Worked for me! It is so simple and so hard to accept and understand this truth. And then comes real phylosophical truth - truth is simple but very hard to accept.
Shazard
JoinedPosts by Shazard
-
7
Hits the nail on the head
by moomanchu inthought i'd share this chart from the life applicaton study bible.
salvation through faith.
religon by self-effort salvation by faith.
-
-
-
108
Gay Marriage - The War for Equality
by Inquisitor ini've just read lola28's thread "for those against gay marriage".
i thought i should present a clear message on what i think the gay marriage issue is all about.
the trouble with most discussions on this issue is that it gets clouded by a plethora of side-issues, non-issues, cave-men chest-thumping and medieval puritanism.
-
-
Shazard
>But you didn't answer my original example - what about straight couples who cannot reproduce?
I answered. What about policemen who sit at the desk? Should we remove their rights to use force? Rights are grantet for one to have ABILITY to perform some duties. If the rights are not granted they can't perform the duties! But if they do not USE their rights, it is their problem and problem of society. But this is exceptional state. Also couples who are unable to procreate are good for adoptation, as they still have the right model of society!
> Are you saying that gay couples are incapable of teaching?
Teaching WHAT? What Values? Well it would be pain to ask for them to teach values which are agaisnt their own values. So what they can teach is THEIR values... but to whom... to THEIR children or to other children? So in general, they can teach values they believe in without cognitive dissonanse only if the values reflect their own... but their values generate family whcih can't produce humans biologicallhy, so their values produce society which dies out.
>What about single parents? Are they incapable of teaching and nuturing? Why are single parents any more qualified than >two
>loving gay parents? In fact, I think the argument could be made that two gay parents are better than a single parent.
Where do gay parents get their children? And what VALUES they teach? Do they teach values to create families which are able to born and carry and teach other children - society members? All what they can is higjact other children and teach them their values which they would not be tought should they grow in theri original family.
Anyone who teaches procreative values is better suited for teaching then one who teaches values which bear no fruit!
>The only duty of straight marriage that a gay couple cannot perform is biological reproduction with each other. Haven't
>you heard of adoption? Surrogacy? Every single other function of marriage can be performed by a gay couple. Marriage is
>about companionship too. Are gay people incapable of companionship?
See... that means that GAY society is only possible in high-tech society. But this high-tech society is possible only from low-tech society evolution. But only way how low-tech society gets to high-tech society is - procreation trhough traditional value. So GAY society can exist only if it parasites on STRIGHTS traditional value oriented society... Is it your values? Do you grant equal rights to cancer and to healthy organism?
>Or are you arguing against gay marriage simply because you don't like it? Isn't part of a civil society the idea of
>alllowing people to engage in activities we don't like, as long as they aren't harming anyone else?
How do you define "harming anyone else"? What IS harming? If Cult leader takes YOUR children indoctrinates them in the way they GLADLY obey to this Cult Leader and gladly makes himself into slave... is it OK... as nobody is harming anyone. Both sides are very HAPPY!
See... this is very bad argumentation as you will paint yourself into corner, where "Leave me alone coz your care is harming me" will make drugs legal! :) I feel good, and leeave me alone. How do you define "harm to anyone". If I feel offended - does it qualify as harm to me? If your target is society where nobody is being harmed, then your target is utopia in this world... And sometimes harm is for greater good! And sometime FEAR of Harm gets you to loose of your sick limb, which just falls off because of cancer! To cut out cancer is HARMFUL... To leave cancer... yes... nobody is harmed.. . for some time, while whole organism dies out.
As I told... gay-oriented society and marriage can exist only as parasitic form of society. If you remove traditional family and hig-tech technologies, gay-society will die out as will become sterile. OR it will be forced to enforce sex between opposite genders but now without love... wich would qualify as rape! -
108
Gay Marriage - The War for Equality
by Inquisitor ini've just read lola28's thread "for those against gay marriage".
i thought i should present a clear message on what i think the gay marriage issue is all about.
the trouble with most discussions on this issue is that it gets clouded by a plethora of side-issues, non-issues, cave-men chest-thumping and medieval puritanism.
