On Jun 16, 6:01 am, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> On 16/06/2012 3:47 AM, baldeagle wrote:
. > you see: according to you, there is no God or
.> whatever and all these are just stories.
True. you are right.
.> right and wrong are just arbitrary.
Not true. You are wrong.
"right and wrong" is about ethics...about social
norms or standards of conduct...about our
value system. eg. telling lie is wrong...killing
babies is wrong.
God is about superstition...about killing innocent
babies (in Moses story) is the right thing to do...
about punishment for not believing in the fake
story...(to be burned in hell fire for eternity)
In our society, there is ethics...social norms...
standard of behaviours....there is 'right and wrong'
without the need of a fake god.
> On Jun 16, 6:01 am, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
>> On 16/06/2012 3:47 AM, baldeagle wrote:
> .> you see: according to you, there is no God or
> .> whatever and all these are just stories.
> True. you are right.
why you say "you are right"? i was just repeating what you said!
so, in effect, you are just saying _you_ yourself is right.
that is the same as
the Bible says the Bible is right
the Koran says the Koran is right
the Richard Dawkins says the Richard Dawkins is right
classical self-referential circular argument. [the worse thing is that Richard Dawkins is guilty of the same thing, but thinks he is so dammn bloody smart.] what is so different between you and them?
> .> right and wrong are just arbitrary.
> Not true. You are wrong.
you say so?
> "right and wrong" is about ethics...about social
> norms or standards of conduct...about our
> value system. eg. telling lie is wrong...killing
> babies is wrong.
who says so?
> God is about superstition...about killing innocent
> babies (in Moses story) is the right thing to do...
> about punishment for not believing in the fake
> story...(to be burned in hell fire for eternity)
how you know is superstition? if there is a "super-"
there must be a "sub-" ... so that is the substition?
how you know the super one is fake? i want proof!
where's the smoking gun?
[Hint: you may try arguing along the lines of "i prayed,
but never receive answers". but be sure i'll hammer
you very very hard with more questions.]
> In our society, there is ethics...social norms...
> standard of behaviours....there is 'right and wrong'
> without the need of a fake god.
why is god the fake one? why is society the fake one?
furthermore, if society could make fake god, certainly
ethics, social norms and standard of behaviours are also
made up by society. and if they are made up by society,
why can't they be re-made up by society? that means if
say 68% of Singaporeans think free sex, gay lesianism
are OK, then can't we change our laws to make it OK?
who are you to say it's wrong when most people say it's
right?
remember (according to you) we don't need to fear the
consequences of hell or reincarnation -- so why not just
go ahead when enough people believe in it?
On 16/06/2012 9:00 AM, baldeagle wrote:
> On Jun 16, 6:01 am, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
>> On 16/06/2012 3:47 AM, baldeagle wrote:
>
> .> you see: according to you, there is no God or
> .> whatever and all these are just stories.
>
> True. you are right.
why you say "you are right"? i was just repeating what you said!
so, in effect, you are just saying _you_ yourself is right.
that is the same as
the Bible says the Bible is right
the Koran says the Koran is right
the Richard Dawkins says the Richard Dawkins is right
classical self-referential circular argument. [the worse thing is that Richard Dawkins is guilty of the same thing, but thinks he is so dammn bloody smart.] what is so different between you and them?
> .> right and wrong are just arbitrary.
>
> Not true. You are wrong.
you say so?
>
> "right and wrong" is about ethics...about social
> norms or standards of conduct...about our
> value system. eg. telling lie is wrong...killing
> babies is wrong.
who says so?
> God is about superstition...about killing innocent
> babies (in Moses story) is the right thing to do...
> about punishment for not believing in the fake
> story...(to be burned in hell fire for eternity)
how you know is superstition? if there is a "super-"
there must be a "sub-" ... so that is the substition?
how you know the super one is fake? i want proof!
where's the smoking gun?
[Hint: you may try arguing along the lines of "i prayed,
but never receive answers". but be sure i'll hammer
you very very hard with more questions.]
> In our society, there is ethics...social norms...
> standard of behaviours....there is 'right and wrong'
> without the need of a fake god.
why is god the fake one? why isn't society the fake one?
furthermore, if society could make fake god, certainly
ethics, social norms and standard of behaviours are also
made up by society. and if they are made up by society,
why can't they be re-made up by society? that means if
say 68% of Singaporeans think free sex, gay lesianism
are OK, then can't we change our laws to make it OK?
who are you to say it's wrong when most people say it's
right?
remember (according to you) we don't need to fear the
consequences of hell or reincarnation -- so why not just
go ahead when enough people believe in it?
> On 16/06/2012 9:00 AM, baldeagle wrote:
> > On Jun 16, 6:01 am, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> >> On 16/06/2012 3:47 AM, baldeagle wrote:
> >
> > .> you see: according to you, there is no God or
> > .> whatever and all these are just stories.
> >
> > True. you are right.
> why you say "you are right"? i was just repeating what you said!
> so, in effect, you are just saying _you_ yourself is right.
