015 4:39 pm

Greatest I am wrote:You are still deflecting to avoid the simple question of what a heterosexual man would prefer for his offspring.

I'm not a heterosexual man so I can't tell you the answer to that question. If you think most heterosexual men would prefer their sons to be heterosexual, I would agree with you. What do you think a heterosexual man would prefer for his daughter?

You're still deflecting whether or not it should even matter especially given that genetic lines do not necessarily end with homosexual offspring.

by Greatest I am Sun Mar 08, 2015 5:34 pm

They have a much better chance of ending through gay offspring than straight ones.

Your question on daughters has been answered as I used the word gays all along and did not differentiate men from women. I did not re-read everything but if I did, I retract the gender and insert gay.

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Sun Mar 08, 2015 5:36 pm

It's ok, Greatest. You still haven't answered whether or not someone is gay should even matter in this day and age.

by Greatest I am Sun Mar 08, 2015 5:51 pm

snowyflake wrote:It's ok, Greatest. You still haven't answered whether or not someone is gay should even matter in this day and age.

Yes. It is quite important because if you happen to be born in the wrong country, the religious might kill you.

It is also important to parents who wish to have their genetic line continue. This does not mean that they would not love a gay child. It would just mean that they would not get their wish to reproduce a child who will also reproduce their genetic line.

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:47 pm

Greatest I am wrote:It is also important to parents who wish to have their genetic line continue. This does not mean that they would not love a gay child. It would just mean that they would not get their wish to reproduce a child who will also reproduce their genetic line.

Do you read my posts? Being gay doesn't stop them from having children so your argument is a bit silly and evasive. Anyway, if you can't be honest enough to answer the question, then fine.

by Greatest I am Mon Mar 09, 2015 12:43 am

snowyflake wrote:Anyway, if you can't be honest enough to answer the question, then fine.

And if you cannot be honest enough to recognize that most gay people, until only recently, mostly did not reproduce then you are not too bright.

You are talking possibility and I am talking probability.

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Mon Mar 09, 2015 5:59 am

Greatest I am wrote:And if you cannot be honest enough to recognize that most gay people, until only recently, mostly did not reproduce then you are not too bright.

No, you're just being rude now. Whether I am bright or not is not the point is it? Most gay people in history got married, had children and then carried on with their lovers. Or they went into the priesthood. So your point that they didn't reproduce is false. The point is that you are not honest about your feelings about homosexuality. Your feelings have nothing to do with your desire to be a grandparent. For someone so 'enlightened' you might have at least come to the discussion honestly.

by polyglide Mon Mar 09, 2015 2:16 pm

Dear All,
I have just had to go back and decide just what this thread is about.

God is not to blame for any of the henious things that are occuring in the world today.

As a Cristian you go by what the Bible says and in this day and age the New Testament.

1 John 5:19, gives a full explanation for the ills of the world
and who is to blame and why.

Christians accept the Word of God

by Greatest I am Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:48 pm

The Word of God says that God has a plan and that none can deviate from it so you trying to blame man for what God planned before even creating us is quite hypocritical of you.

Amos 3:6 (KJV)
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?

Why are you ignoring your Word of God?

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Mon Mar 09, 2015 6:53 pm

Henious

Rhymes with genius Smile

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:24 pm

polyglide wrote: I have just had to go back and decide just what this thread is about. God is not to blame for any of the henious things that are occuring in the world today. As a Cristian you go by what the Bible says and in this day and age the New Testament. 1 John 5:19, gives a full explanation for the ills of the world
and who is to blame and why. Christians accept the Word of God

Henious (sic)? I presume you mean heinous, and occurring has two r's. That aside you're simply making a bare claim again, offering no evidence to support it, and ignoring the evidence that has already been presented that refutes your claim. Your bible advocates all manner of morally egregious acts, you were even shown that according to the new testament Jesus condoned slavery, and endorsed the old testament, it seems you prefer to ignore whatever is posted and simply carry on preaching at everyone. that's not debate, as you've been told before.