-
-
Shazard
So my predictions for future scenarious!
As gay marriage is not re-productive, but gay-rigth and gay-phylosophy needs the idea carriers which can't be grown by themselves naturally, then two scenarious are bvious!
1. Society which does not reproduce (destroys natural family) dies itself, so it is short-lived and reproductive constructs prevail. So this gay-stuff is just social fluctuation which is short-term in the terms of civilization.
2. Gays import society members, and re-indoctrinate them into their teachings. For this traditional marriage is still needed for gay-oriented-society, but the traditional marriage should be castrated to have their rights to teach their own values. So gay-oriented-society needs POWER to take over Education so they could override stight-oriented-society member world-views with gay-world-view! In this scenario stright-oriented-society is made into reproductive mechanism without rights to teach and grow their own children according to their values, so traditional family is stripped of their rights to teach values which implies stirght-oriented-family and society!
So if Western World goes into #2 scenariou, we should expect growing power from pro-gay parties and groups, their infiltration into education and law-making structures, so they should rebuild society to produce for them drones, which their indoctrinate! So the target would be two-level society - elite which has benefits and control of information/world-view and lower society, which produces new humans for elite! Ofcourse this case implies two sets of rights, duties, which are not shared, and first should go rights for stright-ppl to educate their children as they see fit! -
108
Gay Marriage - The War for Equality
by Inquisitor ini've just read lola28's thread "for those against gay marriage".
i thought i should present a clear message on what i think the gay marriage issue is all about.
the trouble with most discussions on this issue is that it gets clouded by a plethora of side-issues, non-issues, cave-men chest-thumping and medieval puritanism.
-
-
Shazard
jastlin, your argument agaisnt my argument is one of logical fallacies ppl often fall into. You want to make general implications/law based on exceptional/non-natural state of other laws.
Legal rights of marriage has only meaning if rights are balanced with duties. It is not reasonable to give some rights if you do not ask something back. There are natural rights, which is OK. Rights of marriage are not natural rights, they are granted rights by society. TO grant some rights means to grant them for some benefits you get back. Rights to use force are granted to police for they could perform their duties. Rights to signt papers are granted to directors so they could performe their duties - in general police and directors have some duties for benefit of whole society. They are not granted them just for their own sake and benefits. BUT there ARE policemen who never use their right to use force, they do not need it or they somehow perform their duties without applying their rights. That does not mean we should remove their rights coz they do not use them.
Now back to original topic. Marriage rights and benefits are granted to stright ppl so they COULD perform their duties for benefits of society... originally... reproduction of the same society. And reproduction is not only birth, but also education, teaching, sustaining the memeber while he is able to live by himself and integrate fully into society!
NOW... WHY Gays should have the same rights, if they can't performe the same duties? In the police case, WHY should I grant rights to use force for somebody who does not or is unable to perform duties of law enforcement?
This is the very big mistake of Franch revolution, to create idea of RIGHTS and do not work also on DUTIES! Rights without duties is just - waste of resources - gifts you should pay for from your pocket! Are you ready... if you are... go on, I am not ready to waset my resources to give ppl righs just because they want the privilleges but does not want and even are not able to perform the duties these rigts were created for! -
108
Gay Marriage - The War for Equality
by Inquisitor ini've just read lola28's thread "for those against gay marriage".
i thought i should present a clear message on what i think the gay marriage issue is all about.
the trouble with most discussions on this issue is that it gets clouded by a plethora of side-issues, non-issues, cave-men chest-thumping and medieval puritanism.
