[Dr Laurence Niles]

Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!!

You're waiting for my "source for speculation"? Such a request makes no sense being that it is, as I've stated multiple times, wild speculation. I believe you are still missing the point of those speculatory remarks.


Are you sure?

You seem overly eager to bring these nameless physicists into this discussion as infallible experts on the workings of the universe.


If you happen to know any physicist personally and would like to invite them to join our discussion that would be great. Otherwise, it's best we frame our discussion around data instead of the asserted opinions of non-present parties. Physicists are observers and theorists foremost. Their interpretations of the aforementioned observations are their own. I am not obligated to reach the same conclusions.

To be clear, I am not concerned with any physicist's interpretative theories derived from raw data; only the data itself. I will formulate my own conclusions.


The peacock is a product of order. The continued existence of the species is possible because of order. From inception to adulthood, the growth of a peacock (to name one example) demonstrates predetermined behavioral mechanics ending on the genetic level, but ultimately rooted in the subatomic.


And I insist that chaos and stability are incompatible. Ergo, it is not chaotic. So that we are on the same page, please define "chaos" and give an example. I fear divergent semantics may be at play.

As I mentioned earlier "A human mind's inability to perceive the order of the subatomic universe in a comprehensible manner does not belie the perceptible results: Order." In other words, your inability to make perfect sense of something does not make it chaotic. It merely highlights your own perceptual limits. The end result is undoubtedly ordered. You cannot have both order and chaos working within a sole system. They are mutually exclusive.

It is conceivable that subatomic particles exist in a chaotic state; however, this would indicate that subatomic properties have no effect or relationship to atomic properties (i.e. there is a distinct disconnect between subatomic and atomic). This would make subatomic studies an utter waste as subatomic activity would be meaningless in relation to the perceivable and knowable world. You can't learn about a chaos. There is no knowledge to retain as there is nothing concrete to learn about. It's total chaos. Does this dual reality scenario seem plausible to you? I sure doesn't seem plausible to me.

Why is it that you fringe wingnuts always have to change the font you write in?

YIC

[sammy vanlaun]

Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!!

"Atheist" is an interesting term in that its meaning is subjective, dependent upon the subject matter. Given that this is a Christian forum, or rather, a "True Christian" forum, the term atheist will in the context of this post refer to those who do not believe in the existence and/or divinity of the Christian god. That being the case, no atheist would judge his or her own moral status on the statutes of the Christian Bible (supposedly inspired by said god). Ergo, the Christian Bible is not an applicable means to validate its own internal ideology to an external atheist denouncer.

Therefore, it would seem perfectly acceptable in my estimation that an atheist could admit to having done things the quiz you allude to labels as sins and still maintain that they are, in fact, good people. As good and bad are subjective premises typically linked to social indoctrination and standards, any individual assertion of a moral high ground is inherently absurd.

I might further add that the quiz has a few inconsistencies in its - shall we say - logic.

Case in point. The first question asked is, "Have you ever lied?"

Of course, any human being in their adult life has undoubtedly lied. According to the quiz that person is, for all intents and purposes, a liar. And liars are, presumably, bad.

However, it is never established why lying in and of itself is bad. It does not take into account the circumstances or the maturity level of the individual at the time of the lie. The quiz simply assumes the test takers already shares the test creators' black and white moral stance. If that were the case the test taker would never have chosen to identify themselves as a "good person".

A similar question begs to be asked: Have you ever told the truth?

Of course, any human being in their adult life has undoubtedly told the truth; On more occasions than they have lied, no doubt. Applying the same logic as the quiz, that same person is also a truthful person. And being truthful, I presume, is good by the test creators' moral leanings. This presents an incongruity which I will seek to amend. Assuming that the test taker has told the truth more than he or she has told lies, the scale would invariably favor their truthfulness over their dishonesty. Ergo, they are overall truthful individuals.

In conclusion, the quiz in question is not suitable for determining the moral status of anyone. It simply emphasizes the quiz creators' own predetermined ideology.

Hi, WiccanWarrior here!

I doubt your explanation will go down well, or even be understood at all properly. It blatantly uses logic, rationality and clear-thinking, as well as (gasp) multi-syllabic words.

Blessed be Y'all!

[Looney Jack]

Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!!

What, our default font isn't good enough for the smarty-pants, God-mocking atheist?!?

Well . . . EXCUSE MEEEEEE!!!

Actually, it changed to that font flowing the use of the Preview Post function. I was unable to scroll down to verdana. Even now, if I hit the font drop down I am unable to scroll. Impact is the lowest font reachable on the list.

You might want to have your forum administrators look into that.

[Dr Laurence Niles]

Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!!

Hi, WiccanWarrior here!

I doubt your explanation will go down well, or even be understood at all properly. It blatantly uses logic, rationality and clear-thinking, as well as (gasp) multi-syllabic words.

Blessed be Y'all!

A poorly shrouded ad hom.

Poor form.

YIC

[Looney Jack]

Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!!

They are infallible experts on what physicists (and mathematicians) teach however.

In this, we disagree. Especially if they are teaching interpretations of data along with the raw data itself. They are men and women like any other. You are holding them up to almost prophetic heights. It reminds me of how certain Muslims revere their imams and mullahs. However, the problem presents itself when one considers the common worshipper isn't qualified to ascertain the mullah's infallibility unless the worshipper is equal or more knowledgeable than the mullah. The same applies here. I'm surprised you would even attribute infallibility to a human being regardless of the context. If one didn't know any better they might presume you are a proponent of mainstream scientific opinion masquerading as a Christian.

