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.

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?.

Polyglide wrote:Firstly, you did say that scientists had discovered a gene that made homosexuality normal, or words to that effect, 

No I did not. I've never made any claim remotely like this. I did dispute exactly this claim when someone else made it. 

Stop lying please, you know you can't quote me saying it so don't be a prat.

You introduced the actions of ISIS terrorism in the other thread,  It's for you to say what you're trying to claim not me. You inferred that the terrorist in Tunisia was not acting through his own religious beliefs, you mentioned him being full of drugs. I pointed out that the cocaine they found would demonstrably not have motivated him to do this and I offered two pieces of evidence.  You haven't bothered to read comment or even acknowledge this?

Now again you are making claims about the motives of religiously motivated atrocities in the same post you're trying to tell others that they can't know what motivated them. 

This is absurd. We know their actions are based on their religious belifs. That is axiomatic, and furthermore they claim to be 100% certain in their beliefs , just as you do. Food for thought indeed....

Dr, Sheldon,
As another pointed out, you did say scientists had found a gene that proved homosexuality was normal and also because animals behaved in that manner.

I answered by explaining that if that was so and genes could be blamed for homosexuality then the same could be claimed for anything.

I also feel that to compare animal behavior as an explanation for anything human is dragging the depths.

Not all actions are based on their blifs.

What most of those using the ignorant to carry out the terrorist actions do so based on their belief, however, those they indoctrinate use many methods to carry out what they themselves are too cowardly to do themselves.

Religion has over the ages has caused many deaths, that is not in dispute, the reasons are many.

Dr, Sheldon,
As another pointed out, you did say scientists had found a gene that proved homosexuality was normal and also because animals behaved in that manner.

Liar. Show one post of mine doing this. You really have no integrity at all do you, for shame.

The rest of your post is I'm afraid barely comprehensible gibberish. You of course make yet more claims. Any chance you'll attempt evidence any of them?

Polyglide wrote:I also feel that to compare animal behavior as an explanation for anything human is dragging the depths.

Who has compared animal behaviour, and what have they compared it to? What was the context? In what way was such a comparison "dragging the depths" and why?

You do realise that humans are part of the animal Kingdom don't you? Shared behaviours show that such behaviours cannot rationally be described as unnatural. So such a description would be irrational spurious and of course an entirely subjective claim.

Dr, Sheldon,
Whilst discussing homosexuality you pointed out that animals indulge

Then why not consider all the other things animals do and then say it would be normal for humans to do the same, you cannot just be selective, it is either right or wrong
.
Eat their young for instance.

Because I'm not a moron who can't understand that there was no direct comparison. The research that shows homosexual behaviour is not limited to one species destroys your bigoted religious homophobic claim that it is unnatural. 

What kind of imbecile thinks infanticide and canibalism is remotely comporable to consensual sex between adults? You're post is as offensive as it is idiotic.


I see you still haven't the integrity or basic decency to acknowledge you can't find a single post of mine claiming a gene determines homosexuality. 

So bigotry,  homophobia,  and bare faced duplicity. A wonderful advert for religion.

Dr, Shedlon,

I unedrstand you getting flustered when your short commings are expose but there is no reason to act like a two year old.



On your claim above, if two animals can be found to murder their young it is natural for humans to do the same, ???????

[size=40]Another dishonest and I must say moronic attempt to distort a simple point. You simply can't read,  are unwilling to learn, and are a thoroughly duplicitous and nasty individual who can't muster intelligence or erudition or even anything cogent so you resort to constant and childish name calling. [/size]


If something occurrs throughout the animal kingdom it is asinine to describe it as unnatural. That doesn't in anyway make the behaviours justifiable nor have I ever said so  if you could read you'd understand I used this research to refute your claim homosexuality is unnatural. 

The other behaviours your rank stupidity is dishonestly asigning to my post is irrelevant as homosexuality harms no one.  

Grow up....

Dr, Sheldon,
No comment, your duplicity and lack of integrity is self evident.