-
-
Shazard
jastlin, So the bottomline is, that who has right to change society? I guess only legitimate righs comes from society itself. Society are individuals, decision making individuals. Each of them has rights to redefine society they are part of. You can propose some changes in the society, I have proposals too, you can oppose my proposals, I can oppose your proposals in the lawful rightfull order which is pretty nicely defined in our society and culture.
pro-gay-rigth ppl use faulty logic, they say, that gay ppl are denied some rights which they kind a allready have. Nope, they don't have the rights and never had them. So the position to gain righst should not be that they allready have the rights, and we denie them. They don't have rights, and we only do not want to give them just because they want them. Why should we give them the rights when they are not able to performe the very duties rights implies? Traditional mariage has their rights coz they need the rights to performe the duties. Society does not pay to family to grow society members. They have to do it on their own, sharing THERI resources, wasting THEIR resources to grow YOUR society members. So that's why they are granted other benefits and privilleges, so to balance their duties and resource wasting to motivate actually grow new ppl, so society can get going forward. Now you want the same RIGHTS and PRIVILLEGES grant to the ppl who are UNABLE biologically to reproduce the society. So society want to grant some Society Resoures to couples which can't give anything back to the Society... so Society is making actual suicide as society.
NOW... if you GIVE the rights to gays, then you have to PAY extra for heterosexual couples to motivate them to reproduce society members. Otherway why should I waste MY resources for YOUR benefits? -
108
Gay Marriage - The War for Equality
by Inquisitor ini've just read lola28's thread "for those against gay marriage".
i thought i should present a clear message on what i think the gay marriage issue is all about.
the trouble with most discussions on this issue is that it gets clouded by a plethora of side-issues, non-issues, cave-men chest-thumping and medieval puritanism.
-
-
Shazard
Inquisitor... It is unjustly to apply similar rules for different people. That is communism, and how unjust it is history has shown. That is what you get when you overstate the value of "Equality"!
And yes, I oppose gay marriage as it is unnatural, it tries to redefine trditional termo "marriage" into something what was not orriginally implied by the term. And marriage rights are connected with marriage duties! Originally marriage and family was building block of society. Ppl living in marriage provided small micromodel of society, thus creating and growing society members for the benefits of the society. Gay marriage Does NOT by definition is able to produce human, and tries to overturn prooved good, tested and traditionally accepted form of society "regeneration" through traditional marriage. As marriage is at the base of society structure, thus changes in this institution implies changes in society. As I am member of THIS society I have voice rights to oppose to changes of the society I am living in just as I have voice to oppose in changes in my family from my family members.
I haven't heard reasonable argumetnation WHY gay marriage should be treated equaly with heterosexual marriage, if the traditional marriage it's rights gains from it's functions - reproduction and society making! Why then we do not grant the same rights to CHANGE our society to any group which wants to change the society - to Communists, to Nazis, to Cult leaders? They all then have EQUAL rights to define and change what IS marriage what IS society and HOW it is build? Why only gays are somehow special to redefine traditional understanding of what is marriage, it's functions, rights and duties? If equal, then ALL equal, then each and every member/group can have the rights to define the society as society starsts from family, clan, village, city, state! -
64
Why I post about atheism
by nvrgnbk inoftentimes the accusation is made that there is some sort of conspiracy on jwd amongst the atheists to convert, humiliate, spit on, or otherwise degrade the believers.
it's been suggested that their tone is condescending and arrogant.. it's hinted at that they're angry and bitter about their own lives and want to take it out on god and his humble servants.. others think it's all just an excuse to lead what they judge to be a morally depraved life.. regardless of what we believe about god's existence or lack thereof, most rational adults understand that when we attempt to judge the motives of others we can miss by a mile.. so here's the reason i post about the topic of atheism.... i was born as one of jehovah's witnesses, fourth generation.
i was being indoctrinated with jehovah while i was still in the womb.
-
-
Shazard
My position is that each paradigm, worldview starts somewhere. Starts with some apriori knowledge and apriori modus operandi (framework of knowledge gathering, producing, synthesis, analysis) which should be taken apriori as true and good. You can't come up with any framework until you don't have some building bricks and basic tools of building.
