Why do theists tout the absurd idea that an omnipotent omniscient deity requires humans to communicate its message and create and enforce its laws?

First topic message reminder :

This has always struck me as something of an absurdity. Especially when you can't fail to notice that the laws always reflect the ignorance superstition wishes desires and prejudices of those claiming this divine authority, which surely is too much of a coincidence for any halfway intelligent and objective observer to ignore.

polyglide wrote: God did not create a demon, he created a being that became a demon through choice.

Are you saying that your omniscient deity didn't know this would happen? That would of course limit it's knowledge, and refute your religion's claim that it is omniscient.

Is the nature of the paradox starting to sink in yet?

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, To allow a disobedient angel to have a chance to prove God wrong rather than just kill him off or at least take his powers away would not be benevolent but dictatorial.

Since you have the usual theistic penchant for analogies lets try one here. Your religion claims your god is omni-benevolent, so magnitudes more benevolent than any human. Now with the premise that a human is demonstrably less benevolent than your deity is claimed to be lets create an analogy of your claim above.

In our example lets assume a human has a knife and is going to stab a child to death. Now lets assume another human is present and has a gun, loaded and pointed at the knife wielder.

If that human shoots the knife wielder dead he's not only taken away his free will as regards the action in question but taken his life, obviously. So now lets assume that instead of a gun the human could stop the knife attack by will alone, without harming the knife attacker and whilst somehow preserving his free will. I have no idea how the second human could do this, but that doesn't matter, as the point is an omniscient being would know how this could be achieved and would be capable of doing it if it were omnipotent.

So would you consider such a human to be benevolent if it stood by and watched the child get stabbed to death? As horrific as this hypothetical example is it's nothing compared to the collective suffering of every living thing that's ever existed, so how can a deity allow this when it could easily avoid it and still be pronounced benevolent? The claims is so obviously spurious it's hard to believe that someone not seeing it isn't being deliberately dishonest.

'Free will'. as I see it, does not relate to anything other than intent - it does not guarantee success. Preventing someone from carrying out an act does not negate their intent so free will is not infringed.

Dr, Sheldon,
I am afraid we are going to have to disagree on this one as your anology does not fit the bill.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I am afraid we are going to have to disagree on this one as your anology does not fit the bill.

I've had the good grace to answer all your bizarre and often irrelevant and clumsy analogies, so it's pretty childish to just ignore this one because you have no answer.You can expect your bizarre elephant stomping analogies to get the same treatment from now on then. It's analogy by the way, not anology (sic).

Do you really have no answer to my post? Dear christ what a waste of time it is trying to discuss or debate with someone so utterly blinkered.

Norm Deplume wrote:'Free will'. as I see it, does not relate to anything other than intent - it does not guarantee success. Preventing someone from carrying out an act does not negate their intent so free will is not infringed.

That seems reasonable, if I've understood you correctly. Stopping a knife wielding maniac wouldn't alter their original intent, so wouldn't negate their "free will" either. What is equally obvious is that a being that possessed omnipotence could axiomatically find a way to stop evil and suffering and preserve free will in "literally" any way it chose, so to not do so is not only not benevolent but given the consequences we see all around us would be downright sadistic, most suffering lets not forget isn't and wasn't remotely connected to humans. I know polyglide deludes himself that human action is all pervasive, but humans only evolved 150 to 200 thousand years ago. Hence his need to deny scientific facts like evolution. This inaction by a purportedly omni-benevolent deity is a compelling argument that a omni-benevolent omnipotent deity doesn't exist.

What most theists don't or won't grasp is that when examining this atheists don't have to know how this could be achieved as the claim for omnipotence is not our, as far as this argument is concerned we only have to know that omnipotence would make the premise true.

Dr, Sheldon,
You obviously do not understand, as with many other things free will.

Anyone with a free will has just that and is responsible for all his her actions etc;

It matters not what the circumstances are in every respect one with free will has a choice.

