|
Post by rational on May 23, 2015 22:14:36 GMT -5
Do you have evidence, actual verifiable evidence, to the contrary? Not that you'd accept but that's a symptom of your pathos. Reproducible verifiable facts as opposed to the hopes and wishes of the unsupported faith of believers? Explain your conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 23, 2015 22:16:57 GMT -5
A dimensionally-bigger being can't be proven on your terms, if your terms are too local. Face it Lee, you couldn't prove it no matter what size you chose to use. Or, if I am wrong, please demonstrate my error.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on May 25, 2015 21:31:46 GMT -5
An atheist cannot begin to explain sentience as its taken to be 'real'. What makes our experiences 'real'?
You say, materialism. You're a liar! '
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 25, 2015 22:05:27 GMT -5
Do you have evidence, actual verifiable evidence, to the contrary? Not that you'd accept but that's a symptom of your pathos. Lee, since you seem to use words to confuse rather than enlighten, could you perhaps tell us why "that's a symptom of your pathos?" Contemporary pathos" " George Campbell, a contributor to the Scottish Enlightenment, was one of the first rhetoricians to incorporate scientific evidence into his theory of emotional appeal.[13]
Campbell relied heavily on a book written by physician David Hartley, entitled Observations on Man.
The book synthesized emotions and neurology and introduced the concept that action is a result of impression.
Hartley determined that emotions drive people to react to appeals based on circumstance, but also passions made up of cognitive impulses.[13]
Campbell argues that belief and persuasion depend heavily on the force of an emotional appeal.[14]
Furthermore, Campbell introduced the importance of the audience’s imagination on and will on emotional persuasion that is equally as important as basic understanding of an argument.[14]
Campbell, by drawing on the theories of rhetoricians before him, drew up a contemporary view of Pathos that incorporates the psychological aspect of emotional appeal.
An orator’s reliance on emotional appeal is evident in modern-day speechmaking, but this technique is no longer referred to as emotional appeal; it is instead psychological.[13]
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 25, 2015 22:12:30 GMT -5
An atheist cannot begin to explain sentience as its taken to be 'real'. What makes our experiences 'real'? You say, materialism. You're a liar!' liarA liar is someone who doesn't tell the truth. A liar tells lies.
"Liar, liar, pants on fire," a phrase of unknown origin, is a children's jump-rope rhyme also used as a playground taunt.
Adults have also been known to use the phrase or part of it as a particularly demeaning insult.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 25, 2015 22:58:50 GMT -5
An atheist cannot begin to explain sentience as its taken to be 'real'. What makes our experiences 'real'? Since you didn't bother to define what meaning of sentience you are using I will Western philosophy. Sentience, simply put, is the ability to experience sensations. This is a well studied area of biology and the sensations can be recreated in the brain without the sensation actually being present. Real or false, the brain creates the memories by assembling the input it has received. What part do you feel is not understood? Nothing makes the experiences real. They are all second-hand. But that is just me, an atheist, explaining what is known. Perhaps you, theist, can explain it in more detail. I am sure readers are awaiting your reply.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 26, 2015 17:44:31 GMT -5
Not at all. Tolerance allows for diversity in thought. Innovation and progress are the result where there is such diversity. Sometimes diversity means perversity; you don't believe that's possible, good atheist you are. Generally, uniformity leads to perversity, much more so than diversity. For example, in standard Christian theology, homosexuality is considered perverse. There are countless stories of Christian gays locked in an unhappy marriage resorting to promiscuous and unsafe sexual behaviour that will satisfy their sexual urges, perverse behaviour. When such behaviour is not "outlawed" the possibility of sexually satisfying AND stable and long-lasting relationships becomes a possibility for homosexuals. Just one of many examples of how tolerance and diversity leaves people to find their own centre, while enforced uniformity keeps them from it.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on May 28, 2015 1:27:04 GMT -5
Uniformity under the law God gave to the Jews was God's first special act of Grace to mankind. His second was Christ who met people where they were but didn't leave them there. Changing the law of God means accommodation, not tolerance.
