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 Greatest I am Sun Apr 05, 2015 2:55 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:Science says we have a higher mind. I gave you one link. Google more if you want them. I do not need to.

When I speak of apotheosis, it is a fact to me. If not to others then there is nothing I can do about that.

E=mc2 was a fact to Einstein long before the rest of the world believed it.

"and you've made a claim that is not evidenced and therefore not true".

Thanks for the morning chuckle.

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Sun Apr 05, 2015 2:57 pm

bit.ly/1bRZ7nn

So much for thinking apotheosis is what you think it is. Your brain plays tricks on you, Greatest.

by Greatest I am Sun Apr 05, 2015 3:08 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:Science has shown that there is what the ancients call a third or single eye and much of Eastern theology and philosophy is based on it. All I preach is a method of unifying the brain and reaching our higher mind.

https://www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchrist_the_divided_brain

"Psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist describes the real differences between the left and right halves of the human brain. It's not simply "emotion on the right, reason on the left," but something far more complex and interesting."

That doesn't sound like what you've claimed at all. Nor does anything in that video clip come close to making those assertions.

Eastern mystics and belief systems have reams that discuss this issue if you wish to learn more about it.

I have no need to convince anyone of this as I focus on morals where an end game might be had.

In esoteric chats, there is no end game if one does not want to buy into the notions and try to see if they have a third eye or higher mind and try to activate it.

Seeking God is not your thing so there is no point in us talking about it. Your God is called Nogod while mine is I am. So our Gods are the same to each of us at the end of the day. You will follow you conscience as ideal and so will I. We just got to the same position through different routes. I was exactly where you are before apotheosis.

Jesus said to seek God but if people do not seek they will not find. But that is ok as it is not that big of a deal and is not required for people to be moral. As you have likely noted, idol worshipers usually have inferior morals to non-believers.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sun Apr 05, 2015 3:18 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:Science has shown that there is what the ancients call a third or single eye and much of Eastern theology and philosophy is based on it. All I preach is a method of unifying the brain and reaching our higher mind.

https://www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchrist_the_divided_brain

"Psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist describes the real differences between the left and right halves of the human brain. It's not simply "emotion on the right, reason on the left," but something far more complex and interesting."

That doesn't sound like what you've claimed at all. Nor does anything in that video clip come close to making those assertions.

No argument.

What I was showing was as you indicate.

" but something far more complex and interesting."

I am telling you of one of the more interesting aspects that Gnosis has shown me. Gnosis is a full melding of the two halves. Or so the mystics say. I know what apotheosis feels like but have no real idea if what the mystics describe in terms of the pineal gland is true or not. I just know that something was doing on inside my brain and mind. I think it was the mind guiding the brain but we know even less about the mind that we do about the brain.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sun Apr 05, 2015 3:25 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Greatest I am wrote: https://www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchrist_the_divided_brain

Regards
DL

Some more about Iain McGilchrist's research here: NB please note the highlighted sections.

"The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World is a 2009 book written by Iain McGilchrist that deals with the specialist hemispheric functioning of the brain. The differing world views of the right and left brain (the "Master" and "emissary" in the title, respectively) have, according to the author, shaped Western culture since the time of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, and the growing conflict between these views has implications for the way the modern world is changing. In part, McGilchrist's book, which is the product of twenty years of research, reviews the evidence of previous related research and theories, and based on this and cultural evidence, the author arrives at his own conclusions.
The Master and His Emissary received mostly favourable reviews upon its publication. Critics praised the book as being a landmark publication that could alter readers' perspective of how they viewed the world; A.C. Grayling, however, commented about the book that "the findings of brain science are nowhere near fine-grained enough yet to support the large psychological and cultural conclusions Iain McGilchrist draws""

I can see why critics would praise his book and call it a landmark publication. He is quite an intelligent guy.

Experiments are showing that a stimulated part of the brain that does math will do it better. If they ever find our spiritual trigger, we might be able to empty our prisons.

Science is what will eventually pull us all the way into being civilized people.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sun Apr 05, 2015 3:30 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:

I agree. That is why I have claimed apotheosis and speak of it as a fact. The fact that you do not want to believe it does not make my fact and experience a lie.

That is why I try hard never to lie and am quite willing to take any test that you would accept.

Science has shown that there is what the ancients call a third or single eye and much of Eastern theology and philosophy is based on it.

