Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
According to you there was no morality before a god. Interesting. Or there was always morality because there was always a god. More interesting.
We know that at one point man's ancestors started to bury their dead with symbolic items...the Bear Caves in Europe. Was Jesus' dad teaching mankind how to pray at this time? Was man learning to identify himself with others...compassion?
We do know at some point mankind cared for each other because we find signs that early mankind is traveling with injured or crippled family(?). Where these people ignorant of Jesus' dad, and if so why? If man was created in a god's image, that god must have been one fucking backwards troll
1. "According to you there was no morality before a god."
This is senseless. Morality pertains to mankind.
Without God, there is no moral demand placed on mankind.
2. "We know that at one point man's ancestors ..."
The understanding of God at issue is based on the Judeo-Christian concept.
3. "...at some point mankind cared for each..."
There can be good people at any place, or time.
Morality is important as a societal aspect.
Sans morality, we can expect the law of the jungle.
4. I understand the vulgarity as your response when you can't deal with what
you realize makes sense.
5. Dennis Prager once said something along these lines on his radio program:
If there's no God - making ourselves the source of ethics for everybody, or declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore morality is, again, purely subjective.
Abortion may be legal, and a womans right .but this doesnt it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had reason on their side.
Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God."
I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.
In the Bull Ring | God is necessary for morality to survive | Polichickster v Dante
http://www.usmessageboard.com/bull-...urvive-polichickster-v-dante.html#post6785671
You betray the weakness of your position, which requires that you disprove the FLoT, by your attacks on me personally. But what else can be expected from a know-it-all who doesn't know the difference between "eternal" and "omnipresent."Again I bring you to the FLoT, the most basic principle in science, "energy cannot be created (it doesn't "come from") nor destroyed (it's not going either).""We know energy exists because it can be measured, can God be measured?"
Where did it come from.
Energy IS.
You desperately need a refresher in Grammar School science!
Seems that once the pods take your mind, the ability to question is replaced with the desire to accept.
Fine.
The taking over of your mind was a part-time endeavor.
I can see where it would be advantageous for you to attempt to co-opt the concept of 'eternal,' but it is neither true nor accurate.
Being as weak as you are, the ease with which liberalism could mesmerize, and constrict any nascent insight, was within the blink of an eye.
I can do well without another 'is too, is too' post from you.
I suspect that you realize the weakness of your position, but, in any case, continuing is boring.
1. "According to you there was no morality before a god."
This is senseless. Morality pertains to mankind.
Without God, there is no moral demand placed on mankind.
2. "We know that at one point man's ancestors ..."
The understanding of God at issue is based on the Judeo-Christian concept.
3. "...at some point mankind cared for each..."
There can be good people at any place, or time.
Morality is important as a societal aspect.
Sans morality, we can expect the law of the jungle.
4. I understand the vulgarity as your response when you can't deal with what
you realize makes sense.
5. Dennis Prager once said something along these lines on his radio program:
If there's no God - making ourselves the source of ethics for everybody, or declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore morality is, again, purely subjective.
Abortion may be legal, and a womans right .but this doesnt it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had reason on their side.
Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God."
I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.
In the Bull Ring | God is necessary for morality to survive | Polichickster v Dante
http://www.usmessageboard.com/bull-...urvive-polichickster-v-dante.html#post6785671
So....this is pretty much your admission that you can't handle me?
And so, another success in the battle of man vs. woman!!!
Here's the prize for second place:
Women's faults are many,
Men have only two:
Everything they say,
And everything they do.
actually I want to spank you in public...and what better way to do it than in the Bull Ring, one on one?
Invalid use of inductive reasoning, and a composition fallacy. The Big Bang and a bang that happens to be big by subjective standards are categorically separated by the nature of what banged, why, when, and how, making the two explosions fundamentally different, but namely and with specific regard to this conversation, there would have been no light at the Big Bang, given that there were no electrons within orbits around atoms to emit light, which didn't form until shortly after the bang, and which didn't start producing light until the first stars 300,000 years after the Big Bang. Until then, the universe was opaque. As for the composition fallacy: what goes for an explosion within an already settled universe with physical laws, forces, matter and energy, does not also go for an explosion of that actual universe itself. In fact, it wasn't an explosion,so much as an expansion, which actually created the forces and energy that would allow an explosion to even create light. Again, your reasoning is invalid and your conception of science has been maladapted.