Is it my  "short commings"?

Oh the hilarity.....Why am I bothering. I really must have a very stern word with myself when I've finished responding to this latest collection of inane idiocy.

Dr, Sheldon,
Behaving like a two year old just confirms the fact that you are unable to appreciate fact from fiction.

You make a statement and then change the circumstances to suit and deny that if you are correct in an assumption it must apply to all that is involved.

You see a clear definition of a word in the dictionary and immediately compromise it by using means that are not put to hypothesis and peer review, strange for one who persistantly demands that I have to do so.

That is as hilarious as it is stupid. Why would a word definitions require scientific validation by peer review? I have not compromised the definition of any word definitions. You have though, repeatedly,  but as I'm a fair person I'll happily address any quote of a post of mine, with the dictionary definition proving I've done this. 

Though I suspect your bombastic duplicity is merely more obfuscation to try and slither away from your lie that the dictionary defines homosexuality as a perversion.

[size=36]animal[/size]
ˈanɪm(ə)l/
noun
[list=lr_dct_sf_sens]
[*]1.
a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

"wild animals adapt badly to a caged life"

[/list]
[size]


Care to indicate which part of that definition is negated by being human? This ought to be quite funny.



[/size]

Dr, Shedlon,
If you wish to go into symbols then be my guest, just log on to symbols and you will find all you want or all that I would need to reply in the same manner, however, I prefer the written word if you do not mind, the reason being you apparently do not understand the simple things so why try to be clever.

Pathetic and dishonest obfuscation. How childish. Are we to assume you have no answer and your hubris was the usual idiotic bluff then?

Animal
noun

a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.


Now again I ask, which part of that definition doesn't apply to humans and why? 

Dr, Shedlon,
I am not sure exactly what you are talking about, do you mean we are animals, behave like animals or have the same feeling as animals etc;

As far as I am aware having bred several kinds of animals over a period of 75 years they are responsive to many kinds of stimulation and have varying likes and dislikes and respond to both kindness and affection.

Humans are exactly the same in these respects, does this in any way make them the same species?

As a Christian, the answer is obviously no.

Dr, Sheldon,
Here we go, here we go, words missed up again. you obviously meant sophrosyne, not hubris.

We are animals, we are also humans.  This is axiomatic.  Just look at the Oxford English Dictionary definition I posted.  

Are you claimingall animals are the same? As that is demonstrably absurd. A cat is an animal, so is an octopus, do they strike you as being the same beyond the broad definition of the word animal?

Polyglide wrote:[size=45]Humans are exactly the same in these respects, does this in any way make them the same species?[/size]

Are all other animals who all share this definition the same species? I think if you look at the dictionary definition I posted from the OED it's axiomatic that humans are animals. The term describes innumerable and very different species. 

I really don't know why you're disputing this.

Dr, Sheldon,
I dispute the fact that humans are animals, they are less humain, [now there is a conumdrum]

I cannot from your post make out just what you think humans are compaired to animals.

Do you think man is an animal or not?.

Polyglide wrote:Do you think man is an animal or not?.

YES.
YES
YES
YES

YES
YES

YES
YES


I'm not sure why you demand multiple response when they're all the same. Then again I'm not sure why you make dishonest and strident claims to defer to dictionary definitions when here, as in every other case,  you simply ignore those dictionary definitions when they're posted?

Again I ask, which part of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of animal does not apply to humans, and why? 

How long can you blatantly ignore this question before it is obvious yet again that you are not discussing but preaching.

Dr, Sheldon,
I have just gone though all the relevant parts of the definition of humans.

The whole matter is determined by DNA, which in the case of the nearest animal to humans is btween 95 to 99%.

It would not matter if it was catually 99.99%.

It is not the same and might just as well be 99% further away.

It is obvious that when God created animals and plant life that there must be a closeness of DNA between many things, closeness, choose how close is not confirmation.