It may well be that ones free will and the actions involved may be detrimental to another but that is not the point, all ivolved could and do have a free will.

Of course it may be compromised because ones free will causes harm to another but that does not in any way nullify free will it just means someone does not know how to behave and if one is murdered the dead ones free will has not been abused the murderer has just carried out his own free will at the xpense of another with free will.

Forget the scientist and just think about it.

I'm afraid your point here is lost on me. Other than repeatedly claiming everyone has free will it is entirely unclear what you're trying to claim. I have read and re-read that and still can't see any relevance to my preceding post whatsoever. furthermore I made no mention of science in my post, and have never claimed people are not responsible for their actions, so god only knows why your suggesting I have.

Of course a person's will is limited by circumstance, that's axiomatic. Can you will yourself to defy gravity, or to live forever, or to hold your breath until you asphyxiate? That aside the main claim I made was a logical assertion that "free will" would be entirely negated by a being with omniscience, as such a being would by definition know future events before they happened. If future events are known then choice would be an illusion, geddit?

I'll help you out here as you see to be floundering, at this point theists usual resort to semantics about the definition of omniscience and the nature of whether future events actually exist and whether therefore there is anything "to know". It's far from compelling of course, in fact I find it a laughable polemic, but it does show the desire to think the problem through albeit with spurious reasoning and logic, which is far more than your post indicates I'm sad to say. You don't seem to grasp the basic premise of what is being discussed, and the nuances of the argument appear to be entirely lost on you, which is probably why you haven't tried to tackle my hypothetical knife wielding analogy.

DR, Sheldon,
I am not suprised you find the most obvious laughable it would be more fitting if you recognised the truth.

Your approach to a subject must have been formed in the most unusual school of thought.

You go on about omnipotence and yet you do not actually understand what it entails.

A persons free will would not be not be compromised even if someone was aware how he/she would behave before they actually existed, knowing would not be influencing, look it up.

You put too much emphasis on what YOU think omnipotence involves.

Omnipotence as applied to God indicates that he has far greater powers than anything else and is therefore capable of many things far beyond our understanding.

It does not imply what you continually associate with God, the word is man made to indicate the greatness of God and nothing more.

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon,
                I am not suprised you find the most obvious laughable it would be more fitting if you recognised the truth.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:The most obvious what? What truth? It's surprised, not suprised (sic). Good god man have you translated that using Babelfish.com

Your approach to a subject must have been formed in the most unusual school of thought.

UNEVIDENCED CLAIM #1

You go on about omnipotence and yet you do not actually understand what it entails.

UNEVIDENCED CLAIM #2

A persons free will  would not be not be compromised even if someone was aware how he/she would behave before they actually existed, knowing would not be influencing, look it up.

UNEVIDENCED CLAIM #3, asking me to look up the evidence for you is a nice touch.

               
You put too much emphasis on what YOU think omnipotence involves.

UNEVIDENCED CLAIM #4

   
     
Omnipotence as applied to God indicates that he has far greater powers than anything else and is therefore capable of many things far beyond our understanding.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:UNEVIDENCED CLAIM #5, also Omnipotence is in the dictionary,  your own bizarre interpretation of is of no significance.

It does not imply what you continually associate with God, the word is man made to indicate the greatness of God and nothing more.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:The word was not defined by me, the word was not used to define god by me, I'm sorry you feel that your religion has improperly defined what you personally believe your god is, but that's nothing to do with me, any more than your idiotic attempts to reinterpret the dictionary is my fault. I strongly urge you to get a dictionary and to look up omnipotence. Or you could just Google it, it'd only take seconds.

Let me show you...

"Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence to only the deity of their faith. In the monotheistic philosophies of Abrahamic religions, omnipotence is often listed as one of a deity's characteristics among many, including omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence. The presence of all these properties in a single entity has given rise to considerable theological debate, prominently including the problem of theodicy, the question of why such a deity would permit the manifestation of evil."