Explosion....light.
QED
Don't forget....there's a fine line between numerator and denominator!
In the Bull Ring | God is necessary for morality to survive | Polichickster v Dante
http://www.usmessageboard.com/bull-...urvive-polichickster-v-dante.html#post6785671
So....this is pretty much your admission that you can't handle me?
And so, another success in the battle of man vs. woman!!!
Here's the prize for second place:
Women's faults are many,
Men have only two:
Everything they say,
And everything they do.
Invalid use of inductive reasoning, and a composition fallacy. The Big Bang and a bang that happens to be big by subjective standards are categorically separated by the nature of what banged, why, when, and how, making the two explosions fundamentally different, but namely and with specific regard to this conversation, there would have been no light at the Big Bang, given that there were no electrons within orbits around atoms to emit light, which didn't form until shortly after the bang, and which didn't start producing light until the first stars 300,000 years after the Big Bang. Until then, the universe was opaque. As for the composition fallacy: what goes for an explosion within an already settled universe with physical laws, forces, matter and energy, does not also go for an explosion of that actual universe itself. In fact, it wasn't an explosion,so much as an expansion, which actually created the forces and energy that would allow an explosion to even create light. Again, your reasoning is invalid and your conception of science has been maladapted.
Explosion....light.
QED
Don't forget....there's a fine line between numerator and denominator!
So because you call something an explosion, there has to be light? You must own some kickass water balloons. You are saying your subjective description of something actually impacts that which you are describing. There is a term for this: schizophrenia. Your thoughts do not affect the ontology of a thing, unless you're solipsistic, which I would believe. Just because we call it the Big Bang, and term it an "explosion," doesn't mean there was light. You have to actually understand the event to determine this, not use your subjective terminology to determine it. That's just... Insane.
So....this is pretty much your admission that you can't handle me?
And so, another success in the battle of man vs. woman!!!
Here's the prize for second place:
Women's faults are many,
Men have only two:
Everything they say,
And everything they do.
Based on past encounters...it hardly seems possible.
Based on past encounters...it hardly seems possible.
you're so good at slingin' bullshit...so why the fear of the Bull Ring
The Bible didn't say that, Allah did.........
The Bible didn't say that, Allah did.........
I though the Bible was copied to be a part of the Quran.
According to Genesis, God created Day and Night on the first day.
Day and Night are a function of the earth's rotation relative to the sun,
so according to Genesis God created the earth and sun on the first day...
...even if Genesis shortly thereafter may seem to contradict that.
I thought most antagonists against the Genesis criticise its measurement of time, like in days, as opposed to years and longer. The order of events may have been accepted.
I have a theory, that if you take the Genesis age of the universe and compare it with the Big Bang age of the universe, then you can resolve this descrepancy by applying the Doppler shift factor or Einstein's relativistic factor (sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)), or a linear combination of them, and tweak their velocity parameters to obtain a match.
Then we can ask the question, what physical meaning this distortion of time means.
then you should start accepting sceince
"sceince"?
You mean a spiritualist meeting to receive spirit communications?
Where you speak to relatives who have passed on?
Sounds neat.
Like this:
Hillary Clinton says imaginary talks just intellectual exercise, The Providence Journal Bulletin, Tuesday, 6/25/96, p. A3. Hillary Rodham Clinton said yesterday her imaginary conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt were merely an intellectual exercise Trying to douse what she called sensational speculation, the first lady rejected inferences that psychic researcher Jean Houston, who led her in several White House sessions, was her spiritual adviser.
In a written statement, Mrs. Clinton was firm in her denial that there were any psychic or religious overtones to the sessions. The bottom line is: I have no spiritual advisers or any other alternatives to my deeply held Methodist faith and traditions upon which I have relied since childhood.