All I preach is a method of unifying the brain and reaching our higher mind.

https://www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchrist_the_divided_brain

Regards
DL

No mention of third eyes or anything you preached. No mention of apotheosis which is a subjective, personal experience not founded in neuroscience or biology. McGilchrist is a psychiatrist and is talking about the brain and the hemisperes and how our experiences feed into intuition and reason. Obviously, your experiences with apotheosis cannot be considered real or reality since it's subjective. I don't doubt that you believe you've had an experience. I just doubt your interpretation of it. And science doesn't support your belief.

Sorry that's the truth.

Science, I hope, will soon surprise us all if this research shows what I found through apotheosis. If so, we will likely re-write the definitions of many of the words we use. Like third eye, single eye and apotheosis and consciousness.

https://vimeo.com/26318064

I do not expect to be believed until this type of research bears more fruit. The first part of this series is also worth watching.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sun Apr 05, 2015 3:39 pm

snowyflake wrote:bit.ly/1bRZ7nn

So much for thinking apotheosis is what you think it is. Your brain plays tricks on you, Greatest.

I was aware of that interesting effect.

I would not give any veracity to my experience and apotheosis without a bit of a push by a previous and verifiable episode of my mind and brains ability to project my thoughts out of my head in a coherent way. I think my skeptical mind knew this before apotheosis and that may be why I had one other brief episode of what we would likely call telepathy. I surprised both myself and my wife when I reached out and touched her mind telepathically for just a second or two. She called it an assault and I cause her to cry.

Without that verifiable episode, I would have just called my apotheosis a mind burp or something and ignored it. With a witness to telepathy in the form of my wife, I cannot ignore it.

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Sun Apr 05, 2015 6:47 pm

People believe all kinds of crazy shit, Greatest. Doesn't mean it's true. And not to put too fine a point on it, your wife's testimony is as flimsy as any other eye witness testimony and I can hardly be accepting of the word of one person who just might be trying to keep you happy or wants to be in the same belief boat as you are.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:56 am

Greatest I am wrote:

"and you've made a claim that is not evidenced and therefore not true".

Thanks for the morning chuckle.

Regards
DL

How does editing my responses to misrepresent what I posted seem humorous to you? Far better you read Snowyflake's and my posts on your claims, and realised what constitutes scientific evidence and what does not, and what science accepts as true and how that differs from an individual scientist's opinion. You earlier protested about the way people treat you and now your being derisory and misrepresenting what I've said just because you don't like your claims being contradicted.

I have to say this is pretty much standard fair for the theists who come into these kind of public forum, very few of whom actually want to discuss their beliefs in a critical way, or even read criticisms of their beliefs and it's claims.

The article you linked didn't say what you claimed, AGAIN. You have past convictions for this as well, so are either not bothering to read the links and are bluffing in the hope others will not bother, or simply don't understand what the content of the link is saying. Nothing in that link you posts came to close to the hokum of third eyes, apotheosis, or higher minds, and none of it amounted to "science saying we have a higher mind" as you claimed, that's just your own subjective and bizarre interpretation. Further more I posted some views on the psychiatrist whose work you linked and how it was received by the wider scientific and medical community. You ignored these of course, preferring a fairly juvenile misrepresentation of what I'd posted and a rather pointless one liner you clearly thought achieved something. Like Polygide's antics I'm happy to let others read what was actually posted and make up their own minds about whose posts are laughable, and why.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:15 am

Greatest I am wrote: Eastern mystics and belief systems have reams that discuss this issue if you wish to learn more about it. I have no need to convince anyone of this as I focus on morals where an end game might be had.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No thanks, I have no real interest in superstitions whatever their source. If this hokum somehow helps you behave better then fine, but you shouldn't need it, and I certainly don't.

In esoteric chats, there is no end game if one does not want to buy into the notions and try to see if they have a third eye or higher mind and try to activate it. Seeking God is not your thing so there is no point in us talking about it.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Seeking god is no more my thing than seeking anything else that is fictional and does not really exist, I'm not about to spend my time scouring the oceans for mermaids either just because there have been many claims by humans to have encountered them. Your beliefs have no more evidence that theirs.

Your God is called Nogod while mine is I am. So our Gods are the same to each of us at the end of the day. You will follow you conscience as ideal and so will I. We just got to the same position through different routes. I was exactly where you are before apotheosis.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I have no god so that claim is rather silly, and this strikes me as another of those grandiloquent claims theists make to make themselves and their beliefs seem important and significant, when all the evidence science uncovers about the universe shows that we are neither. I am happy to accept what the evidence shows, wherever that leads.