See, the very first hit took me to Wikipedia and what do you know, it defines omnipotence exactly as I have done, and even goes on to explain the very paradoxes I have been talking about. It's clear, again, that you have no clue about theodicy or the arguments involved.

Either your god has limitless power and knowledge or it does not, if you claim it does not then you're not worshiping the christian god but a variation you've created yourself.

Dr, Sheldon,
Of course God has limitless power, it is obvious to anyone with one iota of common sense that there is such a powerful being who created all things.

I am more aware of the meaning of words than you are because at times you cannot understand the most basic meanings.

Anyone can find anything just by pressing a few keys, the art is in making sense of what you find and I find you have not the ability to understand the basics because you are too tied up in attempting to prove that only scientists hold the key to everything.

As I have said previously omnipotence means that God has powers far beyond our understanding and the same can be said when we use different words to explain the importance of a situation, it was a spiritual experience, he put up a show beyond belief etc; etc;

I'll not bother quoting the tedious unevidenced claims as we all are familiar with your MO by now, and it's a waste of bandwidth to point it out as you clearly are either incapable of understanding what constitutes proper evidence or are dishonestly rehashing things you know are not empirically evidenced.

Since you admit the obvious fact your god has omnipotence then that means it allows suffering and evil out of choice. This then is obviously not a benevolent being QED.

Your claim that I am insisting science is the only method for arriving at truth might have some shred of credibility if I hadn't started this thread precisely to afford religious apologists like yourself to present compelling reasons for what they claim as "evidence" to be given comparable credence with evidence that has withstood the rigorous and objective scrutiny of the scientific process.

Unfortunately the best you seem able to manage is to post endless accusations that those who disagree with you are intellectually incapable of understanding your claims.

Since this is self evidently not true, and your claims are being rejected precisely because you have no compelling evidence and don't even offer any most of the time, I'm happy to let everyone who's read the thread decide for themselves. Especially as everyone who's pointed out how woeful your apologetics have been has received exactly the same treatment.

Tell me ploy, have you any salient comment on the Wikipedia article I linked defining omnipotence and using the context of traditional christian claims for their deity?

Only you seem to have ignored my point again in favour of your usual tedious obfuscation.

Dr, Sheldon,
I will reply when I have learned what obfuscation means.

Dr, Sheldon,
Yes, it is intentional.

So you've walked to the library, logged onto the internet, and typed two posts that say nothing and ignore everything posted to refute your BS semantics about omnipotence. I am still left wondering why?

That Wikipedia article thoroughly refuted your claims about me misunderstanding the meaning of omnipotence, which is quite clearly why you've ignored it no doubt.

Two more points Polyglide has ignored:

(1) Since you admit the obvious fact your god has omnipotence then that means it allows suffering and evil out of choice. This then is obviously not a benevolent being QED.

(2) Your claim that I am insisting science is the only method for arriving at truth might have some shred of credibility if I hadn't started this thread precisely to afford religious apologists like yourself to present compelling reasons for what they claim as "evidence" to be given comparable credence with evidence that has withstood the rigorous and objective scrutiny of the scientific process.

Dr, Sheldon,
Your repetative attempt at explaining omnipotence just proves that you have no idea how a word can be expressed to determine, as in this instance a being with powers beyond our understanding, you continually do not consider the circumstances.

Under these circumstances it is pointless attempting to discuss anything with you.

Poly.

I wasn't aware you had attempted to discuss anything with me, or anyone else come to that. All you've done is preach and make endless unevidenced claims.

As to omnipotence I've offered the dictionary definition, I've referenced christian theological claims regarding omnipotence. If you have a personal and subjective definition then perhaps you should start by defining what you claim that is, then explain why your personal and subjective meaning is more relevant or at all relevant when compared to the dictionary definition.

Of course no one is forcing you to take part in this discussion, but this is a public forum intended precisely for such discussion. So if you have no interest in such discussion beyond preaching about your own subjective beliefs then perhaps this is not the place for you?