Your religion is based on the existence of a deity that is benevolent, and possesses both omniscience and omnipotence, if such a being existed then it would be entirely culpable for all the suffering in the world, simply because it could have made any world it chose in any way it chose yet chose to include ubiquitous suffering in it's design. Of course as an atheist I don't accept the premise that such a being exists, so this is just a hypothetical example to illustrate the logical paradox that theologians have wrestled to solve unsuccessfully for 2000 years. In your usual bombastic fashion however you seem to think you can clear your throat and claim it away without a moments thought into the complexity of the problem. I seriously doubt judging from your posts if you're even aware how absurdly over simplistic that last post is. If you are indeed capable of critical thinking at all, and I have grave doubts, then we'll never know as you never seem to address anything anyone posts with any kind of depth.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:28 pm

polyglide wrote:Dear All,
I have just had to go back and decide just what this thread is about.

God is not to blame for any of the henious things that are occuring in the world today.

As a Cristian you go by what the Bible says and in this day and age the New Testament.

1 John 5:19, gives a full explanation for the ills of the world
and who is to blame and why.

Christians accept the Word of God

If your god really existed it designed and created a world where predation, diseases, and suffering are ubiquitous, and this was the case for hundreds of millions of years before the first humans evolved. The only answer you seem to have for this is to pretend that it didn't happen, and that science is entirely wrong about everything from the age of the earth to Darwinian evolution. One is reminded of a cartoon Ostrich, head firmly buried in the sand in a futile attempt to pretend the world isn't real.

by Norm Deplume Mon Mar 09, 2015 8:58 pm

polyglide wrote:
God is not to blame for any of the henious things that are occuring in the world today.

Neither is Sauron and for the same reason.

If either existed then they could be blamed.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:29 pm

polyglide wrote:Dear All, I have just had to go back and decide just what this thread is about.

Instead of just reading the title and the opening post at the top of the page you mean? You still got it wrong though, rather bizarrely. However a more pressing question is wtf you keep capitalising words in the middle of sentences,

or why,

you use double

line breaks

everywhere? headbang

by polyglide Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:13 am

Dr Sheldon,
You would be far better engaged in learning the meaning of what is written, irrespective of any gramatical errors.

I have assessed all your replies to simple questions
and attempted to understand where you are comming from, I do not know but it must be a very strange place.

Do you by any chance wear genes, because they when worn tightly can cause pain which in turn can affect the brain.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:34 am

What has your petty ad hominem to do with the thread, or my post come to that?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:36 am

polyglide wrote:Dr Sheldon,
You would be far better engaged in learning the meaning of what is written, irrespective of any gramatical errors.

I have assessed all your replies to simple questions
and attempted to understand where you are comming from, I do not know but it must be a very strange place.

Do you by any chance wear genes, because they when worn tightly can cause pain which in turn can affect the brain.

Since you ignored it I'll try again.
If your god really existed it designed and created a world where predation, diseases, and suffering are ubiquitous, and this was the case for hundreds of millions of years before the first humans evolved. The only answer you seem to have for this is to pretend that it didn't happen, and that science is entirely wrong about everything from the age of the earth to Darwinian evolution.

by polyglide Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:48 am

Dr, Sheldon,
You have obviously not understood what I have said on this matter.

God created everything in the beginning, I have expained how.

In the beggining being the key to the whole matter.

He created Jesus as the first Angel and subsequently millions of other angels through Jesus.

These Angels were also capable of creating.

As they at times changed into humans.

Many of these Angels turned against God and decided to create as many problems as possible.

Hence all the problems both animal vegitable and mineral.

by Norm Deplume Tue Mar 10, 2015 12:02 pm

polyglide wrote:
God created everything in the beginning, I have expained how.
He created Jesus as the first Angel and subsequently millions of other angels through Jesus.
These Angels were also capable of creating.