I'm not the one warbling about physics, chemistry and biology. You are. You're the one who needs to quote sources. At this stage I've even told you what to look for, but I don't suppose you know what that means. Reading one of your posts is a bit like reading a goth poem. Flowery, misapplied language and narcissistic self-obsession.

Sources for what? Would not I be the source of my conclusions? It sounds to me as if you expect me to prop some random physicist up on a pedestal and regurgitate said random physicist's beliefs on the subject. As if I must corroborate with another's opinion to have an opinion. Sorry, but that isn't going to happen.

I understand you may have a predisposition to defer to arbitrary authority in matters, but I am quite capable of deriving my own conclusions. I don't need a source (be it a professor, a book or a working physicist) to tell me how to think. I'm sorry if I appear to be writing a goth poem , but I'm not concerned with rather or not you agree with me nor am I out to convert you to my way of thinking. As with most subjects, a person either accepts or denies. Genuine and absolute knowing tends to be out of reach.

• it's best we frame our discussion around data
Present some.

If you are unfamiliar with general physicsI think you are perfectly capable of educating yourself. The Internet is greatin that respect.

If you are knowledgeable then perhaps you are the one who needs to demonstrate to me why I am wrong; as this subject is clearly near and dear to you. I'm beginning to think that, in the absence of any coherent counter argument, you are trying to shift an imaginary burden over to me in order to avoid addressing my points. The inane questions were my first clue. The second? Your continued deliberately imposed ignorance of my position and overuse of strawmen. You are still talking about a wildly speculative hypothesis that was explained to you to be intended to demonstrate a point, not to be construed as an academic thesis.

[quote] • In regard to any creator(s) the only inference that can be rationally reached
Based on what - you haven't presented anything.
[/QUOTE]

You can choose to accept or deny. That is wholly up to you. If I was to state that water is wet your response might be, "based on what - you haven't presented anything." When the foundation of a statement is self- evident, explanation is unnecessary. Now, just because a conclusion is rational doesn't make it true. It is simply sensible.

In this we have an interesting situation in which given our ultimate ignorance we simply don't know. It is both rational to acknowledge an intellectual creator(s) and to remain agnostic in that regard. My frame of reference leans me toward an intelligent creator(s). I do hold a slightly agnostic view in the sense that there could be something outside my very ability to comprehend. But given the faculties at my disposal the obvious will have to suffice.

• the laws or mathematics governing genetics
What mathematics.

In an ordered universe each object has properties. For instance, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom will form one water molecule. Their properties dictate this. It is "mathematic" in its simplistic predictability. These properties being set in stone can only bring forth one outcome for any circumstance. If we could isolate a portion of physical matter, pause its ongoings and take account of every substance within we could calculate every outcome into infinity on the condition we had absolute knowledge and understanding. The level of order compounds into the behavior of genes. Hence, "the mathematics of genetics".

you are claiming that various fields of endeavour - mainly in the fields of maths and physics with some other stuff thrown in for good measure - are in error, suggesting that you have some insight which will set them all straight (having neither quoted any published work nor referred to any current research projects).

In taking the moral high ground, as you seem to think you're doing,

More strawmen, Liz? With a little itty bit of ad hominem for seasoning? Ah, and the filling... mmm, an appeal to authority. So many different ingredients.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!!

Well you obviously don't know what a source is. Neither do you appreciate why they need to be cited. Nor for that matter do you seem to understand what "WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM" means.

There is a reason why.

I TIMOTHY 6
13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
KJV

You close with a nice showy display of ignorance:

two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom will form one water molecule. Their properties dictate this. It is "mathematic"

No it's not. It's chemistry. If you were prepared to ask a chemist about the subject .. .. well it's futile isn't it. You don't know what that means. God explains:

II PETER 1
16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
KJV

It is so sad that you choose to follow fables; they're not cunningly devised in fact I don't think the word "devised" is applicable at all.

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!!

Hi, WiccanWarrior here!

I doubt your explanation will go down well, or even be understood at all properly. It blatantly uses logic, rationality and clear-thinking, as well as (gasp) multi-syllabic words.

Blessed be Y'all!

Funny coming from someone who believes the moon is some goddess and that they can change the laws of physics with the wave of a stick.

Don't you have a black cat to fornicate with?

[Looney Jack]

Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!!

Well you obviously don't know what a source is. Neither do you appreciate why they need to be cited. Nor for that matter do you seem to understand what "WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM" means.

Nice try, Liz. But I've already informed you of the source of my conclusions... Me. Clearly you have no counter-argument or rational objections, but merely disagree on principle. Which is not an uncommon stance among religious types.

Take care.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Atheists!! Think you are a moral person? Take the test!!

Nice try, Liz. But I've already informed you of the source of my conclusions... Me.

And why, pray tell, should we care about this?

Clearly you have no counter-argument or rational objections, but merely disagree on principle.

Clearly you have no ability to see the irony of your statement. Your only counter-argument or so-called "rational objections" relies on the flimsy foundation that you don't like it. Miss Lizalor took the time to show you from where she obtains her source, and why, and under what context. You continue to argue for the sake of arguing, clogging up our fine Godly forums with useless babble, and distracting our world-wide reader base from the most important thing they need - Repentance and Glorifying God. Because you are unsaved scum, befouling the LORD our God, you have agreed to forfeit your soul and you will be dismissed, damned, denounced, deported, defamed, harassed, harried, ridiculed, and otherwise rebuked to Hell as God commands us to do through his holy scripture!

Praise God!