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Your repetative attempt at explaining omnipotence just proves that you have no idea how a word can be expressed

Try repetitive, not repetative (sic). If you're going to post sententious lectures accusing others of not understanding how words are used or defined you'd best learn to spell, and get a dictionary.

polyglide wrote: if God came to earth and decided everything  man would not have free will.

If your god couldn't do this and still preserve free will then it isn't omnipotent, as an omnipotent being can literally do anything. Though your claim does make me wonder why your bible claims your god has done precisely what you are here claiming he does not do in order to preserve free will. What was Jesus doing if not coming to earth and attempting to tell us what to do?

I see another theist has decided that he knows what his purportedly omniscient deity wants, and decided that this omnipotent being required him to use violence to murder indiscriminately in its name.

I'm not sure what the answer to IS is, but it's abundantly clear that it won't be diplomatic or peaceful.  As I said in my thread title,  why can't people see the absurdity of thinking that an omnipotent being would want them to commit acts of violence against non-believers?  If an omipotent being existed and wanted to exact bloody revenge on anyone why on earth would it need any help?

It's hard to imagine a more compelling refutation of the existence of such a being than its adherents having to do its fighting for it, but I suppose miracles on a grand scale were always going to taper off as the light of scientific knowledge left increasingly fewer gaps made of ignorance for them to hide in.

Instead of some sort of apocalyptic 'end times' being played out it's far more likely we're seeing human superstition in its last desperate death throes, and given how it is behaving and how it has behaved can any rational person be sorry to see it pass ignominiously into history where it belongs.

Dr, Sheldon,
So far as I am aware God does not either commit any acts of violence or condone acts of violence and has only ever been involved when Satan has gone against the agreement that says Satan can turn all mankind against God by reasonable means qand not threatening death.

I have nothing to do with any other religions ideas because they are not God's ideas.

Rather than superstition being in it's death throes, if you consider the actual facts it is mankinds existance that is in it's death throes if matters were allowed to continue on it's present course.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, So far as I am aware God does not either commit any acts of violence  or condone acts of violence

That's not what I said though is it, I said:

I see another theist has decided that he knows what his purportedly omniscient deity wants, and decided that this omnipotent being required him to use violence to murder indiscriminately in its name.

. Quite clearly that sentence nakes no claims about the motives of any deity, but about those who believe in deities, and I am an atheist so I'd hardly make claims about the motives of a deity I don't believe exists.

Your claims about an agreement you can't evidence, with a supernatural demon you have no evidence for with a deity you have no evidence for doesn't really explain anything beyond the lengths believers will go to in order to rationalise their beliefs.

Polyglide wrote:I have nothing to do with any other religions ideas because they are not God's ideas.

I'd bet my life that the maniac who murdered those men women and children in Tunisia felt exactly the same way, I'm not sure what you think this proves, but I do know that such certainty is never good, and being certain that you know what an omnipotent deity thinks and wants, whilst talking about apocalyptic end-times is always cause for deep concern.

Polyglide wrote:Rather than superstition being in it's death throes, if you consider the actual facts it is mankinds existance that is in it's death throes if matters were allowed to continue on it's present course.  

The two are not mutually exclusive, and mankind's existence may end tomorrow or not for thousands of years, the fact is we have the means to affect change if we can act together, and science has the answers, no deity or religion is required. Furthermore religions seem to be adding to the problems rather than offering solutions, with their asinine dogma prohibiting birth control, with the sectarian nature of monotheistic beliefs, with the bigotry and prejudice they spread, and of course their idiotic denial of scientific facts, and their dangerous obsession with apocalyptic prophesy.

Dr, Shedlon,
I agree that if everyone acted together then many things could be better for all concerned.

The only way in which one can see any future in an acceptable manner for mankind is if the means of destroying mankind were not available and the means of creating them lost.

There has never been a scientific creation regarding distruction that has not been used or tested.

Chemicals of mass destruction, the nuclear bombs,
along with the means to deploy them etc;

Birth control and other such oddities are lost in the mist when considering the real deal.

