Atheist!

[Guest]

Well, at least - I was wrong.

Probably not the sorry part.

 

[xssve]

I can understand that in context. Even if the original infection was from man/monkey sex, or anal intercourse between males, it really makes very little difference as the disease reached epidemic quantities in Africa and elsewhere.

Amicus...

Sheesh.

It came from monkeys, not sex with monkeys, sex with wild animals is not advisable, that one was made up by your White supremacist buddies.

Nor can two men having sex spontaneously and magically generate the AIDS virus, one of them has to have been infected from another source, blood transfusions were another vector.

It isn't even technically an STD, in the ordinary sense, it's strictly blood borne, it has to pass the skin barrier into the bloodstream.

It was likely from blood from a monkey, probably a poacher, or incompletely cooked meat, monkey brains maybe, it's a delicacy in some quarters.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, at least - I was wrong.

Probably not the sorry part.

Well, it's more than he's done for my challenges of the two recent falacious comments he made about me and hasn't substantiated.

 

[Guest]

Well, it's more than he's done for my challenges of the two recent falacious comments he made about me and hasn't substantiated.

Indeed.

 

[hypnopup]

Welcome to the board, friend. Here's to hoping you persistent enough to last longer in amicus' wondrous web of thinly veiled fallacies than I usually do before I give up and leave him to his ramblings. I wish you luck.

Now, that's just unkind. Why should hypnopup waste so much time on Ami?

Welcome to the AH, hypnopup (in case someone has not told you yet, amicus was not calling you a liar, but referring to a poster here by that name, though he certainly is not blameless--he has a hard time resisting the urge to poke people unkindly to see how they will respond).

Thanks for the warm welcome everyone!

Rant against amicus aside, I'm actually a pretty decent guy. ;D

 

[ishtat]

I do not regard you as a beginning philosopher, There was no insult intended here; but, I still think that the beginning philosopher might be too easily persuaded to think that the ontological argument for God's existence is not as strong as it actually is.

I have been a philosopher most of my life and my love for the truth has led me in many directions but my best deductions have led me to God. The capacity of the mind may not mean as much as the willingness to accept the truth when one finds it.

There are several intervening variables besides reasoning or capacity that keeps a person from accepting the truth. Human nature, to give one example, is often very opposed to following the truth. If a person has learned through early experiences in life to be a homosexual and arrives pleasure from the homosexual lifestyle, then the lust of his fleash is going to create a barrier to accepting that homosexuality is a deviation from normal human development.

To carry this comparison further, a homosexual is not likely to believe in natural theology because he/she will not want to accept eternal and unchanging law because a homosexual would then be faced with changing its personal lifestyle. There are many more examples of life situations that determine how one thinks besides capacity.

In my world view, it is important to build on each correct deduction as much as possible. One false deduction will set off a chain reaction of may false deductions. For this reason, Jesus Christ told his followers to walk in the light or the light would become darkness.

Making a false deduction is not necessarily fatal because on should always examine his reasoning to discover false deductions. One excellent method of testing false deduction is the process of induction. When one is led back to his initial premise, one will discover much about his reasoning. He may discover that somebody has changed the premise of his deductions and because the premise has changed, all his deductions were based on a different premise. That is why we must not change eternal law while seeking the truth. Atheist do not follow this reasoning process, for which I am sure that I will be challenged on this point. I am prepared to defend this assertion.

This scenario, if not convincing, is certainly a strong argument for the existence of God and it does lean heavily on the scientific method as well as other eternal laws of a God.

It is clear that we are not debating but merely reiterating irreconcilable views so I don't see much point in continuing that. I find the way your mind works a tad confusing but best of luck anyway.

Just one observation which is off thread . If you take those comments about homosexuals and put them on a separate thread I suspect you may engender a lively response.

For me though jet lag has set in again so finis.

 

[wmrs2]

It is clear that we are not debating but merely reiterating irreconcilable views so I don't see much point in continuing that. I find the way your mind works a tad confusing but best of luck anyway.

Just one observation which is off thread . If you take those comments about homosexuals and put them on a separate thread I suspect you may engender a lively response.

For me though jet lag has set in again so finis.

What we are doing is establishing a foundation for a reasoned debate. It is understandable that you find the way I think confusing. The difference in the way you and I think is that your premise for thinking is based on the will of man to satisfy his basic wants. My premise for reasoning is based on eternal, stable, unchanging truth.

No disrespect is intended here, atheist and other humanist (liberals) reject permanence in place of relativity. Getting the humanistic crowd to admit this is like pulling teeth. However, in a conversation with Sub-Joe, she did recognize the difference in the way theist and atheist reason when she was questioned about a statement that atheist and liberals often make. The statement was:
but that it is impossible for anyone to know of the existence God, because God is not subject to evidential knowledge.