> that is the same as
> the Bible says the Bible is right
> the Koran says the Koran is right
> the Richard Dawkins says the Richard Dawkins is right
> classical self-referential circular argument. [the worse thing is that
> Richard Dawkins is guilty of the same thing, but thinks he is so dammn
> bloody smart.] what is so different between you and them?
> > .> right and wrong are just arbitrary.
> >
> > Not true. You are wrong.
> you say so?
> >
> > "right and wrong" is about ethics...about social
> > norms or standards of conduct...about our
> > value system. eg. telling lie is wrong...killing
> > babies is wrong.
> who says so?
> > God is about superstition...about killing innocent
> > babies (in Moses story) is the right thing to do...
> > about punishment for not believing in the fake
> > story...(to be burned in hell fire for eternity)
> how you know is superstition? if there is a "super-"
> there must be a "sub-" ... so that is the substition?
> how you know the super one is fake? i want proof!
> where's the smoking gun?
> [Hint: you may try arguing along the lines of "i prayed,
> but never receive answers". but be sure i'll hammer
> you very very hard with more questions.]
> > In our society, there is ethics...social norms...
> > standard of behaviours....there is 'right and wrong'
> > without the need of a fake god.
> why is god the fake one? why isn't society the fake one?
> furthermore, if society could make fake god, certainly
> ethics, social norms and standard of behaviours are also
> made up by society. and if they are made up by society,
> why can't they be re-made up by society? that means if
> say 68% of Singaporeans think free sex, gay lesianism
> are OK, then can't we change our laws to make it OK?
> who are you to say it's wrong when most people say it's
> right?
> remember (according to you) we don't need to fear the
> consequences of hell or reincarnation -- so why not just
> go ahead when enough people believe in it?
> ;-)
> --
> I ask, becos I'm curious.
Why are you so confused ...and so confusing ?
But I will answer ...the part about ....
"> who are you to say it's wrong when most people say it's
> right?"
Who am I ?
I am baldeagle.
I say it is wrong...because it is wrong.
When most people say it is right... They are wrong.
When they are wrong it doesn't matter how many
people say the same thing. Eg. It is wrong
to kill Eygpytian babies (the bible say so)...even if
the millions and millions Christians and Jews say
it is the right to do...it is still wrong. I still say it is...
Wrong ..to kill babies.
Are your mind, poisoned and indoctrinated by religion,
even more confused now by my answer ?
> On Jun 16, 6:01 am, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> > On 16/06/2012 3:47 AM, baldeagle wrote:
> . > you see: according to you, there is no God or
> .> whatever and all these are just stories.
> True. you are right.
> .> right and wrong are just arbitrary.
> Not true. You are wrong.
> "right and wrong" is about ethics...about social
> norms or standards of conduct...about our
> value system. eg. telling lie is wrong...killing
> babies is wrong.
> God is about superstition...about killing innocent
> babies (in Moses story) is the right thing to do...
> about punishment for not believing in the fake
> story...(to be burned in hell fire for eternity)
> In our society, there is ethics...social norms...
> standard of behaviours....there is 'right and wrong'
> without the need of a fake god.
> On Jun 16, 12:02 pm, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> Why are you so confused ...and so confusing ?
have you heard of "pretend to be pig to kill the tiger"?
;-)
> But I will answer ...the part about ....
> "> who are you to say it's wrong when most people say it's
>> right?"
> Who am I ?
> I am baldeagle.
> I say it is wrong...because it is wrong.
based on what?
> When most people say it is right... They are wrong.
based on what? based on intuition?
> When they are wrong it doesn't matter how many
> people say the same thing. Eg. It is wrong
> to kill Eygpytian babies (the bible say so)...even if
> the millions and millions Christians and Jews say
> it is the right to do...it is still wrong.
based on what? based on your cock?
I still say it is...
you say, i say, who confirms?
> Wrong ..to kill babies.
based on what? based on yourself (circular arugument)?
> Are your mind, poisoned and indoctrinated by religion,
> even more confused now by my answer ?
it seems that _you_ are confused ... by yourself ... falling into
the same trap of presumption. can't i just be checking out the arguments? just answer the questions, will you?
i want a CLEAN proof of the falsity of religion or gods.
this means a sound argument
* without resorting to ad hominem attacks
* without resorting to personal bias
* without making any presumptions about the question asker
(i.e. just answer the damn QUESTION, don't answer the
QUESTIONER)
* without resorting to repetition or rephrasing
* without circular reasoning, begging the question
* without resorting to appealing to authority
you understand? hint: define your terms properly first.
Personal experience, anecdotes must be relevant and you must
explain how they are connected to your point that you are trying to proof, you understtand?
i want straignt answers, you understtand?
-- I ask, becos I'm curious.
btw, have you ever considered the remote possibility that you
fall into the arrogant trap of presumption and you cannot produce
the SMOKING GUN i was asking for, ... because i am holding the gun?
> > On Jun 16, 12:02 pm, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> > Why are you so confused ...and so confusing ?
> have you heard of "pretend to be pig to kill the tiger"?