You mention apocalyptic prophesy, read the last book in the Bible.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon, I agree that if everyone acted together then many things could be better for all concerned.

Polyglide wrote:The only way in which one can see any future in an acceptable manner for mankind is if the means of destroying  mankind were not available and the means of creating them lost.

Obviously we can't unlearn anything, that is self evident, however if we afford each other with basic and universal human rights then this would be a step in the right direction. Unfortunately both the Muslim and Christian religions seem dangerously preoccupied with apocalyptic prophesy.

Polyglide wrote: There has never been a scientific creation regarding distruction that has not been used or tested. Chemicals of mass destruction, the nuclear bombs, along with the means to deploy them etc;

I'm not seeing your point here?

Polyglide wrote:Birth control and other such oddities are lost in the mist when considering the real deal.

I've no idea what this means sorry, or what bearing it has on the thread discussion?

Polyglide wrote: You mention apocalyptic prophesy, read the last book in the Bible.  

I've zero interest in such hokum, I thought I'd made it clear that I view such nonsense as representing a massive threat to our species and the planet.

You seem to be missing the point of my post, this maniac(s) who murdered these innocent people in Tunisia did so in the belief he was obeying the commands of an omniscient omnipotent deity. Why is it never enough for the credulous to know that us godless atheists or those who believe in a different deity will be punished at our deaths by their god? Why must they resort to prejudice, and violence in this life? It's almost as if at some level they don't trust their own religion's promise of an afterlife.

Dr, Shedlon,
The people/person involved in the killings were indoctrinated by those intent on forming a society based on nothing more than a man made idea of how they could have all they want at the expense of others.

So far as I understand matters the person actually caught was full of drugs and could have been induced to carry out the killings by other methods which rendered him incapable of understanding what he was doing.

I am not in any position to judge him, nor are you.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
                The people/person involved in the killings were indoctrinated by those intent on forming a society based on nothing more than a man made idea of how they could have all they want at the expense of others. 

No argument from me, all religions are man made, that's axiomatic.

Polyglide wrote:So far as I understand matters the person actually caught was full of drugs and could have been induced to carry out the killings by other methods which rendered him incapable of understanding what he was doing. I am not in any position to judge him, nor are you.

You've made this lie up before about drugs and refused to evidence it when asked so I'm just going to ignore from it now on as I can't be bothered to keep asking. I am absolutely in a position to judge, as murdering people to enforce your beliefs is morally repugnant.  

Is it worth pointing out how much of my post you've ignored again?

Dr, Sheldon,
The account in the papers indicated that the person concerned was full of drugs.

Dr, Sheldon,
The person of course could also blame his genes.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                The person of course could also blame his genes.

What person could blame what for whose genes?

Cocaine doesn't render a person unable to understand what they are doing, that's not how it works. It's not an hallucinogenic, and if he'd not used it before what he'd most likely experience is a feeling or euphoria and confidence. However the drug isn't to blame for what happened,  easily evidenced for two reasons, firstly it was premeditated and he planned the whole thing in advance. Secondly literally tens of millions of people world wide take cocaine regularly and the vast majority have never committed a violent act, or even a criminal one beyond purchasing the drug.

Dr, Sheldon,
I just mentioned genes because you have previously indicated they can be responsible for behaviour.

There are several ways in which a person can be conditioned to carry out something which previously would be beyond his/her even consideration.

I do not remember mentioning cocaine or any other drug by name.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                 I just mentioned genes because you have previously indicated they can be responsible for behaviour.

No I haven't, ever. Dear oh dear.

Polyglide wrote:There are several ways in which a person can be conditioned to carry out something which previously would be beyond his/her even consideration.

Religious indoctrination in this case, as in many other high profile terrorist attacks of late. Though historically there is ample evidence that religious beliefs have allowed, if not motivated, believers to commit all manner of atrocities if they are 100% certain they know what their deity wants.

Polyglide wrote:  I do not remember mentioning cocaine or any other drug by name.