Jesus said to seek God but if people do not seek they will not find.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:How is that claim more convincing than any other made by subjective religious texts whose origins can never be proved?

But that is ok as it is not that big of a deal and is not required for people to be moral. As you have likely noted, idol worshipers usually have inferior morals to non-believers.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Not necessarily, what I notice that is that once people start to believe in things that are not evidenced they lose the ability to think critically about their religions claims, and develop a propensity to credulously embrace the absurdly erroneous, and reject what is evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Also that once they subjugate their will to another entity or "big other" whether it be a deity or even a political ideology, then they start to relinquish their moral responsibility to others.

by snowyflake Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:30 am

I call this the CW Bradbury Effect. Posting links that have absolutely nothing to do with what is claimed Smile

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:46 am

snowyflake wrote:I call this the CW Bradbury Effect. Posting links that have absolutely nothing to do with what is claimed

I'm not sure whether the way they breeze past all objections and ignore what is said in response is impressive or not. I suppose at some level it takes an "impressive" amount of dogged tenacious single minded purpose, but unfortunately this is precisely how all religions work. GIA did the same with his claim that homosexuality was determined by our DNA, I waded through 8 or 9 links, none of it light reading especially for me, and none of which provided the peer reviewed evidence he was claiming, and 7 of which didn't mention genetics at all.

Someone it seems has learned how to use Google, though a little discretion on his part about what it finds is warranted I fear. Didn't Marilyn have a similar scatter gun approach to using Google to search for the things she believed, and then just pasted the links in without reading them? As I recall it left her with egg on her face quite regularly, though since in her case she was quite clearly barking mad I doubt it ever registered.

by snowyflake Mon Apr 06, 2015 10:46 am

He's also claiming some kind of telepathic episode which he believes is real when it can be down to coincidence but he's convinced himself it is this higher 'thing'.

How many times have you had a tune humming in your head and your turn on the radio and it is the same song you were thinking about? Is that telepathy? OR is the radio signals beaming off your amalgam fillings??

Smile

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Apr 06, 2015 3:50 pm

I once tried to predict what card was on top of a deck of cards, just for fun, and got it absolutely right. It was the 7 of diamonds, a sheer coincidence. It didn't make me telepathic of course, but is seems some people simply don't see that they're subjectively interpreting events to suit what they want them to mean.

I don't know if you saw it but professor Dawkins did a series of programmes on faith and beliefs, in one he set up a double blind test for people who thought they were water diviners. Needless to say every single one of them failed utterly. The odd thing was their reaction, in every single case they simply wouldn't accept the outcome, and tried to rationalise their failure in a variety of ways. Bizarre how self delusion and faith are so unshakable, even when the evidence unequivocally refute the claims and or beliefs. Just look at the lengths Polyglide goes to delude himself and deny evolution.

by snowyflake Mon Apr 06, 2015 4:57 pm

Yes I did see that programme by Dawkins. And it was eye opening how fervent the faithful are. No matter what solid evidence was put in front of them they just would not accept their failure.

Polyglide is like this too. I am not sure why people want to believe in spirits, ghosts, gods or third eyes but it has to be psychologically comforting in some way or people wouldn't do it.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't him think Smile

by Greatest I am Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:54 pm

snowyflake wrote:People believe all kinds of crazy shit, Greatest. Doesn't mean it's true. And not to put too fine a point on it, your wife's testimony is as flimsy as any other eye witness testimony and I can hardly be accepting of the word of one person who just might be trying to keep you happy or wants to be in the same belief boat as you are.

You did not feel what I did or make your wife cry at a distance.

You will not and cannot question me harder than I did before accepting it as a reality.

If you do not believe, I am not surprised and I really don't care.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:18 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
snowyflake wrote:People believe all kinds of crazy shit, Greatest. Doesn't mean it's true. And not to put too fine a point on it, your wife's testimony is as flimsy as any other eye witness testimony and I can hardly be accepting of the word of one person who just might be trying to keep you happy or wants to be in the same belief boat as you are.

You did not feel what I did or make your wife cry at a distance.

You will not and cannot question me harder than I did before accepting it as a reality.

If you do not believe, I am not surprised and I really don't care.