> ;-)
> > But I will answer ...the part about ....
> > "> who are you to say it's wrong when most people say it's
> >> right?"
> > Who am I ?
> > I am baldeagle.
> > I say it is wrong...because it is wrong.
> based on what?
> > When most people say it is right... They are wrong.
> based on what? based on intuition?
> > When they are wrong it doesn't matter how many
> > people say the same thing. Eg. It is wrong
> > to kill Eygpytian babies (the bible say so)...even if
> > the millions and millions Christians and Jews say
> > it is the right to do...it is still wrong.
> based on what? based on your cock?
> I still say it is...
> you say, i say, who confirms?
> > Wrong ..to kill babies.
> based on what? based on yourself (circular arugument)?
> > Are your mind, poisoned and indoctrinated by religion,
> > even more confused now by my answer ?
> it seems that _you_ are confused ... by yourself ... falling into
> the same trap of presumption. can't i just be checking out the
> arguments? just answer the questions, will you?
> i want a CLEAN proof of the falsity of religion or gods.
> this means a sound argument
> * without resorting to ad hominem attacks
> * without resorting to personal bias
> * without making any presumptions about the question asker
> (i.e. just answer the damn QUESTION, don't answer the
> QUESTIONER)
> * without resorting to repetition or rephrasing
> * without circular reasoning, begging the question
> * without resorting to appealing to authority
> you understand? hint: define your terms properly first.
> Personal experience, anecdotes must be relevant and you must
> explain how they are connected to your point that you are trying to
> proof, you understtand?
> i want straignt answers, you understtand?
> --
> I ask, becos I'm curious.
> btw, have you ever considered the remote possibility that you
> fall into the arrogant trap of presumption and you cannot produce
> the SMOKING GUN i was asking for, ... because i am holding the gun?
> ;-)
Based on what ? You asked repeatedly !
Based on the truth....Based on common sense.... Based on
science....based on logical analysis...based on superior
intellect....based on natural laws.... based on survey...
based on the discoveries of Newton and Einstein....based
on what my grandpa said....based on the fact that I am
RIGHT. Take your pick.
Certainly not based on what the Bible say or what the
Quran say.
> On Jun 17, 12:23 pm, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> > On 17/06/2012 7:05 AM, baldeagle wrote:
> > > On Jun 16, 12:02 pm, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> > > Why are you so confused ...and so confusing ?
> > have you heard of "pretend to be pig to kill the tiger"?
> > ;-)
> > > But I will answer ...the part about ....
> > > "> who are you to say it's wrong when most people say it's
> > >> right?"
> > > Who am I ?
> > > I am baldeagle.
> > > I say it is wrong...because it is wrong.
> > based on what?
> > > When most people say it is right... They are wrong.
> > based on what? based on intuition?
> > > When they are wrong it doesn't matter how many
> > > people say the same thing. Eg. It is wrong
> > > to kill Eygpytian babies (the bible say so)...even if
> > > the millions and millions Christians and Jews say
> > > it is the right to do...it is still wrong.
> > based on what? based on your cock?
> > I still say it is...
> > you say, i say, who confirms?
> > > Wrong ..to kill babies.
> > based on what? based on yourself (circular arugument)?
> > > Are your mind, poisoned and indoctrinated by religion,
> > > even more confused now by my answer ?
> > it seems that _you_ are confused ... by yourself ... falling into
> > the same trap of presumption. can't i just be checking out the
> > arguments? just answer the questions, will you?
> > i want a CLEAN proof of the falsity of religion or gods.
> > this means a sound argument
> > * without resorting to ad hominem attacks
> > * without resorting to personal bias
> > * without making any presumptions about the question asker
> > (i.e. just answer the damn QUESTION, don't answer the
> > QUESTIONER)
> > * without resorting to repetition or rephrasing
> > * without circular reasoning, begging the question
> > * without resorting to appealing to authority
> > you understand? hint: define your terms properly first.
> > Personal experience, anecdotes must be relevant and you must
> > explain how they are connected to your point that you are trying to
> > proof, you understtand?
> > i want straignt answers, you understtand?
> > --
> > I ask, becos I'm curious.
> > btw, have you ever considered the remote possibility that you
> > fall into the arrogant trap of presumption and you cannot produce
> > the SMOKING GUN i was asking for, ... because i am holding the gun?
> > ;-)
> Based on what ? You asked repeatedly !
> Based on the truth....Based on common sense.... Based on
> science....based on logical analysis...based on superior
> intellect....based on natural laws.... based on survey...
> based on the discoveries of Newton and Einstein....based
> on what my grandpa said....based on the fact that I am
> RIGHT. Take your pick.
> Certainly not based on what the Bible say or what the
> Quran say.
On Jun 17, 1:54 pm, Pelandok <Daqta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 1:40 pm, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
.> > Certainly not based on what the Bible say or what the
.> > Quran say.
.> Why can't we based on what the Bible say?
Yes....why ? Why can't we based our norms,
our social mores on what the bible say ?
Because it teach us the wrong things !