When challenged to support this statement, Sub-Joe admitted that this statement was speculation. In other words, it might be possible to know the existence of God and that God might be subject to evidential knowledge. She like most atheist and liberals, pointed out that theist employee circular reasoning. This led to the fact that she wielded to the proposition that all schools of philosophy ultimately employee circular reasoning which included atheist and theist schools.

I defined circular reasoning as starting with a premise, making deductions based on the premise, and testing the quality of the circle by induction back to the premise. At that point the difference between the reasoning process of the atheist and theist is clearly seen. The atheist and liberal is apt to have changed the premise (relativity) instead of having arrived back at the same premise (permanence, stability, eternal) from which the deduction process had started.

At this point in most situations this is where an intellectual conversation breaks down and turns into a pissing contest; the liberal becomes offended, accusing the theist of being narrow minded, unreasonable, using circular reasoning, being homophobic, and out of touch with modern thinking process. Here it can be pointed out the difference in the atheist and theist premises for the reasoning process.

Your insight that my comments about the homosexual lifestyle would receive a great deal of attention is recognition that you recognize the difference in the two thinking processes. I was aware o this difference and is why my comments about homosexual lifestyles was carefully measured. I was careful to not insult this lifestyle as immoral, deviant behavior, or sinful (although I believe the lifestyle is all this) but I also believe that all men have some deviant from the norm, immoral behavior. I think the difference here is that the homosexual is most likely to not admit homosexual is immoral and he/she will do this by changing the premise of what morality is in order to suit his personal wants.

This a debate that goes on every day in American society. Who or what is the premise for morality? It is the belief of theist that people who choose, what we call true moral behavior, use a premise of morality this eternal rather than being reconstructed daily. For the same reason we reject pedophilia, rape, murder, and torture as immoral, we reject homosexuality and abortion as immoral. The same reasons the homosexual uses to justify his/her behavior can be used to justify child sexual molestation, the rape and murder of the Jews by Hitler, and a number of other gross behaviors carried on by different countries. By the same reasoning process that justifies homosexuality to be morally correct, all the evils of the known world are justified by the same reasoning process.

I am not saying that theist are never immoral, because I know they often are. But there is more room for repentance when one will admit that his behavior is accountable to a higher and more noble standard than his own opinion. The belief in God has many great advantages as a moral campus than the belief there is no God and that man can make up his own rules as he goes. Otherwise the door is open for many more evils such as communism and fascism to take root in the world.

You might be able to see from this discussion how a rationalist can construct a whole and complete religion based on correct logic and reasoning. I am not confused as to what I believe but I can truly understand how an atheist can be confused about many, many things in this life simply because he has no ontological permanence on which to base his reasoning. I really would be interested in yours and all other atheists/liberals reasoned reply to my assertions.

 

[wmrs2]

Just as a matter of interest, where do you source your figures for this statement? Is it a matter of belief?

Ken

Just out of curiosity, why would you want to know what the source of my figures are? It seems to me that is like asking where air or water comes from.

 

[oggbashan]

I'm sorry wmrs2, but you haven't established a basis for a reasoned debate.

You make statements based on your beliefs and expect others to agree. You state "My premise for reasoning is based on eternal, stable, unchanging truth."

There is no such thing as "eternal, stable, unchanging truth".

You make statements about what atheists think but do not back your statements with evidence. Any unqualified statement about "atheists" is a generalisation that can be disproved by any atheist who does not share your view.

Og

 

[xssve]

Just out of curiosity, why would you want to know what the source of my figures are? It seems to me that is like asking where air or water comes from.

It's absence implies that your hermetically sealed syllogism cannot withstand the scrutiny of interaction with established empirical evidence.

In this case, the wording of your original statement implies a thing you cannot empirically prove, it is thus useless as a valid premise.

 

[Stella_Omega]

View Post
Just out of curiosity, why would you want to know what the source of my figures are? It seems to me that is like asking where air or water comes from.

This explains so much.

 

[NoJo]

Saying "a homosexual" -- like "a gay", is an indication of crass ignorance and bigotry. In fact it's such a clear indication, that it's mainly said here as a form of ridicule of the awful homophobic mentality of people who still speak like this.

 

[xssve]

Saying "a homosexual" -- like "a gay", is an indication of crass ignorance and bigotry. In fact it's such a clear indication, that it's mainly said here as a form of ridicule of the awful homophobic mentality of people who still speak like this.

Living in one of your less progressive urban areas, there's always a lag in current pop lexicon - I still say "man" for example, when addressing men, and even sometimes to women, so any advice in this area is always welcome baby.

