Forum Index            

SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors

Share
Rep. Val Demings of Florida for Vice President.
She would be a double first. Watch the ex-police chief rip Trump as a "habitual offender".
Is your name welcomed below? Then you can post here. Otherwise, click "Log In" to post!
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

Wisdom in an unlikely place

Posted by Anonymous User 
Sam
Re: Wisdom in an unlikely place
June 10, 2012 10:45PM
CTD is trying to divide and conquer by accusing people of backstabbing. There is no evidence of that happening here. He has been groomed to believe that to disagee (not that anyone is disagreeing with anyone here except CTD) is to "demonize" or want to eliminate. That may be true of me personally having become a militant atheist on a mission but it's simply not true of the other atheists here so his phrasing of "they" is a total lie. Always comes down to the pathological with this kind. Its projections are painting a typical picture of a desperately fearful magical "thinker" who is as paranoid of "them" taking over as I am that "they" will prevail for a minute longer...P.S. Theists are not demons. Like gods, demons are a figment of imagination. If I could demonize someone, turn him into a demon, well, that would mean I have magic powers which would prove CTD is right and magic is real. Magic logic in action. Fun stuff...
Anonymous User
Re: Wisdom in an unlikely place
June 10, 2012 11:31PM
sardonicadonis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Also, last I checked, Christians were in control
> of the country - we even have a Christian
> president !!

The time for being superficial (if ever there were such a time) has long passed. We need God-fearing, trustworthy men in all positions of trust, without exception.

As the crew is very fond of reminding everyone, Hitler claimed to be a "christian"
Sam
Re: Wisdom in an unlikely place
June 10, 2012 11:45PM
God-fearing and trustworthy violates the law of noncontradiction=does not exist
Anonymous User
Re: Wisdom in an unlikely place
June 10, 2012 11:56PM
Sam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CTD is trying to divide and conquer by accusing
> people of backstabbing. There is no evidence of
> that happening here.

I have not said it happened here. Yet, of course.

Every component of the "alliance" against Christianity has a consistent history. Betrayal is part & parcel of evil's game. Communist, Satanist, Homo, Atheistâ„¢ - not a one of 'em without a solid, consistent record.

Each & every individual knows, if they stop to realize. Once the Christians are gone, in your little fantasy, who's next on your list? Once everyone else preaching any form of honesty is gone, who next? The alliance all turns on one another. All the while, as opportunities arise, each member of each group is plotting against his neighbor. What? YOU are the only one so clever? YOU!!! If you're plotting, and he's just like you, he's plotting too. Duh!

Satan's house has always been and must in principle always be divided.
Sam
Re: Wisdom in an unlikely place
June 11, 2012 12:24AM
It is not necessary for the xians to perish, just xianity and other forms of superstition. Keep up please and try not to take all this so personally. You seem to be unraveling! Your paranoia is part and parcel of your superstition. Once that's gone, you will feel better. See a professional debriefer before it's too late for you. I can recommend someone if you like. smoking smiley
Anonymous User
Re: Wisdom in an unlikely place
June 11, 2012 12:32AM
Sam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> God-fearing and trustworthy violates the law of
> noncontradiction=does not exist

Do tell...

I invite folks to recollect, reflect for 5, what? 10 seconds? How long does it take to recall hundreds, thousands of God-fearing men who proved absolutely trustworthy?

Done?

Now try to think of a trustworthy Atheistâ„¢

There was one outstanding difference between the American and French Revolutions: one involved those who served and feared God, and the other was run by dedicated enemies of God. Review the results at your convenience. If you're short of time, just Google "Reign of Terror"
Sam
Re: Wisdom in an unlikely place
June 11, 2012 12:40AM
The BigLie that is godism requires an army of liars to keep it in the mainstream. How can anyone trust someone who believes in magic, who believes the earth is only 6000 years old and that they were chosen by and are being guided by an invisible sadist? Not me.
Anonymous User
Re: Wisdom in an unlikely place
June 11, 2012 12:55PM
Understanding Butler's insight prepares us to deal with common mistakes. Even among some of the honest, it is thought permissible to adopt "methodological naturalism", thought that one may exclude "philosophical naturalism" and get by.