You didn't, and I never claimed you had. I took the trouble to read some news articles on it after your claim, one of which stated that the body of the terrorist had shown he had ingested cocaine. Have you any response to the points I made in my post?

Here:

Cocaine doesn't render a person unable to understand what they are doing, that's not how it works. It's not an hallucinogenic, and if he'd not used it before what he'd most likely experience is a feeling or euphoria and confidence. However the drug isn't to blame for what happened,  easily evidenced for two reasons, firstly it was premeditated and he planned the whole thing in advance. Secondly literally tens of millions of people world wide take cocaine regularly and the vast majority have never committed a violent act, or even a criminal one beyond purchasing the drug.

Dr, Shedlon,
Oh yes you did, you said genes were responsible for homosexuality.

There are hypnotic methods of making a person do something otherwise alien to them.

There are also methods of meddling with the brain of those easily lead, just look at the number of children mislead on the I pads etc;

No normal person would do what this person did and as you have no idea what normal is then I cannot see how you can comment.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
                 Oh yes you did, you said genes were responsible for homosexuality.

No I certainly did not, don't lie. Quote the post then, with a link, or the thread title, page number and date and time. You really are the most outrageous liar I'm afraid. You have no shame.

Polyglide wrote: There are hypnotic methods of making a person do something otherwise alien to them.

I'm scared to ask what on earth point you're trying to make now. Are you suggesting the Muslim in question was hypnotised? Based on what evidence? Don't forget your own religion has plenty of blood on it's hands, were the crusades perpetrated by people who were hypnotised? The Inquisition? Slavery? The 9/11 bombers all shouted God is great at the moment they immolated themselves and the men, women, and children on this planes and in the twin towers of the WTC, were they hypnotised?

Polyglide wrote: There are also methods of meddling with the brain of those easily lead, just look at the number of children mislead on the I pads etc;

 

What? I have no idea what you're talking about or what point you're making, but religion has proselytised children shamelessly and still does. Tax funded faith schools to fill their impressionable heads with hokum superstition. What have ipads to do with anything?                

Polyglide wrote: No normal person would do what this person did and as you have no idea what normal is then I cannot see how you can comment.

What a charming individual you are, and what a wonderful advert for religious beliefs, when you can't manage to go two posts without resorting to the most childish insults. I warned you you'd get them back as well as your nasty childish remarks have exhausted my patience.

So whilst I'll happily defer to what is normal based on intelligent, erudite, cogent reasoning or proper evidence, I'll certainly not be lectured sententiously on normality by someone who believes the earth, universe and everything in it was created by magic, roughly when humans were domesticating feral dogs. Or who thinks it's normal to listen to voices in your head from supernatural beings that will interfere in the laws of nature and physics in your favour, but is unable to relinquish his nasty bigoted homophobic beliefs propped up by texts from a bronze age superstition about magic apples and talking snakes. Or who would prefer to indulge the most asinine beliefs in puerile and potentially dangerous Satanic fantasies, rather than accept scientific facts and evidence that define the natural world.

If you can't discuss the topics like an adult, and insist on resorting to ad hominem you're going to get it back, you have already been warned. Now do you want to talk like a grown up or exchange insults?

You could start by addressing the points I made which you have again ignored in favour of childish ad hominem. You made a claim and I pointed out the following, any intelligent thoughts?:

Cocaine doesn't render a person unable to understand what they are doing, that's not how it works. It's not an hallucinogenic, and if he'd not used it before what he'd most likely experience is a feeling or euphoria and confidence. However the drug isn't to blame for what happened,  easily evidenced for two reasons, firstly it was premeditated and he planned the whole thing in advance. Secondly literally tens of millions of people world wide take cocaine regularly and the vast majority have never committed a violent act, or even a criminal one beyond purchasing the drug.

Dr, Shedlon,
If you just started reading what I actually state instead of what you think I say we would be on more familiar ground.

I do not need telling what cocaine does, I have no idea why you are so concerned about it.