"Gay" to me personally, means same sex attraction in general, differentiated into homosexual and lesbian respectively, any without reference to any other aspect of gender identification which requires the use of modifiers. Bi is sort of a separate classification.

Colloquially, "gay" typically refers to anything considered unmasculine or even unpopular "that's so gay", though not always in the most virulent pejorative sense, it rather implies something more akin to "odd" or unfashionable, ala South Park. A perceived paucity of masculinity is more likely to earn the more pejorative, "fag".

Literally, gay means "carefree and uninhibited", and I'd have to say I feel like that often enough, so I'm what you might call a "gay heterosexual", in this area, since, as if things were not confusing enough, people here make up their own definitions for words, ala wmrs2.

 

[wmrs2]

I'm sorry wmrs2, but you haven't established a basis for a reasoned debate.

You make statements based on your beliefs and expect others to agree. You state "My premise for reasoning is based on eternal, stable, unchanging truth."

There is no such thing as "eternal, stable, unchanging truth".

You make statements about what atheists think but do not back your statements with evidence. Any unqualified statement about "atheists" is a generalisation that can be disproved by any atheist who does not share your view.

Og

You are certainly guilty of what you say is my short coming. In any reasoned debate there must be agreed upon definitions and terms which are the premises of reasoned debate. If that is not so, please explain how a reasoned debate works. You certainly can not have a logical debate with with ever changing premises. You say there are no eternal, stable, unchanging truth but fail to show or demonstrate how this is so.

I am not asking any atheist to debunk my views. You do it. If you find my views objectionable, show why these views be faulty. You can not debunk these views by simply saying these views are bunk as you are often to do.

 

[wmrs2]

It's absence implies that your hermetically sealed syllogism cannot withstand the scrutiny of interaction with established empirical evidence.

In this case, the wording of your original statement implies a thing you cannot empirically prove, it is thus useless as a valid premise.

Ok! How is this? I saw it on TV, on CNN and you know that it must be true or they could not say it on TV.

 

[sr71plt]

In any reasoned debate there must be agreed upon definitions and terms which are the premises of reasoned debate.

Exactly, and there have been none on this thread since you started posting to it. You operate on what you claim is belief (but it's a bit scary what that is--certainly not New Testament Christianity), and the athiests (and perhaps others) are operating on scienctific (and/or their rendition of common sense) reasoning. And Amicus is just baiting whoever he can jab at (and patronizing you in the process). There has been no agreement on basic definitions from the get go. And it's gone on and on. Where belief and scientific reasoning intersect on this, to me, is just to let the thread go.

 

[wmrs2]

Saying "a homosexual" -- like "a gay", is an indication of crass ignorance and bigotry. In fact it's such a clear indication, that it's mainly said here as a form of ridicule of the awful homophobic mentality of people who still speak like this.

No! It is not. Can the word homosexuality not be mentioned without such unfounded accusations? The purpose of using the term was to illustrate how quickly those who have the faulty process of reasoning would become hot and bothered when their reasoning process is challenged. This was to create a show and tell example of illogical debate.

Why was the way I spoke considered ridicule? How was it homophobic mentality? You mention crass ignorance and bigotry but the same argument used to justify the homosexual lifestyle is the same argument used to justify pedophilia. Is the argument a bad argument when used against a child molester? Where have you done anything to refute the theist argument other than to make accusations that the argument is full of ridicule. With all do respect, if you do not address the issue better than this, you open yourself and all homosexuals to ridicule for failure to be able to defend your morality.On an intellectual thread like this, surly somebody should be able to offer a more reasoned defense of the atheistic and liberal lifestyle than the one given here. Screaming, yelling, pulling your hair, and say "that explains so much" will not make anybody believe you have a defense to justify your morality; or. do you expect us to believe that it is self-evident what morality is?

 

[wmrs2]

Living in one of your less progressive urban areas, there's always a lag in current pop lexicon - I still say "man" for example, when addressing men, and even sometimes to women, so any advice in this area is always welcome baby.

"Gay" to me personally, means same sex attraction in general, differentiated into homosexual and lesbian respectively, any without reference to any other aspect of gender identification which requires the use of modifiers. Bi is sort of a separate classification.

Colloquially, "gay" typically refers to anything considered unmasculine or even unpopular "that's so gay", though not always in the most virulent pejorative sense, it rather implies something more akin to "odd" or unfashionable, ala South Park. A perceived paucity of masculinity is more likely to earn the more pejorative, "fag".

Literally, gay means "carefree and uninhibited", and I'd have to say I feel like that often enough, so I'm what you might call a "gay heterosexual", in this area, since, as if things were not confusing enough, people here make up their own definitions for words, ala wmrs2.