Both varieties are simply atheism. "Philosophical naturalism", it is claimed, denies "the supernatural" in all times and in all places. As we understand, "supernatural" is just a label slapped on anything inconvenient to designate it unworthy of consideration. No- that's too mild. To designate it abhorrent, is probably more accurate.

Now then, some have fallen for a trick. They've been sold "methodological naturalism" which is said to merely exclude "the supernatural" at the present. It is, of course an absurdity due to the nature of time and existence. What even is mean by "the present"? The present is merely the border of past and future.

If "the supernatural" existed in the past, what happened to it? See? Silliness. To deny "the supernatural" in the present is baseless and to affirm "the supernatural" in the past or future while making the denial is contradictory. Who is anyone to claim atheism true for any interval of time, no matter how short?

Either way, it's anti-science. Denial of anything real cannot be justified. Not only is there no motive to deny, we know that to deny is to lie.

Speaking of lies, they have a bogeyman story. They claim that to decline to deny renders science impossible. This is utterly false, contrary to history and experience. Anyone can conduct an experiment to determine at which temperature a liquid boils; believing God exists has never prevented anyone. In fact all but the tiniest fraction of the men who founded every modern school of science acknowledged God.

Let us examine the excuse:
(from the same link given earlier)
Quote
Richard Lewontin
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.

Okay... miracles may happen. I can attest that they do. Big deal. "Rupture" is hyperbole and inaccurate. The ONE regularity that counts is that reality obeys God.

God has provided regularity for a purpose. This isn't the kind of history which gets repeated, but Atheismâ„¢ was formerly adamant in denying regularity. Laws indicate an intelligent lawgiver, you see. That's the breed Newton kept smacking down in his time; that's why he was hated.

Now when the laws God has given became to painfully evident, a new lie was adopted: the laws are all there is. This makes no sense, but they clench it tightly to this day. Have you never seen the elegant beauty of God's laws?

Take a peek, if you haven't

[www.ajdesigner.com]

It's not that little group alone; all laws we've discovered have been beautiful; all reveal themselves as the products of intelligence.

So, in order to admit the laws without admitting God, the lie of "Naturalism" - the dogma - was invented. Now 'naturalist' more than one meaning. No need to worry over the others.

They make the false claim that without "naturalism" no science would be possible. Even if we didn't know better from history and experience, we should see this as false. Rather than choas, as the Atheistsâ„¢ formerly claimed, we have a world governed by God's rules. THIS MAKES SCIENCE POSSIBLE.

As prophesied, the worship the creation rather than the creator. They claimed the laws themselves and the universe eternal.

It is only reasonable that God, creating and maintaining the laws, has the authority to instruct as He pleases, and reality conforms. This easily makes sense to us, and it's exactly what we read in Genesis. God made order - not chaos. The dream of every atheist is to return people to a belief in chaos. No, they don't come out and say so directly, but watch as they deny non-contradiction, as they absolutely insist all manner of impossible things MUST BE BELIEVED. The goal is to confuse and bewilder, and leave the victim with the conclusion that all really is chaos, that God hasn't really established orderly laws. They haven't given up their old goal - they're merely afraid to confess it.

Miracles are not, as THEY define them, violations of laws. That's absurd. That's not what scripture says. Miracles are in full compliance with the highest of all the laws "reality obeys its creator". Without this simple, obvious law, how might the others have been established? How might they continue?

Recall how things are defined. For those who haven't read what I've written before, I'll explain again. Imaginary things, with no actual fixed concept behind them, may be defined any which way at the whim of the one doing the imagining. Real things, however, do not permit arbitrariness. Real things must be defined by accurately describing them. You may not, for example, define a dog as a creature larger than ten elephants with gills and 23 legs.

Thus a miracle must be accurately described OR presupposed to be fiction. The famous trick of Hume (which isn't terribly popular at present) was to define 'miracle' according to his own whim.

Even "methodological naturalism" threatens to make a liar out of the scientist. Suppose one is experimenting with water, attempting to boil it as part of an experiment. Suppose now an angel should appear, place a finger on the container, and the water should freeze solid. What now? According to "methodological naturalism" the scientist MUST LIE, must deny the event. An honest man may testify to everything he witnessed, but not the man committed to "methodological naturalism". ...Unless, of course, he arbitrarily chooses to designate the angel "natural"!