1. Humans are animals. 
2 All animals differ.
3. Some animals share large percentages of DNA.
4 This does NOT MAKE THEM THE SAME!!!!!


Again you've not said which part of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word animal you think doesn't apply to humans? 

For someone who claims so stridently to adhere to dictionary definitions you really go to massive and dishonest lengths to ignore them. Since you've ignored it,  I ask again :

[size=51]How long can you blatantly ignore this question before it is obvious yet again that you are not discussing but preaching.[/size]

Dr, Shedlon,
I know many people who would be offended if you called them an animal and that is because the vast majority of people are aware that there is a distinct difference between a pig and a human, well in most cases anyway.

There is a world of difference between a pig and kangaroo.  Are you suggesting one of them is not an animal? Otherwise your objection is still moronic. All the more stupid as I already pointed out that this was not part of any claim of mine.  

See point 4 above. Dear oh dear.

You still haven't said which part of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of an animal you are claiming doesn't apply to humans, or why? 

Though it's funny to see you now run away from that definition with strident unevidenced BS when it suits.

Dr, Shedlon,
All animals have many things that are the same as animals, heart, lungs etc; etc; this does not make them the same species.

Of course there is a difference between a pig and a kangaroo, just as there is a vast difference between a monkey and a human, although in some cases it is not as apparent.

Which part of an animal does not apply to humans:

Horns
Web feet
Wings
Four legs
Fur
etc; etc;

I have never claimed humans are the same as animals, why are you repeating this idiotic lie. Nor have I asked which parts of other animals don't apply to human animals. You really can't read at all can you?

Animal
noun
a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Now that definition applies to humans, no? If not then explain which parts OF THAT DEFINITION of animal don't and explain why? don't waste time and bandwidth pointing out we're not the same as other animals as this is irrelevant as I only claimed we are animals, not that we are the same as other animals, after all all species differ to a greater or lesser degree.

Now one last time:

The fact that humans differ to other animals no more stops them from being animals than it stops a duck billed platypus being an animal as it differs from a kangaroo.  This would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.

No one is suggesting all animals are the same, and I've no idea why you insist on repeating this claim as it isn't remotely salient. Animal is a broad definition, it is defined as above in the dictionary, and the entire definition describes human animals, as of course it should.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090530045846AAzuaIj

http://www.exploringnature.org/db/detail.php?dbID=87&detID=1192

http://discoverykids.com/articles/are-humans-considered-animals/

Some really simple sites to help you along.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,Of course there is a difference between a pig and a kangaroo, just as there is a vast difference between a monkey and a human, although in some cases it is not as apparent.

Yet both a pig and Kangaroo are animals, try and see that animal describes a synonymous condition amongst myriads of widely differing species, but whilst it applies to certain criteria for ALL those species, including of course homo sapiens, it does not mean they are the same beyond those criteria.

Polyglide wrote:
Which part of an animal does not apply to humans:

                 Horns
                 Web feet
                 Wings
                 Four legs      
                 Fur
                 etc; etc;

None of those criteria define the word animal. They are merely attributes that different animal species possess, some of course possess none of those, but this doesn't stop them being animals. There are many more specific biological definitions for animal groups below the broad term animal.

animal
noun
1. a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Now since you won't say which part of this definition you claim doesn't apply to humans lets take a more systematic look at the dictionary definition.

1. A living organism which feeds on organic matter?
Humans are living organisms, and they feed on organic matter.

2. Having specialised sense organs and nervous systems?
Again humans possess both of those.

3. Able to respond rapidly to stimuli?
Again there is no argument here as this also applies to humans.

So as we see, the Oxford English Definition of animal applies as much to humans as any other animal, so you are actually arguing, AGAIN, against the dictionary definition of yet another word.



               

Dr, Shedlon.
, Of course all the things you say apply to humnas just as many other things apply to things entirely different.

God created all things in the same manner so there is little wonder similarities occur, it would be more unreasonable if they did not.

Then why have spent several posts claiming the reverse,  that humans are not animals, whilst hurling petty insults at me for making it?