Regards
DL

It wasn't telepathy, no matter how compellingly you believe it was. Our senses are easily deceived, even when we try hard to avoid it and are expecting the deception, such as a magic show as one example. You may not care that others do not believe your claims, but this is hardly relevant, as this is a public forum, and by making the claim here anyone is entitled to comment. Nothing you have presented however amounts to proper evidence. Also your suggesting that you critically examined the experience yourself and could find no explanation beyond the supernatural is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam. Simply put, not being able to explain something does not justify making assumptions based on ignorance as there may be many explanations you can't possibly know about, and not once throughout human history has a single claim for supernatural causation ever stood up to proper scrutiny. On the contrary such claims when they are explained has in every single instance had a perfectly natural explanation.

by snowyflake Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:30 pm

Greatest I am wrote:You did not feel what I did or make your wife cry at a distance.

You will not and cannot question me harder than I did before accepting it as a reality.

If you do not believe, I am not surprised and I really don't care.

Sorry. I know I'm raining all over your beliefs but I have good reasons, solid science and the search for truth and reality to support my unbelief. There are dozens of explanations for what occurred and any one of them is far more likely to be the answer than the one you have concluded.

But as you are one of the fervent faithful, anything the Doc or I say is not going to make any difference to you. You need to believe this for whatever reason, and it makes you happy in some sort of way, so who am I to tell you not to believe it. I won't. But in the same vein, I won't believe in nonsense either and so far you haven't presented anything to convince me otherwise.

Kind regards, Frankie

by polyglide Tue Apr 07, 2015 10:32 am

Dr, Sheldon,
Library not open hence delay.

With regards to must and shall.

Prior to God giving the Ten Commandments mankind was lost and as any father would do he attempted to show them how they could improve their lives and safeguard themselves fron self destructioon etc;

Now as a father I used to tell my children you must not go near the fire or you will be hurt [ of course in Dr, Sheldon's opinion you could fit them out with fire proof gloves and asbestos suits and they could then realy enjoy themselves] or you must not steal etc; etc;

The choice of wether they take any notice is up to them just as it was with the Ten Commandments.

The fact that the majority of mankind took no notice is proof that mankind has a choice in all the options open to him.

God did not demand but gave mankind the options as all the facts confirm.

by polyglide Tue Apr 07, 2015 10:35 am

Spelling mistakes noted.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:26 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, Library not open hence delay. With regards to must and shall. Prior to God giving the Ten Commandments mankind was lost and as any father would do he attempted to show them how they could improve their lives and safeguard themselves fron self destructioon etc;
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I find parent analogies very weak here to be honest as quite clearly human parents are neither omniscient nor omnipotent so it's a pointless comparison. Your claim is not evidenced as you have no way to show that the ten commandments had a divine origin, and given that nearly all of the moral guides in them that don't relate specifically to strengthening belief in the Abraham god pre-date that religion, then it's quite clear they are not divine in origin. If a deity with omnipotence wanted it's creation to have better morals it could achieve this effortlessly and instantly, nor need such a being remove their freedom of choice in doing so, the fact that this has not happened is rather compelling evidence that a benevolent omniscient omnipotent deity does not exist.

Now as a father I used to tell my children you must not go near the fire or you will be hurt [ of course in Dr, Sheldon's opinion you could fit them out with fire proof gloves and asbestos suits and they could then realy enjoy themselves] or you must not steal etc; etc;
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I can never tell whether you're being facetious, but quite obviously the point I made about my putting my hand into a fire and emerging unharmed despite what your experiential evidence told you would happen, was clearly that it showed the superiority of science and the scientific method that designed and created the gloves, over experiential evidence which is subjective and often superficial by comparison. I made no mention of children at all, so i assume that you were being facetious there?

The choice of wether they take any notice is up to them just as it was with the Ten Commandments.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:This doesn't alter the fact that the commandments are worded as demands, and clearly the bible suggest there were dire and immediate consequences for those who disobeyed them from the start. The fact that your religion also claims people will be tortured forever after they die makes this analogy rather unconvincing as well, and of course again the main flaw in your analogy is you're comparing human attempts to discipline and instil morals, with all their obvious limitations, with the supposed efforts of a being that has both limitless knowledge aand limitless power.

The fact that the majority of mankind took no notice is proof that mankind has a choice in all the options open to him.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:The first point is that all the commandments that offer any real moral guide pre-date your religion in almost every human society recorded. So it's an odd coincidence that commandments from an omniscient omnipotent being are no better than humans had already managed on their own. As for humans having a choice, well that's a bit of straw man argument as no one has said otherwise as far as I'm aware. Our evolved intellect creates choices, that's axiomatic, a lion has more choices than a slug because it has a larger brain, the same then is true of humans, none of that requires supernatural causation. the majority of the ten commandments of course are simply not relevant to those who don't believe in god, and lend no moral guidance per se, they just try to strengthen adherence to belief in that deity.