At issue here is what is normative. Should our anatomies determine our sexual orientation or our feelings? I concur, while our feelings lie just as you implied, closer to our own center, a human-based center, don't our anatomies correspond closer to the prerogatives and imperatives of a creator? To whom shall we defer?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on May 28, 2015 1:34:40 GMT -5
An atheist cannot begin to explain sentience as its taken to be 'real'. What makes our experiences 'real'? Since you didn't bother to define what meaning of sentience you are using I will Western philosophy. Sentience, simply put, is the ability to experience sensations. This is a well studied area of biology and the sensations can be recreated in the brain without the sensation actually being present. Real or false, the brain creates the memories by assembling the input it has received. What part do you feel is not understood? Nothing makes the experiences real. They are all second-hand. But that is just me, an atheist, explaining what is known. Perhaps you, theist, can explain it in more detail. I am sure readers are awaiting your reply. So there's only phenomenology. Bullsh! No one believes that in the real world. Nobody anyway who hasn't been deceived by his own vanity.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 28, 2015 2:40:22 GMT -5
Since you didn't bother to define what meaning of sentience you are using I will Western philosophy. Sentience, simply put, is the ability to experience sensations. This is a well studied area of biology and the sensations can be recreated in the brain without the sensation actually being present. Real or false, the brain creates the memories by assembling the input it has received. What part do you feel is not understood? Nothing makes the experiences real. They are all second-hand. But that is just me, an atheist, explaining what is known. Perhaps you, theist, can explain it in more detail. I am sure readers are awaiting your reply. So there's only phenomenology. Bullsh! No one believes that in the real world. Nobody anyway who hasn't been deceived by his own vanity. Phenomenology?
Could it be that you have your _ologies mixed up, Lee?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 28, 2015 3:16:51 GMT -5
Uniformity under the law God gave to the Jews was God's first special act of Grace to mankind. His second was Christ who met people where they were but didn't leave them there. Changing the law of God means accommodation, not tolerance. At issue here is what is normative. Should our anatomies determine our sexual orientation or our feelings? I concur, while our feelings lie just as you implied, closer to our own center, a human-based center, don't our anatomies correspond closer to the prerogatives and imperatives of a creator? To whom shall we defer? Perhaps, Lee, this would be a good time for you to research hermaphroditism .
Some types of Hermaphroditism can have the gonads of both sexes
Hermaphroditism is the presence in an individual of both ovarian and testicular tissues and of ambiguous morphologic criteria of sex; Hermaphroditism is that in which the external genital organs are typical of one sex and the gonads typical of the other sex.
There is a lot of variations.
We had an case at the University of Illinois where I had my pediatric training.
Do you believe that same " creator" who "created" you, also created that child?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 28, 2015 5:37:01 GMT -5
Uniformity under the law God gave to the Jews was God's first special act of Grace to mankind. His second was Christ who met people where they were but didn't leave them there. Changing the law of God means accommodation, not tolerance. At issue here is what is normative. Should our anatomies determine our sexual orientation or our feelings? I concur, while our feelings lie just as you implied, closer to our own center, a human-based center, don't our anatomies correspond closer to the prerogatives and imperatives of a creator? To whom shall we defer? Perhaps, Lee, this would be a good time for you to research hermaphroditism .
Some types of Hermaphroditism can have the gonads of both sexes
Hermaphroditism is the presence in an individual of both ovarian and testicular tissues and of ambiguous morphologic criteria of sex; Hermaphroditism is that in which the external genital organs are typical of one sex and the gonads typical of the other sex.
There is a lot of variations.
We had an case at the University of Illinois where I had my pediatric training.
Do you believe that same " creator" who "created" you, also created that child?
Good point. To answer Lee, the evidence is that the Creator has allowed for random mutation in the genome structure, and that life in nature is diverse, not uniform at all. The sexes and species that currently exist appear to be a particular result of the process, not a pre-determined goal in a Creator's mind.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on May 29, 2015 10:28:14 GMT -5
The pleasure principle is all that applies then. If one dick is good two are better. If there are two breasts, there should be four. As surgeries to this affect become economical, mankind will finally be redeemed from his prison.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 29, 2015 14:33:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 29, 2015 20:30:43 GMT -5
The pleasure principle is all that applies then. If one dick is good two are better. If there are two breasts, there should be four. As surgeries to this affect become economical, mankind will finally be redeemed from his prison. If people with diphallia had an advantage for survival there would be more than the few there are worldwide. For some species of mammals more than two breasts have proved to be an advantage and it has become commonplace. Perhaps an easier and quicker way than surgery would be to look at resolving what seems to be an obsession with the sexual practices of other people. Have you answered the question - Why do you care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home? Or you a person who believes if two people are not allowed to marry they will not engage in any sexual relations?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on May 29, 2015 21:42:37 GMT -5
Homosexuality isn't sexual.