Mrs. Clinton met with Houston several times from late 1994 until March of this year, according to a new book [by Bob Woodward, 'The Choice'] that says Houston led the first lady through imaginary conversations with her hero, Mrs. Roosevelt and Indian leader Ghandi Mrs. Clinton said she engaged in hours of freewheeling discussions with Houston.
Say Anything Hillary Clinton Held Seances In The White House » Say Anything
Heck...if it's good enough for you, and for Hill....maybe I should try it!
Capitalism is not a religious belief. Socialism on the other hand believes in the faith that the government is a substitute for God.
1. Gods first command in Genesis is Let there be light. Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system.
2. The Sumarians believed that the earth lay at the center of the universe, and the ancient Israelites saw the stars as a heavenly sphere that enclosed everything.
3. The idea that th earth is round emerged some time after the Old Testament was written, when in the late sixth century BCE Pythagoras declared that the earth, along with the other planets, was spherical.
a. In 287 BCE, Strato of Lampsacus school advanced the theory that the sun was at rest at the center of the sphere of fixed stars, and that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.
Greek Astronomy
4. Then, in the 20th century, Einstein advanced his theory of general relativity, the implication of which was that the universe was not static- it must be expanding or contracting.
a. An understanding of the red shift pretty much established an expanding universe. With this came the realization that there must have been a beginning.
5. And that was The Big Bang some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain!
6. The basic forces of nature emerged- first gravity, then the strong force that holds the nuclei of atoms together (no atoms existed at this time), followed by weaker, then electromagnetic forces. By the end of the firs second, there were quarks and electrons, nutrinos, some other stuff .and, later, some of them smashed together to form protons and neutrons.
7. So, there we have the idea of the universe suddenly appearing at a beginning, and all of that from a huge amount of energy. Of course, that doesnt begin to ask the obvious: what existed before the Big Bang, and where did all that energy come from?
8. And, of course, the ancient Israelites behind the account of creation in Genesis, chapter 1, would have been oblivious to all the detailed described above. No idea about any Big Bang.
9. Probably anyone writing a creation account should have begun with the idea of the formation of the sun and the planets .shouldnt they? Without the sun how could Genesis refer to the days of creation? So Let there be light doesnt really entail much .does it? It makes intuitive sense: light needs the sun....doesn't it?
a. Even the pagan world figured this out: most tended to worship the sun as the source of all life.
But Genesis doesnt speak of the sun ..only of light, until verses 14-19.
10. Big Bang explosion .energy .light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis.
Parker, The Genesis Enigma, chapter two.
a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here.
LIght....energy....but no sun...
But theres more in the Genesis authors narrative. There follows an order of events of the creation.
A pretty specific order of events.
And its surprisingly accurate.
then you should start accepting sceince
"sceince"?
You mean a spiritualist meeting to receive spirit communications?
Where you speak to relatives who have passed on?
Sounds neat.
Like this:
Hillary Clinton says imaginary talks just intellectual exercise, The Providence Journal Bulletin, Tuesday, 6/25/96, p. A3. Hillary Rodham Clinton said yesterday her imaginary conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt were merely an intellectual exercise Trying to douse what she called sensational speculation, the first lady rejected inferences that psychic researcher Jean Houston, who led her in several White House sessions, was her spiritual adviser.
In a written statement, Mrs. Clinton was firm in her denial that there were any psychic or religious overtones to the sessions. The bottom line is: I have no spiritual advisers or any other alternatives to my deeply held Methodist faith and traditions upon which I have relied since childhood.
Mrs. Clinton met with Houston several times from late 1994 until March of this year, according to a new book [by Bob Woodward, 'The Choice'] that says Houston led the first lady through imaginary conversations with her hero, Mrs. Roosevelt and Indian leader Ghandi Mrs. Clinton said she engaged in hours of freewheeling discussions with Houston.
Say Anything Hillary Clinton Held Seances In The White House » Say Anything
Heck...if it's good enough for you, and for Hill....maybe I should try it!
Wouldn't that be séance?
BTW there is NO proof god exsists.
take that to the bank
....nor of the success of socialism...but you buy that like it was on sale.
True?
you dont get to say what I believe.
there is no proof god exsists.
I am not a socialist Im a capitalist