Epistimology is science of knowledege, what it means to know. Therea are different brnaches and different views. Also there are different phylosophical results such as there is no possible to compare paradigms.
So 99.99% atheists fall into evidentalism branch of epistimology. The same Epistimology and different scientists (Alvin Plantiga, Gattier) provides counterexamples how evidentalism does not produce knowledge!
Theism is another branch which would qualify into warrant and proper function school of Epistimology, which explains and allows existence of apriori knowledge, which is kind a problemastic in evidentalism aproach.
So my position starts with epistimology, what is your framework of producing knowledge, truth and how one actually aquire information from reality. What IS reality, is it independent or dependent on ones perception. As I mentioned, atheist view mixing metodological naturalism with phylosophical naturalism fall into the pit which they themsleves fight against - they define reality by subjective perception. If I percieve it - it IS - if I am not able to percieve it - it DOES NOT exist... objectively. So objective reality becomes dependent of ones capabilities to percieve reality!
My position is that reality is independent of our own perception. X-rays where is and will be independently if we can see them or we can't. Pink Unicorn existence is independent of our perception of them. If they are, good, if they do not exist, we will never knew. It is actually very hard to be 100% sure of NON-existence of something. One good (and I am not sure if 100% true) way how NON-existent things are prooved - is by demonstrating their logical contradiction. Logic is one of frameworks of knowledge gathering and reality measure. It is pretty consistent to count that there are not invisible pink unicorns as "invisible pink" is logical contradiction atleast in our dimension/Universe!
So when I have accepted that reality atleast partially is independent of my perception, I have to come up with way how to question this reality and how to intepretate it's answers. I have to build some basic stuff, basic framework BEFORE I even go outdoors to start precieving reality! What gives me right to make such basic stuff... again... apriori BELIEF that my mind is capable of percieving THIS reality and capable of PROCESSING incomming signals and that there is correlation between what IS and what I percieve! To come to this conclusion I have to believe that my mind is working properly.
And at this point materialism is being thrown away... coz materialism insist that our mind is product of survival of the fittest which means that my mind is NOT developed for percieving truth, but for survival. If I go along with materialism I loose any base to believe what my mind is producing... I can't be sure anyway that product of my mind has something to do with reality. What materialism ought me to believe and accept is that product of my mind has only survival value, not value of truth. But ofcourse... belief that electric wires contains evil Spirit Ctulhu has the same survival value as knowledge about electricity... but which one is true in the framework of mind which is tuned not for turth but for survival? See... I can't use materialism even to START going outside in my garden and be sure that I will learn something TRUE about world. I would learn something USEFUL for SURVIVAL but I won't be sure if it is true... so I will not be sure if my knowledge has something to do with Reality and I will not be sure if my model which is produced by my mind is adequate and will not decieve me?
So this is what I need... additional BELIEF apriori that my mind is designed, produced, created with capability of percieving TRUTH and PRODUCING truth! And this belief can't be produced without inferrence to Intelligent designer!
This is not all, but I guess ppl here can get some feeling about my position! -
64
Why I post about atheism
by nvrgnbk inoftentimes the accusation is made that there is some sort of conspiracy on jwd amongst the atheists to convert, humiliate, spit on, or otherwise degrade the believers.
it's been suggested that their tone is condescending and arrogant.. it's hinted at that they're angry and bitter about their own lives and want to take it out on god and his humble servants.. others think it's all just an excuse to lead what they judge to be a morally depraved life.. regardless of what we believe about god's existence or lack thereof, most rational adults understand that when we attempt to judge the motives of others we can miss by a mile.. so here's the reason i post about the topic of atheism.... i was born as one of jehovah's witnesses, fourth generation.
i was being indoctrinated with jehovah while i was still in the womb.
-
-
Shazard
Awakened07
You told:
I think that if science hadn't answered any questions regarding how the universe and species (and possibly life itself) emerged, I would have been a deist based on the above and other questions, and lack of personal experience with a deity. As it is, I don't think I would have been a theist.