There is of course not one shred of evidence for a creation, or a deity come to that.

Dr, Sheldon,
There is no alternative based on several considerations of life in all it's forms comming about by chance, so the only alternative is an intelligence being involved with capabilities beyond our understanding.

The manner in which you consider humans to be animals is like saying a motor car is an airoplane because both are made from the same material, or a plate is the same as a vase because both are made from the same material etc.

Humans are a completely different species to any other living thing.

Dr, Sheldon,
I do not know why but the site regarding omnipotent has been blocked on my computer, I do not know why but it is not by any moderator, I cannot remember anything either of us said that could cause outside concern.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                There is no alternative based on several considerations of life in all it's forms comming about by chance, so the only alternative is an intelligence being involved with capabilities beyond our understanding.

Since life exists the odds against it happening are largely moot. Adding supernatural magic by a bronze age deity doesn't decrease those odds, it increases them, and it does so without any evidence or even any explanation beyond bare claims based on faith in ancient superstitious claims. Nor is a bronze age superstition based creation myth "the only alternative", that simply isnlt true, that's just your own subjective opinion. If something is beyond your understanding then it's rather silly to make claims about it, so your actually defeating your own claims there.

Polyglide wrote:The manner in which you consider humans to be animals is like saying a motor car is an airoplane because both are made from the same material, or a plate is the same as a vase because both are made from the same material etc.

Not at all, animal has a dictionary definition and I have shown quite clearly that it applies to humans, just why you think you can ignore the dictionary again here I don't know, but it is a recurring theme of your posts. Humans are animals, that's a biological scientific fact.

Polyglide wrote:Humans are a completely different species to any other living thing.

   

So what? I have never claimed otherwise, on the contrary I have pointed out each time you make this "straw man" claim that millions of different species are defined by the word animal, but again you go on ignoring this, why?    

Anyway each time you ignore it I'll repost it, perhaps you'll honestly address the dictionary definition eventually.  

noun
1. a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Now since you won't say which part of this definition you claim doesn't apply to humans lets take a more systematic look at the dictionary definition.

1. A living organism which feeds on organic matter?
Humans are living organisms, and they feed on organic matter.

2. Having specialised sense organs and nervous systems?
Again humans possess both of those.

3. Able to respond rapidly to stimuli?
Again there is no argument here as this also applies to humans.

So as we see, the Oxford English Definition of animal applies as much to humans as any other animal, so you are actually arguing, AGAIN, against the dictionary definition of yet another word.

Dr, Shedlon,
This could be settled in a simple test, ask a thousand people if they feel they are animals and I will gladly agree with the result.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
                This could be settled in a simple test, ask a thousand people if they feel they are animals and I will gladly agree with the result.

Now since you won't say which part of this definition you claim doesn't apply to humans lets take a more systematic look at the dictionary definition.

1. A living organism which feeds on organic matter?
Humans are living organisms, and they feed on organic matter.

2. Having specialised sense organs and nervous systems?
Again humans possess both of those.

3. Able to respond rapidly to stimuli?
Again there is no argument here as this also applies to humans.

So as we see, the Oxford English Definition of animal applies as much to humans as any other animal, so you are actually arguing, AGAIN, against the dictionary definition of yet another word.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
                 I know many people who would be offended if you called them an animal and that is because the vast majority of people are aware that there is a distinct difference between a pig and a human, well in most cases anyway.

The fact that animal can be intended as a pejorative term doesn't alter the fact that humans are animals in the dictionary definition of the word, as I have shown, and I have claimed nothing else.

Dr, Shedlon,
I agree that if you devide all things on earth into sections, animal, vagitable and mineral, then humans can only be in the animal class.

To be fair this is not what you've been saying thus far. Now for absolute clarity, humans are animals, the dictionary defines us as such as I have shown. Biology defines us as such. The fact that the animal kingdom contains widely varying species does not alter the fact that they are all animals, including humans who are also animals.