How have I made up my own definitions of words? Is not the way I have done definitions the same way you just did of the word gay?

 

[rgraham666]

In any reasoned debate there must be agreed upon definitions and terms which are the premises of reasoned debate.

The best way to win a game is to set the playing field, rules and goal posts.

Your 'agreed upon definition' was 'atheists suck!' That was the goal post and you carried the ball through it on your first post.

And the crowd goes wild!

 

[wmrs2]

Why is "atheist" a pejorative term to most Americans?

One reason that atheist and liberal is a pejorative term to most Americans is that theist are expected to give up their traditional beliefs of morality and patriotism based on the say of people that do not believe in self-evident truth. Until atheists can provide a better frame for morality than good logic then they should remain silent and be thankful that the rest of society is willing to tolerate their deviant behavior.

If atheist and liberals keep their blind assault on the morals of the majority of Americans, Americans may fight back like they did in California against same sex marriages and other such intrusions on the American way of life. You do agree that we have the right to present alternate ways of living then to accept new emerging lifestyles simply on the basis that a few minorities claim what they do is simply fine without question?

 

[wmrs2]

A very logical thinker is not a free thinker. A logical thinker is bound by the premises of his thinking. All thinking is flawed if it does not have a stable premise. That is the major fault with communism. Communism rejects Aristotelian logic in favor of relativity. In relativity thinking, one does not need an absolute premise, such as God. This makes a person a "free thinker" to choose whatever seems sensible. Free thinking produced Hitler, Stalin, Killing Fields, etc., all examples of free thinking and moral relativity.

To me, it is better to view your morals and fairness to have come from an Absolute God rather than man's imagination of free thinking, which is vastly over-rated by people who think they are being intellectual by being free thinkers.There is no superiority in being illogical just to be free. Real freedoms are self evident, universal, in the Constitution of the USA. and come from God. Like it or not that is what the forefathers of the USA decided. In every other way, the USA is secular but in our logic, we are absolute, not free thinking.
Say it again! I did.

 

[wmrs2]

The answer is really simple. Humans have been given the knowledge of correct inferences at birth. When something is not logical, they generally know it. Normal humans intuitively know that correct thinking requires stable and absolute premises. Atheism does not have or believe in absolute truth and therefore think differently than the majority of us

 

[sr71plt]

The answer is really simple. Humans have been given the knowledge of correct inferences at birth. When something is not logical, they generally know it.

So, you've never raised any children, I take it.

 

[xssve]

One reason that atheist and liberal is a pejorative term to most Americans is that theist are expected to give up their traditional beliefs of morality and patriotism based on the say of people that do not believe in self-evident truth. Until atheists can provide a better frame for morality than good logic then they should remain silent and be thankful that the rest of society is willing to tolerate their deviant behavior.

If atheist and liberals keep their blind assault on the morals of the majority of Americans, Americans may fight back like they did in California against same sex marriages and other such intrusions on the American way of life. You do agree that we have the right to present alternate ways of living then to accept new emerging lifestyles simply on the basis that a few minorities claim what they do is simply fine without question?

So for you, it is logical to equate morality with patriotism, and proceed to issue threats forthwith?

I applaud you for laying your life on the line for your in defense of the constitution and the country - what branch of the service did you serve in again?

And yes, curiously enough, the Constitution was specifically designed to provide mechanisms for individuals to defend themselves against dictatorships of the majority - something god apparently did not see fit to do according to your self-evident revelation on the matter.

All men are created equal, we hold that truth to be self-evident, and take it from there.

 

[xssve]

A very logical thinker is not a free thinker. A logical thinker is bound by the premises of his thinking. All thinking is flawed if it does not have a stable premise. That is the major fault with communism. Communism rejects Aristotelian logic in favor of relativity. In relativity thinking, one does not need an absolute premise, such as God. This makes a person a "free thinker" to choose whatever seems sensible. Free thinking produced Hitler, Stalin, Killing Fields, etc., all examples of free thinking and moral relativity.

To me, it is better to view your morals and fairness to have come from an Absolute God rather than man's imagination of free thinking, which is vastly over-rated by people who think they are being intellectual by being free thinkers.There is no superiority in being illogical just to be free. Real freedoms are self evident, universal, in the Constitution of the USA. and come from God. Like it or not that is what the forefathers of the USA decided. In every other way, the USA is secular but in our logic, we are absolute, not free thinking.
Say it again! I did.

You just made up a definition of "free thinker", that is subjective entirely to you, and seem well on your way to redefining logic itself.

Greed produced Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., greed and possibly syphilis - and we've gotten a little past Aristotle and the Four humors, although I know it's still considered state of the art in certain circles - we have what is called "organic chemistry" nowadays, you should check it out.