There is no reason, let alone a compelling reason, to profess any form of Atheismâ„¢, no matter how "watered down" it may superficially appear to be. It is not possible to claim "God does not exist" without lying. By definition Atheismâ„¢ is an obvious, offensive, impossible-to-believe lie. Once the liar sees you're willing to let it slide, more lies can only be expected. Denial of "the supernatural" is atheism.
Anonymous User
Re: Wisdom in an unlikely place
June 11, 2012 01:06PM
If you just breezed over this earlier, I suggest a slow, careful perusal.

Right off the bat you know you're dealing with a propagandist when he employs 'science' as an euphemism for Atheismâ„¢
Quote
R.L.
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Re: Wisdom in an unlikely place
June 11, 2012 03:08PM
When describing the physical universe (which is the purpose of science), the methods science uses are designed to work with and study the "physical matter" of which the universe is composed and discover how these components work together.

CTD then cries "Materialism! They are all materialists (it's what they are studying CTD)! LOL!

Of course, it's all a matter of convenience for CTD, just like it is for most of those for whom, when science presents evidence demonstrating the physical explanation for something that might threaten one of their beliefs which (in their mind) requires a non-physical explanation, they cry that science is materialistic and it's methods are flawed and untrustworthy etc, etc, etc. Course, the rest of the time they love science as they hop in their cars, fly across oceans and continents, have their own or their loved ones life saved by modern medicine, or even when they are typing away on their computers railing against the science that made all that possible! grinning smiley
Re: Wisdom in an unlikely place
June 11, 2012 05:10PM
Nothing is "supernatural". The superstitious apply the term to that which cannot be physically explain - this does not imply the lack of a physical explanation, but rather, the lack of understandable evidence.

Everything that happens around us has a natural explanation involved. We may not immediately - or ever - recognize it, but that does not make it "supernatural".

============================================================================

*Sanders 2016*

"And these children that you spit on
As they try to change their worlds
Are immune to your consultations
They're quite aware of what they're going through"
Sam
Re: Wisdom in an unlikely place
June 11, 2012 05:38PM
CTD claims he can attest that miracles happen. Let's see what he means by that. CTD?
Anonymous User
Re: Wisdom in an unlikely place
June 11, 2012 09:12PM
islander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When describing the physical universe (which is
> the purpose of science),

The purpose you choose to recognize. Science is the systematic pursuit of knowledge. Contrast with the systematic avoidance of knowledge known as Atheismâ„¢.

>the methods science uses
> are designed to work with and study the "physical
> matter" of which the universe is composed and
> discover how these components work together.

Is 'science' here employed as an euphemism?


> CTD then cries "Materialism! They are all
> materialists (it's what they are studying CTD)!
> LOL!

Newton, Pasteur, Mendel, ... well, we haven't got all day.

Quote

A notable fact in relation to Christianity and science is that the birth of modern science occurred in Christianized Europe. Sociologist Rodney Stark investigated the individuals who made the most significant scientific contributions between 1543 and 1680 A.D.

In Stark's list of 52 top scientific contributors, only one (Edmund Halley) was a skeptic and another (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians. Sir Francis Bacon, sometimes referred to as "the Father of Modern Science", wrote: "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind." unique features of Christian theology.

[www.conservapedia.com]

Others have compiled lists. Presupposing God does not exist has never been part of legitimate science.

> Of course, it's all a matter of convenience for
> CTD, just like it is for most of those for whom,
> when science presents evidence demonstrating the
> physical explanation for something that might
> threaten one of their beliefs which (in their
> mind) requires a non-physical explanation, they
> cry that science is materialistic and it's methods
> are flawed and untrustworthy etc, etc, etc.

What manner of straw is this, what manner of antihistory? Grade the propaganda for yourself; you don't need my help.

> Course, the rest of the time they love science as
> they hop in their cars, fly across oceans and
> continents, have their own or their loved ones
> life saved by modern medicine, or even when they
> are typing away on their computers railing against
> the science that made all that possible! grinning smiley

Look who's railing against science. Look!

Atheismâ„¢ never made anything possible. FINDING OUT - the very OPPOSITE of Atheismâ„¢ is science, is A DISTINCTLY CHRISTIAN custom.