God did not demand but gave mankind the options as all the facts confirm.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:God did demand, as I and others have shown,and saying otherwise won't change that. You've offered no evidence at all, let alone proof, that human choices require supernatural causation, our evolved intellects are all that is required for this, and evolution is a scientific fact that is evidenced beyond any reasonable or objective doubt.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:54 pm

polyglide wrote: God does not make demands he gives choices.

Deuteronomy 9:12
"Then the LORD said to me, 'Arise, go down from here quickly, for your people whom you brought out of Egypt have acted corruptly They have quickly turned aside from the way which I commanded them; they have made a molten image for themselves.'

1 Samuel 15:11
"I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands"

God’s Covenant With Noah
Genesis 9
4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

QED..

by polyglide Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:28 am

Dr, Sheldon,
I discussed your replies to my posts with e friend, his opinion was that there was something fishy about you as you appeared not to understand the most simple explanation.

The last post confirms his opinion.

You do not take the advice and commands, which are for your benifit, then you suffer the consequences.

Then I thought about the fishy bit.

He thought you needed putting in your plaice for your own good, I thought at first he was codding, he thought, you thought, you were having a whale of a time etc; then it suddenly came to me, ah sole.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:49 am

Do have anything salient to say? Only even someone like you must realise by now how pointless your ad hominem attacks are. You actually walked to a library to post petty childish insults at a stranger.

Wow, what a fulfilling life changing experience your beliefs must be if you consider that a useful way to spend your time. At least you have a friend anyway, and he shares your passion for ignoring facts in favour of hurling petty childish ad hominem attacks at those who reject and explain away his mumbo jumbo superstition.

by polyglide Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:53 am

Dr, Sheldon,
The relevant part of the post is the fact that you cannot understand that there are consequences for not doing what you should.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:34 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
The relevant part of the post is the fact that you cannot understand that there are consequences for not doing what you should.

Nope. I meant relevant to the thread OP not to your puerile superstitious fantasies. The consequence of which appear to be a wasted life. A massive chip on your shoulder. A penchant for childish name calling. An aversion to facts or reality. Demonic and satanic delusions. An inability to read or understand anything that isn't part of your bizarre bronze age delusion.

I can live without that if I'm honest.

by Greatest I am Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:23 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:

You did not feel what I did or make your wife cry at a distance.

You will not and cannot question me harder than I did before accepting it as a reality.

If you do not believe, I am not surprised and I really don't care.

Regards
DL

It wasn't telepathy, no matter how compellingly you believe it was. Our senses are easily deceived,

True. But to deceive the sense of another at a distance is telepathy.

But it, like any six sense, cannot as yet be proven and neither can it's non-existence so stop with your logical fallacy as you begin to sound less intelligent than you are.

There is this bit but my situation does not apply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folie_%C3%A0_deux

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:26 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:You did not feel what I did or make your wife cry at a distance.

You will not and cannot question me harder than I did before accepting it as a reality.

If you do not believe, I am not surprised and I really don't care.

Sorry. I know I'm raining all over your beliefs but I have good reasons, solid science and the search for truth and reality to support my unbelief. There are dozens of explanations for what occurred and any one of them is far more likely to be the answer than the one you have concluded.

But as you are one of the fervent faithful, anything the Doc or I say is not going to make any difference to you. You need to believe this for whatever reason, and it makes you happy in some sort of way, so who am I to tell you not to believe it. I won't. But in the same vein, I won't believe in nonsense either and so far you haven't presented anything to convince me otherwise.

Kind regards, Frankie

I know. I myself would not believe another without having experience it and knowing it is a part of reality.

I have admitted to not having anything to convince anyone.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:42 pm

You admit to having no evidence. Experiential evidence is wildly unreliable and very subjective. You are free of course to interpret what happened as telepathy if you wish, but you can't really expect others to view such a claim with anything but the deepest scepticism.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:47 pm

GIA wrote:to deceive the sense of another at a distance is telepathy. But it, like any six sense, cannot as yet be proven and neither can it's non-existence so stop with your logical fallacy as you begin to sound less intelligent than you are.

I see you're now using Polyglide's favoured logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. The claim is yours for using supernatural powers. Therefore the burden of proof is entirely yours. If I told you I can fly and claimed you couldn't prove that I hadn't you'd not accept that as meaningful evidence I assume. So I'm not sure why you think it's unintelligent to point this out, but it's not, quite the opposite in fact. Though I'm happy to acknowledge my mediocre intellect right now.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 08, 2015 4:41 pm

polyglide wrote:
God does not make demands he gives choices.