The bible say that it is a good thing ..to kill all
first-born Egyptian babies to free Moses'
people. Killing babies is WRONG. The bible is
WRONG.
Because the bible teach us INCEST.
The bible say God created only Adam and Eve.
It also say Adam and Eve started the human
race. The bible teach us...that the children of Adam
and Eve committed incest. If they did not,
then there is no human race...we would not be
here today.
> On Jun 17, 1:40 pm, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 12:23 pm, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> > > On 17/06/2012 7:05 AM, baldeagle wrote:
> > > > On Jun 16, 12:02 pm, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> > > > Why are you so confused ...and so confusing ?
> > > have you heard of "pretend to be pig to kill the tiger"?
> > > ;-)
> > > > But I will answer ...the part about ....
> > > > "> who are you to say it's wrong when most people say it's
> > > >> right?"
> > > > Who am I ?
> > > > I am baldeagle.
> > > > I say it is wrong...because it is wrong.
> > > based on what?
> > > > When most people say it is right... They are wrong.
> > > based on what? based on intuition?
> > > > When they are wrong it doesn't matter how many
> > > > people say the same thing. Eg. It is wrong
> > > > to kill Eygpytian babies (the bible say so)...even if
> > > > the millions and millions Christians and Jews say
> > > > it is the right to do...it is still wrong.
> > > based on what? based on your cock?
> > > I still say it is...
> > > you say, i say, who confirms?
> > > > Wrong ..to kill babies.
> > > based on what? based on yourself (circular arugument)?
> > > > Are your mind, poisoned and indoctrinated by religion,
> > > > even more confused now by my answer ?
> > > it seems that _you_ are confused ... by yourself ... falling into
> > > the same trap of presumption. can't i just be checking out the
> > > arguments? just answer the questions, will you?
> > > i want a CLEAN proof of the falsity of religion or gods.
> > > this means a sound argument
> > > * without resorting to ad hominem attacks
> > > * without resorting to personal bias
> > > * without making any presumptions about the question asker
> > > (i.e. just answer the damn QUESTION, don't answer the
> > > QUESTIONER)
> > > * without resorting to repetition or rephrasing
> > > * without circular reasoning, begging the question
> > > * without resorting to appealing to authority
> > > you understand? hint: define your terms properly first.
> > > Personal experience, anecdotes must be relevant and you must
> > > explain how they are connected to your point that you are trying to
> > > proof, you understtand?
> > > i want straignt answers, you understtand?
> > > --
> > > I ask, becos I'm curious.
> > > btw, have you ever considered the remote possibility that you
> > > fall into the arrogant trap of presumption and you cannot produce
> > > the SMOKING GUN i was asking for, ... because i am holding the gun?
> > > ;-)
> > Based on what ? You asked repeatedly !
> > Based on the truth....Based on common sense.... Based on
> > science....based on logical analysis...based on superior
> > intellect....based on natural laws.... based on survey...
> > based on the discoveries of Newton and Einstein....based
> > on what my grandpa said....based on the fact that I am
> > RIGHT. Take your pick.
> > Certainly not based on what the Bible say or what the
> > Quran say.
> Why can't we based on what the Bible say?
One can also raise the same question on the Quran.
Questions like what is ABSOLUTE right and wrong,
basically, has no answer because it is a paradox.
One needs an absolute reference such as god and
god's word recorded in the scripture, the Christian
Bible or the Islamist Quran or Buddhist teaching in
order to have absolute right and wrong. At the same
time, to the degree that god cannot be proved to
exist and accepted by all people, there is no
absolute reference.
> On Jun 17, 1:54 pm, Pelandok <Daqta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 1:40 pm, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
> .> > Certainly not based on what the Bible say or what the
> .> > Quran say.
> .> Why can't we based on what the Bible say?
> Yes....why ? Why can't we based our norms,
> our social mores on what the bible say ?
> Because it teach us the wrong things !
> The bible say that it is a good thing ..to kill all
> first-born Egyptian babies to free Moses'
> people. Killing babies is WRONG. The bible is
> WRONG.
> Because the bible teach us INCEST.
> The bible say God created only Adam and Eve.
> It also say Adam and Eve started the human
> race. The bible teach us...that the children of Adam
> and Eve committed incest. If they did not,
> then there is no human race...we would not be
> here today.
> Incest is WRONG. the bible is WRONG.
> Want more examples ???
The exodus may have hard archeological evidence that it took place.
The incest story, that it is approved is your interpretation.
That there is the Koran n the Bible already shows differences but
gravity still exists. There are fundamental truths in our experiences.
They do not depend on a subjective yes or no.
> On Jun 17, 4:10 pm, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 1:54 pm, Pelandok <Daqta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 17, 1:40 pm, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > .> > Certainly not based on what the Bible say or what the
> > .> > Quran say.
> > .> Why can't we based on what the Bible say?
> > Yes....why ? Why can't we based our norms,
> > our social mores on what the bible say ?
> > Because it teach us the wrong things !
