|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 07/02/2007 : 19:48:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
It seems man has to be taught not to lie. |
Yep, and that usually happens after you lie so much nobody trusts you any longer. It's called learning from your mistakes. I suppose one could look at that as self-teaching.
|
You might be on to something. But are these "mistakes" also corrected by the elders of species other than man?
|
Yup. Meercats physically punish members that break established pecking order and societal expectations. Non Alpha females getting pregnant for instance.
Great apes show similar behaviors for breaches in established societal protocols.
|
Exception to the rule (common exception are what was given) are not a revolutionary change in the societal structure.
|
You said "You might be on to something. But are these "mistakes" also corrected by the elders of species other than man?"
This question CLEARLY does not ask what you are demanding now. It asks a completely different question about societal norms being applied and enforced in non-human species.
That, sir, is moving the goalposts and is intellectually dishonest. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 19:51:30 [Permalink]
|
I find that the term dishonest is used by athiests with anyone who does not believe as the atheist does. Why is that?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 19:56:52 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer, I am confused by your definition of a conversation. Are we to stand still and regurgitate our static arguments in perpetuity? Learning (in this context)is the examination of anothers thoughts and knowledge. I do not understand why the natural progrestion of a conversation is termed "goal post moving".
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 20:26:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Valiant Dancer, I am confused by your definition of a conversation. Are we to stand still and regurgitate our static arguments in perpetuity? Learning (in this context)is the examination of anothers thoughts and knowledge. I do not understand why the natural progrestion of a conversation is termed "goal post moving".
|
Because what you are doing is instead of dealing with the salient points of your own argument, you have instead changed the question and claimed some sort of victory over my answer.
That, sir, is moving the goalposts and is one of the odd games fundies play. (#82 to be exact)
http://www.ralliance.org/GamesFundiesPlay.html
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 20:27:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I find that the term dishonest is used by athiests with anyone who does not believe as the atheist does. Why is that?
|
Since I'm Wiccan, what's your point? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 20:36:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The pharasees perverted Gods law. |
Once again: just a repetition of what Jerome thinks is true, as if that will magically make it become true. No rebuttal, no evidence, no nothing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 20:39:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I find that the term dishonest is used by athiests with anyone who does not believe as the atheist does. Why is that? |
You find that to be true because you are dishonest, and when your dishonesty is pointed out, you find you must project it onto someone else, as if they're the dishonest one(s). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 21:00:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I find that the term dishonest is used by athiests with anyone who does not believe as the atheist does. Why is that?
|
Since I'm Wiccan, what's your point?
|
That question was not directed at you, but any answer would be helpful.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 21:03:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Valiant Dancer, I am confused by your definition of a conversation. Are we to stand still and regurgitate our static arguments in perpetuity? Learning (in this context)is the examination of anothers thoughts and knowledge. I do not understand why the natural progrestion of a conversation is termed "goal post moving".
|
Because what you are doing is instead of dealing with the salient points of your own argument, you have instead changed the question and claimed some sort of victory over my answer.
That, sir, is moving the goalposts and is one of the odd games fundies play. (#82 to be exact)
http://www.ralliance.org/GamesFundiesPlay.html
|
Not being religious, I could not be classified as a fundie.
A conversations movement does not mean that one person or the other has "claimed victory". I have stated many times in these forums that I have no goal for the "victory" of my ideas over others. I am here to learn what other people think. It is that simple.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 21:04:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The pharasees perverted Gods law. |
Once again: just a repetition of what Jerome thinks is true, as if that will magically make it become true. No rebuttal, no evidence, no nothing.
|
So, Dave why was Jesus angry with the pharasess if it was not the perversion of Gods laws?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 21:07:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I find that the term dishonest is used by athiests with anyone who does not believe as the atheist does. Why is that? |
You find that to be true because you are dishonest, and when your dishonesty is pointed out, you find you must project it onto someone else, as if they're the dishonest one(s).