Your beliefs are self-contradictory. The emboldened terms are incompatible.
The final statement is not necessarily incompatible since it can be reconciled with first if these angels did not exercise their creative abilities.

The implications of your beliefs would probably have led to your death in earlier centuries - established cults were not very tolerant of heresy.

Jesus was the first angel.
Therefore Jesus was not God.
But Jesus claimed (or was acclaimed) to be God made manifest.
Jesus considered himself God's equal.
Satan was God's favourite angel until his pride made him claim to be God's equal and rebel.
Jesus is Satan.

[Incidentally 'angel' is not a proper noun and does not require an initial capital unless you are referring to the vampire played by David Boreanaz or the TV series spun off from Buffy]

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Mar 10, 2015 12:16 pm

polyglide wrote: Dr, Sheldon,
You have obviously not understood what I have said on this matter.

God created everything in the beginning, I have expained how.

In the beggining being the key to the whole matter.

He created Jesus as the first Angel and subsequently millions of other angels through Jesus.

These Angels were also capable of creating.

As they at times changed into humans.

Many of these Angels turned against God and decided to create as many problems as possible.

Hence all the problems both animal vegitable and mineral.

You cannot turn against something that is omnipotent unless it wants to allow it, that's axiomatic.

That aside your beliefs make no rational sense and of course are entirely unevidenced. The thread is about the behaviour of and messages contained in these religions and whether we should embrace them as they are insidiously immoral.

by polyglide Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:27 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
Do you actually understand the different meanings of omnipotent.

Almighty and infinate power as applied to God with many other definitions ie: impossible to measure etc;

I have already explained why God cannot at this time become involved in World Affairs.

So your post is totally irrelevant.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:39 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
Do you actually understand the different meanings of omnipotent.

Almighty and infinate power as applied to God with many other definitions ie: impossible to measure etc;

I have already explained why God cannot at this time become involved in World Affairs.

So your post is totally irrelevant.

Omnipotent is defined in the dictionary. I've zero interest in subjective semantics as you've been told. Your claim is refuted by the Christian religion's claim for an omnipotent deity. What's irrelevant are your colourful "explanation" which are simply plucked out of thin air.

I still fail to see the relevance to the thread as we are talking about the egregiously immoral behaviour and doctrine of the Christian Jewish and Muslim religions. A quick read of their religious texts or a brief research of their behaviour is enough to validates GIA's point. Bizarre and outlandish claims without evidence don't trump the evidence of the real world anymore than your use of logical fallacies like the no true Scotsman fallacy.

by polyglide Tue Mar 10, 2015 4:07 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
I am only realy interested in the New Testament as I have previously explained why.

I can understand some of your views because you do not accept that there are supernatural being and those with powers of creation etc.

So that limits any reasonable debate, on all evidence available it is a complete stand off.

You cannot prove that there is no God, I cannot prove, to your satifaction, that there is,however, I know there is.

All I can do is access the evidence available.

In my opinion even were I not 100% certain that God of the Bible exists, I would still on all know evbidence subscribe to the the theory of creation by a higher power.

I would also come to the conclusion that mankind would not have decended into the present situation the world finds itself in had there not been outside influences.

Darwin and all other scientists do not explain the most important question, how life came about.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Mar 10, 2015 6:58 pm

polyglide wrote:I am only realy interested in the New Testament as I have previously explained why. I can understand some of your views because you do not accept that there are supernatural being and those with powers of creation etc.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Whether you are interested in the OT or not is entirely irrelevant, as this is a public forum and the topic may be addressed with any salient information. There is no evidence for anything supernatural, and every single time such claims are properly scrutinised they turn out to have an entirely natural explanation.

polyglideSo that limits any reasonable debate, on all evidence available it is a complete stand off.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Not really, you seem to be implying that the complete lack of evidence for your deity, or indeed any deity, somehow makes the claim an equal premise to rejecting that belief. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not on those who reject it. Remember Hitchen's razor.