Homosexual marriages aren't sexual marriages.
I'm against laws and language that grays our grasp of what's sexual and what isn't.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 30, 2015 0:36:20 GMT -5
Homosexuality isn't sexual. Homosexual marriages aren't sexual marriages. I'm against laws and language that grays our grasp of what's sexual and what isn't. Can you explain what you meant by this: "Homosexuality isn't sexual. Homosexual marriages aren't sexual marriages."
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 30, 2015 0:44:16 GMT -5
The pleasure principle is all that applies then. If one dick is good two are better. If there are two breasts, there should be four. As surgeries to this affect become economical, mankind will finally be redeemed from his prison. Did you read anything at all about hermaphroditism ?
"Some types of Hermaphroditism can have the gonads of both sexes
Hermaphroditism is the presence in an individual of both ovarian and testicular tissues and of ambiguous morphologic criteria of sex; Hermaphroditism is that in which the external genital organs are typical of one sex and the gonads typical of the other sex.
There is a lot of variations."
This has nothing to do with "laws and language that grays."
It is about medical anatomical and hormonal conditions that children are born with, through no fault of their own or anyone else, -except perhaps your almighty, all perfect , all knowing, CREATOR.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 30, 2015 7:47:04 GMT -5
Homosexuality isn't sexual. You clearly are using a different definition that the common one. homosexuality - sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 2, 2015 10:28:43 GMT -5
Perhaps, Lee, this would be a good time for you to research hermaphroditism .
Some types of Hermaphroditism can have the gonads of both sexes
Hermaphroditism is the presence in an individual of both ovarian and testicular tissues and of ambiguous morphologic criteria of sex; Hermaphroditism is that in which the external genital organs are typical of one sex and the gonads typical of the other sex.
There is a lot of variations.
We had an case at the University of Illinois where I had my pediatric training.
Do you believe that same " creator" who "created" you, also created that child?
Good point. To answer Lee, the evidence is that the Creator has allowed for random mutation in the genome structure, and that life in nature is diverse, not uniform at all. The sexes and species that currently exist appear to be a particular result of the process, not a pre-determined goal in a Creator's mind. God is, or is not a god of order then? Seems obvious to me there is a duality that attends all of life, the holy spirit acting upon and within a local platform.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 3, 2015 10:08:10 GMT -5
Good point. To answer Lee, the evidence is that the Creator has allowed for random mutation in the genome structure, and that life in nature is diverse, not uniform at all. The sexes and species that currently exist appear to be a particular result of the process, not a pre-determined goal in a Creator's mind. God is, or is not a god of order then? Seems obvious to me there is a duality that attends all of life, the holy spirit acting upon and within a local platform. I'm curious what you mean by "a duality that attends all of life". There are sexes, for example. Sex, or rather, gender, has been a product of the evolutionary process, and there is certainly a duality in that. But as DMG noted, some species are hermaphroditic and some are sexless entirely. In spite of the theory of evolution, or rather, more because of it, the entire natural ecosystem and how it has come to be is miraculous and a wonder. What we've learned by it does undermine many of the notions previously held about the mind of God, for the better, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 3, 2015 20:44:44 GMT -5
I agree and disagree.
As I see it, creation is the localization of God, or God painting. In order to paint he uses the conventions of laws, tendencies and particles. Concomitantly, the will of the Created emerges as distinct from the Creator.
Duality? The marriage of the unconventional with the conventional, the spirit and the flesh as the Bible calls them. While life is sustained upon a conventional platform, it is maintained directly by the unconventional, God.
It is always a good season to ponder the nature of God and Creation. At any time our personal conflicts may be physical, spiritual or both. Over or under-emphasis of either one will skew our optics.
nuf said
|
|