> > The bible say that it is a good thing ..to kill all
> > first-born Egyptian babies to free Moses'
.> > people. Killing babies is WRONG. The bible is
.> > WRONG.
> > Because the bible teach us INCEST.
> > The bible say God created only Adam and Eve.
> > It also say Adam and Eve started the human
> > race. The bible teach us...that the children of Adam
> > and Eve committed incest. If they did not,
> > then there is no human race...we would not be
> > here today.
.> > Incest is WRONG. the bible is WRONG.
> > Want more examples ???
.> The exodus may have hard archeological evidence that it took place.
.> The incest story, that it is approved is your interpretation.
> That there is the Koran n the Bible already shows differences but
> gravity still exists. There are fundamental truths in our experiences.
> They do not depend on a subjective yes or no.
> On Jun 17, 4:10 pm, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes....why ? Why can't we based our norms,
> > our social mores on what the bible say ?
> > Because it teach us the wrong things !
> > The bible say that it is a good thing ..to kill all
> > first-born Egyptian babies to free Moses'
> > people. Killing babies is WRONG. The bible is
> > WRONG.
> > Because the bible teach us INCEST.
> > The bible say God created only Adam and Eve.
> > It also say Adam and Eve started the human
> > race. The bible teach us...that the children of Adam
> > and Eve committed incest. If they did not,
> > then there is no human race...we would not be
> > here today.
> > Incest is WRONG. the bible is WRONG.
> > Want more examples ???
> The exodus may have hard archeological evidence that it took place.
Archeologists have searched the Sinai for evidence of Moses' 40 years
of wondering through the desert, and they have found absolutely no
evidence to support Moses existence.
Also, the exodus said Ramesses II first born was killed by God as a
child.
Archeologists have found the skull of Amun-her-khepeshef, Ramesse II's
first born son by Nefertari. He died in battle with a blow to the
back of his head at about early 40s.
> The incest story, that it is approved is your interpretation.
> That there is the Koran n the Bible already shows differences but
> gravity still exists. There are fundamental truths in our
> experiences.
> They do not depend on a subjective yes or no.
> On Jun 17, 12:23 pm, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
>> On 17/06/2012 7:05 AM, baldeagle wrote:
>>> On Jun 16, 12:02 pm, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
>>> Why are you so confused ...and so confusing ?
>> have you heard of "pretend to be pig to kill the tiger"?
>> ;-)
>>> But I will answer ...the part about ....
>>> "> who are you to say it's wrong when most people say it's
>>>> right?"
>>> Who am I ?
>>> I am baldeagle.
>>> I say it is wrong...because it is wrong.
>> based on what?
>>> When most people say it is right... They are wrong.
>> based on what? based on intuition?
>>> When they are wrong it doesn't matter how many
>>> people say the same thing. Eg. It is wrong
>>> to kill Eygpytian babies (the bible say so)...even if
>>> the millions and millions Christians and Jews say
>>> it is the right to do...it is still wrong.
>> based on what? based on your cock?
>> I still say it is...
>> you say, i say, who confirms?
>>> Wrong ..to kill babies.
>> based on what? based on yourself (circular arugument)?
>>> Are your mind, poisoned and indoctrinated by religion,
>>> even more confused now by my answer ?
>> it seems that _you_ are confused ... by yourself ... falling into
>> the same trap of presumption. can't i just be checking out the
>> arguments? just answer the questions, will you?
>> i want a CLEAN proof of the falsity of religion or gods.
>> this means a sound argument
>> * without resorting to ad hominem attacks
>> * without resorting to personal bias
>> * without making any presumptions about the question asker
>> (i.e. just answer the damn QUESTION, don't answer the
>> QUESTIONER)
>> * without resorting to repetition or rephrasing
>> * without circular reasoning, begging the question
>> * without resorting to appealing to authority
>> you understand? hint: define your terms properly first.
>> Personal experience, anecdotes must be relevant and you must
>> explain how they are connected to your point that you are trying to
>> proof, you understtand?
>> i want straignt answers, you understtand?
>> --
>> I ask, becos I'm curious.
>> btw, have you ever considered the remote possibility that you
>> fall into the arrogant trap of presumption and you cannot produce
>> the SMOKING GUN i was asking for, ... because i am holding the gun?
>> ;-)
> Based on what ? You asked repeatedly !
perhaps it's because you you avoid answering right on the dot?
> Based on the truth
what is truth?
....Based on common sense....
what is common sense?
Based on
> science
which science? the science based on current materialistic
presumptions (i.e. a thinly veiled form of circular argument)?
....based on logical analysis
your type of logical analysis with circular argument?
...based on superior
> intellect
superior intellect based on circular argument (begging the question, special pleading)?
....based on natural laws
based on the true natural laws, or presumed natural laws?
.... based on survey...
survey based on what ontological and epistemological assumptions?
> based on the discoveries of Newton
but Newton was a Christian?
and Einstein
and Einstein believe in some form of God?
....based
> on what my grandpa said
and your grandpa is correct?
....based on the fact that I am
> RIGHT.
you say you are right, because you are right (circular argument)?