Employing 'science' as an euphemism for Atheismâ„¢ is cowardly, deceitful, and self-defeating. Learning , investigating - restricted? RESTRICTED ? Confined, constrained, imprisoned? No. We ARE free to follow the evidence, to reason LOGICALLY, to discover truth.

The clowns who deny cause-and-effect, who deny non-contradiction (Claiming "science proved" it!), who PRESUPPOSE 9/10 conclusions, and refuse to even honestly acknowledge simple, common sense alternatives - these clowns are to stop the rest of us from learning merely be by making incoherent noise?

Did anyone not see what the Atheistâ„¢ guru said? There is nothing compelling anyone to go that route, and that route leads to absurdity. The whole Athiestâ„¢ attitude in the matter might well be summed up "We don't care if it's absurd, so long as God is denied". Myself, I prefer explanations which make sense and reconcile with reality, including the law of non-contradiction, including cause-and-effect and all other common sense logic.
Anonymous User
Re: Wisdom in an unlikely place
June 11, 2012 09:36PM
sardonicadonis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing is "supernatural". The superstitious apply
> the term to that which cannot be physically
> explain - this does not imply the lack of a
> physical explanation, but rather, the lack of
> understandable evidence.

Events are not objectively "supernatural". The term 'supernatural' may be accurately applied to nature's author and creator.

>
> Everything that happens around us has a natural
> explanation involved.

So you would have people suppose. Why should anyone adopt such a statement of blind faith, such a silly and undefined religious creed?

>We may not immediately - or
> ever - recognize it, but that does not make it
> "supernatural".

Your failure to recognize does nothing to alter reality.

Fail Satan

There is no coherent definition of 'supernatural' which permits exclusion. Being above nature ≠ being below nature.
Anonymous User
Re: Wisdom in an unlikely place
June 11, 2012 09:54PM
An overlapping strategy is "conflict thesis", the patently false contention that "religion" is inherently at enmity with "science". The blatant employment of 'science' as euphemism for Atheismâ„¢ should be all it takes to tip off the observer. From history we have overwhelming evidence contrary to the contention, if "science" refers to 'science', and common sense raises no small protest either.

Washington Irving & Andrew Dixon White are the primary known sources of the strategy.
Re: Wisdom in an unlikely place
June 11, 2012 10:03PM
Which came first... the Earth or the sun?

Should we believe Genesis or science?

Because the religious text known as Genesis is inherently at odds with science in regards to that question.

.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2012 10:05PM by Ponderer.
Re: Wisdom in an unlikely place
June 11, 2012 10:14PM
CTD, you yourself have proven here that "religion" is inherently at enmity with "science" if science in any way contradicts your religion. You even attack it for not even being science if it is in conflict with the Bible. As if anything that contradicted the Bible couldn't be science.

.
Anonymous User
Re: Wisdom in an unlikely place
June 11, 2012 10:21PM
Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which came first... the Earth or the sun?
>
> Should we believe Genesis or science?
>
> Because the religious text known as Genesis is
> inherently at odds with science in regards to that
> question.

Even when the trick's pointed out, we see 'science' employed as an euphemism for Atheismâ„¢.

It is circular reasoning to adopt the Atheistâ„¢ conclusion, since Atheismâ„¢ was a PREMISE (stated or smuggled) necessary to obtain the conclusion.
Anonymous User
Re: Wisdom in an unlikely place
June 11, 2012 10:28PM
Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CTD, you yourself have proven here that "religion"
> is inherently at enmity with "science" if science
> in any way contradicts your religion. You even
> attack it for not even being science if it is in
> conflict with the Bible. As if anything that
> contradicted the Bible couldn't be science.

You assert quite a bit about me. I oppose that which contradicts reality. I investigate rather than taking the word of your Satanic priests, and thus you are reduced to expressions of intolerance.

CTD is not the topic here. If you have found a flaw in what I say, present it. If you have found a flaw in Bishop Butler's writing, let's see it.

Lacking such, you do what you do.
Re: Wisdom in an unlikely place
June 11, 2012 10:45PM
"You assert quite a bit about me." -CTDasshole

Just following your lead.

"I oppose that which contradicts reality." -CTDasshole

So based on all your tireless research and investigation and without contradicting reality, which came first... the Earth or the sun?

(HINT: There's a really obvious correct answer)

.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2012 10:45PM by Ponderer.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login


This forum powered by Phorum

Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!