Deuteronomy 9:12
"Then the LORD said to me, 'Arise, go down from here quickly, for your people whom you brought out of Egypt have acted corruptly They have quickly turned aside from the way which I commanded them; they have made a molten image for themselves.'

1 Samuel 15:11
"I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands"

God’s Covenant With Noah
Genesis 9
4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

So now he's done hurling childish insults perhaps Polyglide can stop pretending he hadn't seen this post, as we can all see again that his tantrum is the direct result of yet another of his claims being completely dismantled.

Still lets hope he really does have a friend, as if his behaviour on here is anything to go by he's unlikely to make many new ones.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:50 pm

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Epicurus 341 – 270 BC

I'm not sure anyone has phrased it any better than Epicurus, so I'll stick with this quote. Theodicy has offered nothing very compelling to answer it in over 2000 years.

by polyglide Fri Apr 10, 2015 10:30 am

Dr, Sheldon,
As usual you miss the point, man then has a choice, God does not force anyone to do anything.

God may command someone to do something in their best interests but history tells you most of the time he is ignored.

There is a difference between being forced into something and commanded to do it with a choice of either or not.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 10, 2015 1:00 pm

It's you who is spectacularly missing the point, again.

If your deity possesses omnipotence then why can't it illiminate suffering and preserve the human free will you keep claiming we have?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 10, 2015 2:43 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
As usual you miss the point, man then has a choice, God does not force anyone to do anything.

God may command someone to do something in their best interests but history tells you most of the time he is ignored.

There is a difference between being forced into something and commanded to do it with a choice of either or not.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Epicurus 341 – 270 BC wrote:

There are four questions in that quote from Epicurus, if you answer them honestly then at least one of the answers contradicts one of the others, that's why it's a paradox. Though you seem unable or unwilling to grasp this, and think you can go on answering them one at a time and ignoring the fact that your answer contradicts one or more of the other claims about god that your religion makes. It's astonishing that you can't see this simple premise.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 10, 2015 2:47 pm

Polyglide, as usual you have ignored any points you don't like,, and after your earlier tantrum and insults perhaps you can now acknowledge the following biblical quotes that categorically refute your earlier claim that god does not make demands. Though of course I shan't hold my breath:

polyglide wrote:
God does not make demands he gives choices.

Deuteronomy 9:12
"Then the LORD said to me, 'Arise, go down from here quickly, for your people whom you brought out of Egypt have acted corruptly They have quickly turned aside from the way which I commanded them; they have made a molten image for themselves.'

1 Samuel 15:11
"I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands"

God’s Covenant With Noah
Genesis 9
4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

by Greatest I am Fri Apr 10, 2015 7:15 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:You admit to having no evidence. Experiential evidence is wildly unreliable and very subjective. You are free of course to interpret what happened as telepathy if you wish, but you can't really expect others to view such a claim with anything but the deepest scepticism.

I agree. That is why I do not push for belief and offer it only as an anecdotal rendering.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 10, 2015 9:21 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:You admit to having no evidence. Experiential evidence is wildly unreliable and very subjective. You are free of course to interpret what happened as telepathy if you wish, but you can't really expect others to view such a claim with anything but the deepest scepticism.

I agree. That is why I do not push for belief and offer it only as an anecdotal rendering.

Regards
DL

Fair enough.

Regards to you as well.

by polyglide Sat Apr 11, 2015 11:07 am

DR, Sheldon,
Perhaps commands are not an appropriate expression but I accept what the Bible says.

All God's commands have been for the benifit of mankind.

They would only have been inappropriate if mankind had not had a choice of accepting them or ignoring them.

by Norm Deplume Sat Apr 11, 2015 1:05 pm

polyglide wrote:
All God's commands have been for the benifit of mankind.

I beg to differ. Genesisc 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 11, 2015 1:11 pm

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon, Perhaps commands are not an appropriate expression but I accept what the Bible says. All God's commands have been for the benifit of mankind.They would only have been inappropriate if mankind had not had a choice of accepting them or ignoring them.

What has that to do with you claiming "god does not make demands" and then ignoring the biblical quotes I offered that prove you were wrong? At least have the decency to acknowledge an error when you make it, otherwise why should anyone bother with your posts.

by Sponsored content