The person we were talking about could have been subjected to several other methods of indoctrination prior to his actions and there are numerous instances of celebrities being off their heads by using cocaine etf;

This could have been done over a long period.

As for the children of today.

They are open to every possible evil by just clicking a few keys and many are mislead in gaining such information.

You really have the attention span of a goldfish. Is it deliberate? 

No apology for lying then? Though unsurprisingly no quote of a post of mine to support your lie. Quelle surprise. ..

You reel off claims without any shred of evidence, or even a cogent though process and when those claims are questioned you suddenly develop amnesia..

The point about the effects of cocaine were self evidently to refute your claims in an earlier post. Try reading back a few pages. Unfortunately this thread you've started is an absolute crash as you have yet to make one sensible salient point. I have asked you repeatedly what it is you are claiming UK citizens have done to encourage young Muslims to resort to terrorism, and of course what evidence you have to support the claim as ive long ago tired of your relentless use of hubris for claims you can't remotely evidence. Any answers coming? 

I've asked you what you're suggestingwe do about this?

polyglide wrote:
Dr, Shedlon, Oh yes you did, you said genes were responsible for homosexuality.

For the record I have never ever said this, and I am not even aware of any evidence to support this. I even disputed this when GIA claimed it, more than once. So it speaks volumes that having lied and claimed this you have refused to quote a single post of mine to support your claim, and yet won't apologise, or even now acknowledge the claim.

You ought really to reflect on how it paints you and your beliefs that you continually misrepresent what people say.

by polyglide on Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:59 pm
Dr, Shedlon, So far as I understand matters the person actually caught was full of drugs and could have been induced to carry out the killings by other methods which rendered him incapable of understanding what he was doing.

by polyglide on Mon Jul 06, 2015 4:25 pm
Dr, Sheldon,
The account in the papers indicated that the person concerned was full of drugs.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Mon Jul 06, 2015 4:45 pm
Cocaine doesn't render a person unable to understand what they are doing, that's not how it works. It's not an hallucinogenic, and if he'd not used it before what he'd most likely experience is a feeling or euphoria and confidence. However the drug isn't to blame for what happened,  easily evidenced for two reasons, firstly it was premeditated and he planned the whole thing in advance. Secondly literally tens of millions of people world wide take cocaine regularly and the vast majority have never committed a violent act, or even a criminal one beyond purchasing the drug.

by polyglide on Sat Jul 11, 2015 12:16 pm
Dr, Sheldon, I do not remember mentioning cocaine or any other drug by name.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sat Jul 11, 2015 3:40 pm
You didn't, and I never claimed you had. I took the trouble to read some news articles on it after your claim, one of which stated that the body of the terrorist had shown he had ingested cocaine.

by polyglide Yesterday at 12:31 pm
Dr, Shedlon, I do not need telling what cocaine does, I have no idea why you are so concerned about it.

It is desperately frustrating to try and have any kind of discourse with someone who can't even recall their posts from a few days ago, but perhaps if I spell it out like I'm teaching a child you might grasp why what I posted was salient. I doubt it though, as your previous posts indicate you have little interest in revisiting your claims, preferring to continue with new claims that you never attempt to evidence or even explain most of the time. Seriously I really think you're wasting your time in a discussion site as you obviously don't want to discuss religion, just preach your own beliefs. A pulpit or soap box would be far more apropos for what you desire.

Dr, Sheldon,
Firstly, you did say that scientists had discovered a gene that made homosexuality normal, or words to that effect, I replied by saying if genes were made responsible for our actions then no one was responsible for anything, or words to that effect, so as well as other shortcommings you have a short term and memory and very selective at that.

Dr, Sheldon,
There is no doubt, as I indicated, that the person responsible for carrying out the horrible actions could have been subjected to pressures not known to anyone considering his actions and without the full facts no one, including you, can make either sense or reason why a seamingly ordinary person could do such a thing.

To what you are refering to when you continually talk about unfounded claims is beyond me, just which are you talking about and in plain English please?.