For me it is new. Did science answered this? In particulary, where could I read some papers about abiogenesis repeated empirically, it's mathematical (it is language of physics) apparatus and more, where could I get to know new emerging technologies of IT software which employs the process/math to generate new software without human interference, plainly using this process which generated life from nonlife.
If there is no empirical evidence of repeated abiogenesis demonstrated, if there is no mathematical apparatus which describes such process, then I guess you are lying or just interpretating some data to favour such process which is not demosnstrated.
But I could demonstrate you how mind can produce spciefied complexity and even some basic building blocks of life - proteins! Ahh yes, may be science has explained mind itself too, that would make software engineer job unnecessary and would produce AI... do we have such case?
We believe in God of gaps, you believe in "future materialistic explanation". It is nice to see atheist to refer to some explanation which is supposted to appear somwhere in near future as it is allready prooven fact. Most funny is that materialist allows only materialistic explanation of phenomena and most funny, only such explanation which fits current knwoledge of how Universe works (hmmm what would brother Raits would say about such reasoning)... and this view by very definition exlcudes any other explanation which means IF the phenomena is outside of materialistic paradigm, then materialists will not be able to see it by the limitation of methodological naturalism which atheists mix with phylosophical naturalism... Even if there IS God materialists will never experience him as they just do not allow nonmaterialistic beings to exist! Materialist definition of objective existence is subjective perception. Things start to exist only when materialist percieves them and can describe them, until then... it does not exist objectively! :) And how do you actually cross the streets without being hit by bus? -
64
Why I post about atheism
by nvrgnbk inoftentimes the accusation is made that there is some sort of conspiracy on jwd amongst the atheists to convert, humiliate, spit on, or otherwise degrade the believers.
it's been suggested that their tone is condescending and arrogant.. it's hinted at that they're angry and bitter about their own lives and want to take it out on god and his humble servants.. others think it's all just an excuse to lead what they judge to be a morally depraved life.. regardless of what we believe about god's existence or lack thereof, most rational adults understand that when we attempt to judge the motives of others we can miss by a mile.. so here's the reason i post about the topic of atheism.... i was born as one of jehovah's witnesses, fourth generation.
i was being indoctrinated with jehovah while i was still in the womb.
-
-
Shazard
What-a-coincidence
JW is no match for me! Can you counterargument? How do you remove personal dislike of different-then-my morals from arguemnt from evil reasoning. It by itself implies trascendent moral code which atheist applies to measure God's (and not only) morals. Which implies trascendent moral law giver/source! But that contradicts atheist default position, so atheist is left with subjective sense of what is right and wrong in particular state of universe, so all you got is local narrow view on global process which you somehow use to justify your attitude to this global process! How that is possible and stay cosistent in your mind is beyond my understanding, which, ofcourse is not absolute, but you are free to answer! -
64
Why I post about atheism
by nvrgnbk inoftentimes the accusation is made that there is some sort of conspiracy on jwd amongst the atheists to convert, humiliate, spit on, or otherwise degrade the believers.
it's been suggested that their tone is condescending and arrogant.. it's hinted at that they're angry and bitter about their own lives and want to take it out on god and his humble servants.. others think it's all just an excuse to lead what they judge to be a morally depraved life.. regardless of what we believe about god's existence or lack thereof, most rational adults understand that when we attempt to judge the motives of others we can miss by a mile.. so here's the reason i post about the topic of atheism.... i was born as one of jehovah's witnesses, fourth generation.
i was being indoctrinated with jehovah while i was still in the womb.
-
-
Shazard
Ohh classic - problem of evil!
It boils down to - I don't believe in GOd coz he is not acting as I would if I would be God :)
Next logical step - I don't believe in God if I am not THE God or He is not my personal Wishmaker!
Good luck with this reasoning - it is typical reasoning which Atheists call "rational" and somehow they believe that this IS rational thinking and perception of the Reality!