polyglideYou cannot prove that there is no God,
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You cannot prove that Zeus, Thor or Apollo don't exist, or that there aren't unicorns hiding in the forest, or mermaids in the sea, that doesn't lend any validity to claims that they exist, this is argumentum ad ignorantiam.

polyglideI cannot prove, to your satisfaction, that there is,however, I know there is.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You can't evidence it, let alone prove it, and my satisfaction is not the benchmark here, the level of evidence should match how implausible the claim is. As for you knowing that is just a subjective claim, in evidential terms how is it any more real than someone thinking they're the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte?

polyglideAll I can do is access the evidence available.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Yours is a religion based on faith, faith has been one of its main tenets since it was created, so claiming you have evidence does rather prompt the question, where have you been with this evidence? And of course what is it? Without wishing to be dismissive your posts thus far have indicated that you cite many things as evidence which are nothing of the sort.

polyglideIn my opinion even were I not 100% certain that God of the Bible exists, I would still on all know evbidence subscribe to the the theory of creation by a higher power.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No one can be 100% certain about anything, epistemologically speaking. You really ought to know this before entering into any debate. Of course this is your choice to believe whatever you want, sadly all the evidence shows we evolved, and there is no evidence at all for creationism. Certainly none that comes close to being scientific as creationism premises a supernatural creator and this nullifies it as scientific as it's neither natural or falsifiable.

polyglide I would also come to the conclusion that mankind would not have decended into the present situation the world finds itself in had there not been outside influences.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Again this is pure subjective conjecture, we evolved and our evolved intellects almost made where we are inevitable given it presented us with the ability to start controlling our environment.

polyglide Darwin and all other scientists do not explain the most important question, how life came about.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You're using argumentum ad ignorantiam again, scientists once couldn't explain that we did not live in a geocentric universe, this still didn't make religious claims that we did correct, and when Galileo evidenced the theories of Copernicus the church tried to deny this evidence, just as you are doing with evolution. This is more commonly known as a god of the gaps polemic.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Mar 10, 2015 7:59 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr Sheldon, Do you by any chance wear genes, because they when worn tightly can cause pain which in turn can affect the brain.

Genes, dear god almighty... Rolling Eyes

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Mar 10, 2015 8:04 pm

polyglide wrote: I have already explained why God cannot at this time become involved in World Affairs.

OED Definition of omnipotent in English:
adjective
1(Of a deity) having unlimited power:

It therefore follows that there is nothing it can't do, though it may theoretically choose not to do something, but then if that inaction resulted in suffering it would negate the possibility of it's being benevolent.

by snowyflake Tue Mar 10, 2015 8:38 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr Sheldon,
You would be far better engaged in learning the meaning of what is written, irrespective of any gramatical errors.

I have assessed all your replies to simple questions
and attempted to understand where you are comming from, I do not know but it must be a very strange place.

Do you by any chance wear genes, because they when worn tightly can cause pain which in turn can affect the brain.

This is a really stupid post polyglide and you're starting to sound like my granddaughter when she's miffed with one of her playmates. Evil or Very Mad

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Mar 10, 2015 9:14 pm

snowyflake wrote:
polyglide wrote:Dr Sheldon,
You would be far better engaged in learning the meaning of what is written, irrespective of any gramatical errors.

I have assessed all your replies to simple questions
and attempted to understand where you are comming from, I do not know but it must be a very strange place.

Do you by any chance wear genes, because they when worn tightly can cause pain which in turn can affect the brain.

This is a really stupid post polyglide and you're starting to sound like my granddaughter when she's miffed with one of her playmates.

At least it was funny, albeit unintentionally. Genes, hilarious actually. I wonder what stone washed "genes" would look like? Razz

by polyglide Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:14 am

Dr, Sheldon,
Having unlimited power does not mean one can predict the future, only on the grounds of what would happen under certain circumstances.

Having power means being able to untilise that which is available to it's greatest extent and nothing more.

by Sponsored content