Take your pick.
all the above have loopholes, so pick which one?
> Certainly not based on what the Bible say or what the
> Quran say.
my point is:
the Bible says the Bible is correct
the Quran says the Quran is correct
baldeagle says baldeagle is correct
_how_ are YOU _different_ from the Bible and Quran? You get my point?
> On Jun 18, 4:15 am, Pelandok<Daqta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Talk cock.
who are you to judge? why is it that it is other people who are talking cock and not you?
circular argument again:
baldeagle says pelandok talk cock
means
baldeagle says baldeagle is correct.
now we have the following:-
the Bible says the Bible is correct.
the Kor'an says the Kor'an is correct.
baldeagle says baldeagle is correct.
how is the baldeagle different from the Bible and Kor'an?
isn't he just a fucking hypocrite with double standards, pretending that he is so bloody logical, but falling into the trap of circular
logic over and over again?
> On Jun 17, 4:33 am, "ltl...@hotmail.com"<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It's not a paradox.
please explain.
>> One needs an absolute reference such as god and
>> god's word recorded in the scripture,
> No.
your word against ltlee's word?
>> the Christian
>> Bible or the Islamist Quran or Buddhist teaching in
>> order to have absolute right and wrong.
> No.
"no" is not an argument. your word against ltlee's word?
why should i believe _you_ instead of _him_
>> At the same
>> time, to the degree that god cannot be proved to
>> exist and accepted by all people, there is no
>> absolute reference.
> "God" was the ancient primitive people's imagination of the unknown.
based on what?
my question to you is the same as my question to baldeagle:
can you (or anyone) give a clean proof of the non-existence of God?
i.e.
* without resorting to ad hominem attacks
* without resorting to personal bias
* without making any presumptions about the question asker
(i.e. just answer the damn QUESTION, don't answer the
QUESTIONER)
* without resorting to repetition or rephrasing
* without circular reasoning, begging the question
* without resorting to appealing to authority
?
> There is no truth in it.
based on what?
> And there is no "absolute reference".
> It's all a personal preference and your moral upbringing.
if there is no absolute reference, why should i believe in any
of _your_ arguments, or prefer yours above anyone else's?
> On 17/06/2012 10:19 PM, rst0 wrote:
> my question to you is the same as my question to baldeagle:
> can you (or anyone) give a clean proof of the non-existence of God?
> i.e.
> * without resorting to ad hominem attacks
> * without resorting to personal bias
> * without making any presumptions about the question asker
> (i.e. just answer the damn QUESTION, don't answer the
> QUESTIONER)
> * without resorting to repetition or rephrasing
> * without circular reasoning, begging the question
> * without resorting to appealing to authority
> ?
by the way, baldeagle has already been disqualified (three strikes and you are out).
> i.e.
> * without resorting to ad hominem attacks
> * without resorting to personal bias
> * without making any presumptions about the question asker
> (i.e. just answer the damn QUESTION, don't answer the
> QUESTIONER)
> * without resorting to repetition or rephrasing
> * without circular reasoning, begging the question
> * without resorting to appealing to authority
> ?
> > There is no truth in it.
> based on what?
> > And there is no "absolute reference".
> > It's all a personal preference and your moral upbringing.
> if there is no absolute reference, why should i believe in any
> of _your_ arguments, or prefer yours above anyone else's?
> > On Jun 17, 12:23 pm, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> >> On 17/06/2012 7:05 AM, baldeagle wrote:
> >>> On Jun 16, 12:02 pm, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> >>> Why are you so confused ...and so confusing ?
> >> have you heard of "pretend to be pig to kill the tiger"?
> >> ;-)
> >>> But I will answer ...the part about ....
> >>> "> who are you to say it's wrong when most people say it's
> >>>> right?"
> >>> Who am I ?
> >>> I am baldeagle.
> >>> I say it is wrong...because it is wrong.
> >> based on what?
> >>> When most people say it is right... They are wrong.
> >> based on what? based on intuition?
> >>> When they are wrong it doesn't matter how many
> >>> people say the same thing. Eg. It is wrong
> >>> to kill Eygpytian babies (the bible say so)...even if
> >>> the millions and millions Christians and Jews say
> >>> it is the right to do...it is still wrong.
> >> based on what? based on your cock?
> >> I still say it is...
> >> you say, i say, who confirms?
> >>> Wrong ..to kill babies.
> >> based on what? based on yourself (circular arugument)?
> >>> Are your mind, poisoned and indoctrinated by religion,
> >>> even more confused now by my answer ?
> >> it seems that _you_ are confused ... by yourself ... falling into
> >> the same trap of presumption. can't i just be checking out the
> >> arguments? just answer the questions, will you?
> >> i want a CLEAN proof of the falsity of religion or gods.
> >> this means a sound argument
> >> * without resorting to ad hominem attacks
> >> * without resorting to personal bias
> >> * without making any presumptions about the question asker
> >> (i.e. just answer the damn QUESTION, don't answer the
> >> QUESTIONER)
> >> * without resorting to repetition or rephrasing
> >> * without circular reasoning, begging the question
> >> * without resorting to appealing to authority
> >> you understand? hint: define your terms properly first.