|
Ahh, but I have very few times claimed someone was being dishonest(once to you in jest). Yet it seems at every turn of disagreement I am called dishonest. Why is that?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 22:07:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Yet it seems at every turn of disagreement I am called dishonest. Why is that? |
It seems that way because you are being dishonest. If you were honest with yourself, and performed an unbiased cataloging of "every turn" of disagreement you've had here, you would find that most of them did not involve anyone calling you dishonest. You choose to remember the ones where you were called dishonest, and you choose to forget the ones where you were simply shown to be wrong. It's pure confirmation bias. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 22:21:55 [Permalink]
|
So, I am dishonest because I reply to the entirety of the conversation as opposed a single tangent?
So, unless I restate several pages of text to illuminate the conversation for those that choose to look only at the last post, I am dishonest.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 22:49:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
So, I am dishonest because I reply to the entirety of the conversation as opposed a single tangent?
So, unless I restate several pages of text to illuminate the conversation for those that choose to look only at the last post, I am dishonest. |
No, the above are just two more examples of your dishonesty, primarily because you didn't address a single point I actually made in my previous post, but instead fabricated a couple of new and irrelevant things to complain about. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/03/2007 : 03:49:32 [Permalink]
|
On a related matter: these people are fucking insane! Christian Reconstructionists Hope To Move Out Of The Margins And Take Dominion In America – And They Have Some Powerful Friends
by Jeremy Leaming
Tucked away a few miles off Interstate 40 just outside Asheville, N.C., the LifeWay Ridgecrest Conference Center provides Southern Baptists with a remote place to facilitate the nurturing of “Biblical Solutions for Life.”
The sprawling 1,300-acre compound in the Blue Ridge Mountains is made up of chapels, a book store, café, guest housing, drab-colored brick buildings, fences topped with barbed wire and plenty of wooded grounds for religious contemplation or recreation. It is not easily or quickly located; its address cannot be found via a Google Maps search or traced on a Global Positioning System (GPS).
Despite its isolated location, during the last week of May hundreds of Religious Right activists and their families made their way there for a four-day “Worldview Super Conference.” They came to hear fundamentalist Christian speakers rail about the nation's moral confusion, claim the public schools are bastions of secular humanism and warn that Christians, especially their type of Christians, are in danger of being persecuted by America.
The gathering, dubbed “Preparing This Generation to Capture the Future,” was hosted by American Vision, a ministry that has been toiling away since 1978 to “help Christians build a truly Biblical worldview.” In a conference handout, American Vision states that “By God's grace, we will work together to make America a truly Christian nation for our children's children.”
|
Farther along, we find this: Later in the day, DeMar introduced Gary North to the attendees, lauding him as “a mentor.” North is a son-in-law of the late Rousas J. Rushdoony, who is widely touted as the founder of Christian Reconstructionism. North has written boatloads of books and articles about the need to establish “Christendom.”
His plentiful material has left a track record of extremism. North has called for the death penalty, like Rushdoony did, for youngsters who curse their parents, gays and others who violate his interpretation of biblical law. He has argued that stoning is the preferred means of capital punishment, noting that it is a communal activity and “the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost.” Writing for Reason magazine in 1998, Walter Olson observed that Reconstructionists like North “provide the most enthusiastic constituency for stoning since the Taliban seized Kabul.”
North skipped stoning at his Worldview appearance and offered a strident rant against secularism. According to North, the universe is ordered by an all-powerful God who will ultimately dispose of all the “covenant-breakers.” The so-called “covenant-keepers,” on the other hand, will inherit the riches of the heavens.
|
I will remind that if North's version of laws should ever be implemented, blasphmy and heresy laws will be present as well.
But, misery enjoys company, eh? Well, religious bedlamites too, strive not to be left out, at least as far as misery-implementing is concerned. This bunch is cut from the same cloth as American Vision, et al., and quite frankly, I can't see any difference beyond the shades of blood-thirsty hyperboyl.
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Religion or Politics? Where to put it?