> >> Personal experience, anecdotes must be relevant and you must
> >> explain how they are connected to your point that you are trying to
> >> proof, you understtand?
> >> i want straignt answers, you understtand?
> >> --
> >> I ask, becos I'm curious.
> >> btw, have you ever considered the remote possibility that you
> >> fall into the arrogant trap of presumption and you cannot produce
> >> the SMOKING GUN i was asking for, ... because i am holding the gun?
> >> ;-)
> > Based on what ? You asked repeatedly !
> perhaps it's because you you avoid answering right on the dot?
> > Based on the truth
> what is truth?
> ....Based on common sense....
> what is common sense?
> Based on
> > science
> which science? the science based on current materialistic
> presumptions (i.e. a thinly veiled form of circular argument)?
> ....based on logical analysis
> your type of logical analysis with circular argument?
> ...based on superior
> > intellect
> superior intellect based on circular argument (begging the question,
> special pleading)?
> ....based on natural laws
> based on the true natural laws, or presumed natural laws?
> .... based on survey...
> survey based on what ontological and epistemological assumptions?
> > based on the discoveries of Newton
> but Newton was a Christian?
> and Einstein
> and Einstein believe in some form of God?
> ....based
> > on what my grandpa said
> and your grandpa is correct?
> ....based on the fact that I am
> > RIGHT.
> you say you are right, because you are right (circular argument)?
> Take your pick.
> all the above have loopholes, so pick which one?
> > Certainly not based on what the Bible say or what the
> > Quran say.
> my point is:
> the Bible says the Bible is correct
> the Quran says the Quran is correct
> baldeagle says baldeagle is correct
> _how_ are YOU _different_ from the Bible and Quran? You get my point?
> --
> I ask, becos I'm curious.
See.... how confused you are.
Pelandok was talking cock ....
He first challenge me by saying "Why can't
we based(our values and social mores) on what
the Bible say? "
I gave him solid example of the wrong teaching
in the bible...killing babies and incest.
He then tried to say ...what the bible stories may not
be true.
Either the bible stories are true and good teaching
for us to follow...or they are not true.
On Jun 17, 5:44 pm, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 7:14 pm, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> > based on what?
> > my question to you is the same as my question to baldeagle:
> > can you (or anyone) give a clean proof of the non-existence of God?
> No one can prove god's existence or nonexistence.
God only exists to people with weak mind. Society consists of meek
people with weak mind thinking "God" will grant them their wish or
prayer the material things they can not get in real life.
> This is the basis for religious freedom.
It's brainwashing by a few taking advantages of the meek wishing to
get ahead.
> On Jun 17, 1:15 pm, Pelandok <Daqta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 4:10 pm, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Yes....why ? Why can't we based our norms,
> > > our social mores on what the bible say ?
> > > Because it teach us the wrong things !
> > > The bible say that it is a good thing ..to kill all
> > > first-born Egyptian babies to free Moses'
> > > people. Killing babies is WRONG. The bible is
> > > WRONG.
> > > Because the bible teach us INCEST.
> > > The bible say God created only Adam and Eve.
> > > It also say Adam and Eve started the human
> > > race. The bible teach us...that the children of Adam
> > > and Eve committed incest. If they did not,
> > > then there is no human race...we would not be
> > > here today.
> > > Incest is WRONG. the bible is WRONG.
> > > Want more examples ???
> > The exodus may have hard archeological evidence that it took place.
> Archeologists have searched the Sinai for evidence of Moses' 40 years
> of wondering through the desert, and they have found absolutely no
> evidence to support Moses existence.
> Also, the exodus said Ramesses II first born was killed by God as a
> child.
> Archeologists have found the skull of Amun-her-khepeshef, Ramesse II's
> first born son by Nefertari. He died in battle with a blow to the
> back of his head at about early 40s.
> > The incest story, that it is approved is your interpretation.
> > That there is the Koran n the Bible already shows differences but
> > gravity still exists. There are fundamental truths in our
> > experiences.
> > They do not depend on a subjective yes or no.
there is a youtube on a crossing site further south and some markers
built by Solomon of the site.
> On Jun 18, 6:58 am, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> > On 17/06/2012 1:40 PM, baldeagle wrote:
> > > On Jun 17, 12:23 pm, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> > >> On 17/06/2012 7:05 AM, baldeagle wrote:
> > >>> On Jun 16, 12:02 pm, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> > >>> Why are you so confused ...and so confusing ?
> > >> have you heard of "pretend to be pig to kill the tiger"?
> > >> ;-)
> > >>> But I will answer ...the part about ....
> > >>> "> who are you to say it's wrong when most people say it's
> > >>>> right?"
> > >>> Who am I ?
> > >>> I am baldeagle.
> > >>> I say it is wrong...because it is wrong.
> > >> based on what?
> > >>> When most people say it is right... They are wrong.
> > >> based on what? based on intuition?
> > >>> When they are wrong it doesn't matter how many
> > >>> people say the same thing. Eg. It is wrong
> > >>> to kill Eygpytian babies (the bible say so)...even if
> > >>> the millions and millions Christians and Jews say
> > >>> it is the right to do...it is still wrong.
> > >> based on what? based on your cock?
> > >> I still say it is...
> > >> you say, i say, who confirms?
> > >>> Wrong ..to kill babies.
> > >> based on what? based on yourself (circular arugument)?
> > >>> Are your mind, poisoned and indoctrinated by religion,
> > >>> even more confused now by my answer ?
> > >> it seems that _you_ are confused ... by yourself ... falling into
> > >> the same trap of presumption. can't i just be checking out the
> > >> arguments? just answer the questions, will you?
> > >> i want a CLEAN proof of the falsity of religion or gods.
> > >> this means a sound argument
> > >> * without resorting to ad hominem attacks
> > >> * without resorting to personal bias
> > >> * without making any presumptions about the question asker
> > >> (i.e. just answer the damn QUESTION, don't answer the
> > >> QUESTIONER)
> > >> * without resorting to repetition or rephrasing
> > >> * without circular reasoning, begging the question
> > >> * without resorting to appealing to authority
> > >> you understand? hint: define your terms properly first.
> > >> Personal experience, anecdotes must be relevant and you must
> > >> explain how they are connected to your point that you are trying to
> > >> proof, you understtand?
> > >> i want straignt answers, you understtand?
> > >> --
> > >> I ask, becos I'm curious.
> > >> btw, have you ever considered the remote possibility that you
> > >> fall into the arrogant trap of presumption and you cannot produce
> > >> the SMOKING GUN i was asking for, ... because i am holding the gun?
> > >> ;-)
> > > Based on what ? You asked repeatedly !
> > perhaps it's because you you avoid answering right on the dot?
> > > Based on the truth
> > what is truth?
> > ....Based on common sense....
> > what is common sense?
> > Based on
> > > science
> > which science? the science based on current materialistic
> > presumptions (i.e. a thinly veiled form of circular argument)?
> > ....based on logical analysis
> > your type of logical analysis with circular argument?
> > ...based on superior
> > > intellect
> > superior intellect based on circular argument (begging the question,
> > special pleading)?
> > ....based on natural laws
> > based on the true natural laws, or presumed natural laws?
> > .... based on survey...
> > survey based on what ontological and epistemological assumptions?
> > > based on the discoveries of Newton
> > but Newton was a Christian?
> > and Einstein
> > and Einstein believe in some form of God?
> > ....based
> > > on what my grandpa said
> > and your grandpa is correct?
> > ....based on the fact that I am
> > > RIGHT.
> > you say you are right, because you are right (circular argument)?
> > Take your pick.
> > all the above have loopholes, so pick which one?
> > > Certainly not based on what the Bible say or what the
> > > Quran say.
> > my point is:
> > the Bible says the Bible is correct
> > the Quran says the Quran is correct
> > baldeagle says baldeagle is correct
> > _how_ are YOU _different_ from the Bible and Quran? You get my point?
> > --
> > I ask, becos I'm curious.
> See.... how confused you are.
> Pelandok was talking cock ....
> He first challenge me by saying "Why can't
> we based(our values and social mores) on what
> the Bible say? "
> I gave him solid example of the wrong teaching
> in the bible...killing babies and incest.
> He then tried to say ...what the bible stories may not
> be true.
> Either the bible stories are true and good teaching
> for us to follow...or they are not true.
> Is he not talking cock ?
this kind of thinking is like debator's thinking. it is not the basis
of scientific thinking. scientific thinking accepts new evidence, new
data, and can conclude differently.
debator's thinking fights at all costs to win. but it is really quite
difficult to win when data stares you in the face.
so truth remains truth which leads us to wonder how they have evidence
of the cock sucking. it could be based on testimony. but what if there
are differing testimonies. then acquittal?
> On Jun 17, 5:44 pm, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 7:14 pm, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> > > based on what?
> > > my question to you is the same as my question to baldeagle:
> > > can you (or anyone) give a clean proof of the non-existence of God?
> > No one can prove god's existence or nonexistence.
> God only exists to people with weak mind. Society consists of meek
> people with weak mind thinking "God" will grant them their wish or
> prayer the material things they can not get in real life.
> > This is the basis for religious freedom.
> It's brainwashing by a few taking advantages of the meek wishing to
> get ahead.
that there is nlp involved is quite widespread in certain
denominations. many wish to get ahead and a 10% deposit to guarantee
it is quite a ripoff. sometimes it is 100% and more. when the goods
are not delivered the believer mainly does not cut losses but 'buys
and holds'. this weakness in the system is entrenched and may be
growing. to discard it is a tough road for many and in itself
challenges the system and finetunes the prosperity gospel to correct
its misleading statements.
there may be more to come, i.e. i was a bankrupt,i planted a seed, and
things turned around, etc.etc. in this next crash and recovery
whenever it is decided to happen.
