Discussion:
"Why did God create atheists?"
Add Reply
g***@gmail.com
2018-09-03 05:34:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Martin Buber wrote, in his book "Tales of Hasidism, Vol 2" that:

"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that God
created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is
here to teach us a lesson.

One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why
did God create them?'

The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You see,
when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick,
helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so
because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God
at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look
at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to
be right.'

'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches out to
you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help you.'
Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that
there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help you'."
Greywolf
2018-09-03 06:07:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that God
created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is
here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why
did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You see,
when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick,
helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so
because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God
at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look
at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to
be right.'
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches out to
you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help you.'
Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that
there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help you'."
___

A terrific post.

If all theists held such a wonderfully tolerant viewpoint, the world would, indeed, be a better place.

Unfortunately, far too often, they don't.
John Locke
2018-09-03 14:34:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that God
created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is
here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why
did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You see,
when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick,
helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so
because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God
at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look
at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to
be right.'
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches out to
you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help you.'
Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that
there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help you'."
...the Master is dead on. Theists take note !
default
2018-09-03 15:45:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that God
created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is
here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why
did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You see,
when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick,
helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so
because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God
at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look
at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to
be right.'
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches out to
you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help you.'
Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that
there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help you'."
Eggsactly.

From Wikipedia:
Buber's collection includes a focus on the theme of non-judgment.
Rebbes in the work often chastise followers for pious behavior and
reward those who keep the spirit and tradition of Judaism alive.
aaa
2018-09-03 14:35:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that
God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since
everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists?
Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You
see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who
is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not
doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that
God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe
in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality.
And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he
feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
Post by g***@gmail.com
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches out
to you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help
you.' Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine
that there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help you'."
Apparently not. It's his "inner sense of morality" made him do that.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
g***@gmail.com
2018-09-03 19:01:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that
God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since
everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists?
Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You
see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who
is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not
doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that
God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe
in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality.
And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he
feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
Empathy. We all have it. It's very much a survival trait, since humans
alone aren't that impressive an animal, but humans bonded in groups are
formidable. And empathy is essential for that bonding.

Which explains the fact that we are much more inclined to love, support, assist,
mourn, and generally get involved with people in direct proportion to how close
they are to us. We're very moral towards someone in our immediate group, less
so with strangers. And we feel far too free to let starve those in distant countries.

If morality came from God, then we'd act just as morally towards someone
across town, across the state, across the globe as we would towards our
own sons and daughters.

But we don't. That's because empathy is stronger the closer someone is to
us. And thus only in the most empathic of us do we find morality so developed that
they will extend support to total strangers, and even to enemies.


Of course, if you still claim morality comes from God, you are invited to put
your proof of that here:








Quadro Octavius
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches out
to you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help
you.' Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine
that there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help you'."
Apparently not. It's his "inner sense of morality" made him do that.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
aaa
2018-09-04 16:11:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that
addresses this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the
student that God created everything in the world to be
appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion.
You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits
someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the
world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He
does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In
fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on
an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can
bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
Empathy. We all have it. It's very much a survival trait, since
humans alone aren't that impressive an animal, but humans bonded in
groups are formidable. And empathy is essential for that bonding.
That's an obvious false interpretation. Empathy isn't a mere survival
instinct. It's a lot greater than that. It makes a person giving up his
own survival instead.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Which explains the fact that we are much more inclined to love,
support, assist, mourn, and generally get involved with people in
direct proportion to how close they are to us. We're very moral
towards someone in our immediate group, less so with strangers. And
we feel far too free to let starve those in distant countries.
That's only due to human limitation to acquire empathy. Empathy
apparently isn't something that everyone can automatically have just by
wishing. It can be destroyed, and it can be grown and built up also.
Post by g***@gmail.com
If morality came from God, then we'd act just as morally towards
someone across town, across the state, across the globe as we would
towards our own sons and daughters.
We know we should, but we also know we can't because we are mere humans.
That should be the evidence that morality is based on God's perfect good
will instead of our imperfect human will.
Post by g***@gmail.com
But we don't. That's because empathy is stronger the closer someone
is to us. And thus only in the most empathic of us do we find
morality so developed that they will extend support to total
strangers, and even to enemies.
Such difference should be the evidence that our personal morality is
based on our willingness to follow God's morality. It has nothing to do
with the selfish survival instinct. It has everything to do with
following God's selfless love instead.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Of course, if you still claim morality comes from God, you are
Sure.

Morality is based on being good. To be moral, one must be good. Since
according to Jesus only God is good, the real morality can only be God's
morality.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Quadro Octavius
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches
out to you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will
help you.' Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist,
imagine that there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help
you'."
Apparently not. It's his "inner sense of morality" made him do that.
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness,
intelligence, happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom,
and life itself.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Greywolf
2018-09-03 20:38:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that
God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since
everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists?
Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You
see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who
is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not
doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that
God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe
in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality.
And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he
feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
Uh, you're the crazy-ass dude who feels God creating very Evil itself was a "Good" thing! That it gave man "wisdom." That it has made man "wise." Remember?

So "immorality" sprang from God. He created the very Evil that has led to any "immorality" on the part of man. No Evil, no immorality. It's that simple, nut-job.
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches out
to you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help
you.' Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine
that there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help you'."
Apparently not. It's his "inner sense of morality" made him do that.
God created "immorality" by creating very Evil itself, imbecile. And not only "immorality" which is a by-product of Evil. But also misery, suffering, and death.

That means your God is an IMMORAL God and not a moral one.
So just shut the fuck up and fuck off. You're too damn brain-diseased to have a rational discussion with.
aaa
2018-09-04 14:22:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that
addresses this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the
student that God created everything in the world to be
appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion.
You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits
someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the
world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He
does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In
fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on
an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can
bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
Uh, you're the crazy-ass dude who feels God creating very Evil itself
was a "Good" thing! That it gave man "wisdom." That it has made man
"wise." Remember?
God creates evil by drawing a clear line between the good and the evil.
It makes people wiser than animals because animals can't see such line
drawn by God. Why is that so "evil" according to you?
Post by Greywolf
So "immorality" sprang from God. He created the very Evil that has
led to any "immorality" on the part of man. No Evil, no immorality.
It's that simple, nut-job.
False logic. God only defines what immorality is. Immorality is never
caused by the definition of immorality.
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches
out to you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will
help you.' Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist,
imagine that there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help
you'."
Apparently not. It's his "inner sense of morality" made him do that.
God created "immorality" by creating very Evil itself, imbecile. And
not only "immorality" which is a by-product of Evil. But also misery,
suffering, and death.
That's just your continued illogic as an atheist.
Post by Greywolf
That means your God is an IMMORAL God and not a moral one. So just
shut the fuck up and fuck off. You're too damn brain-diseased to have
a rational discussion with.
That should be you since you don't appear to have the ability to
understand logic.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Greywolf
2018-09-04 17:23:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that
addresses this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the
student that God created everything in the world to be
appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion.
You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits
someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the
world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He
does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In
fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on
an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can
bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
Uh, you're the crazy-ass dude who feels God creating very Evil itself
was a "Good" thing! That it gave man "wisdom." That it has made man
"wise." Remember?
God creates evil by drawing a clear line between the good and the evil.
That God deliberately created. He created Evil because He IS evil. Explain how a "perfect" God of "perfect" goodness and righteousness even "dream-up" the concept of Evil, let alone deliberately create it to unleash upon hapless angels, man, and every form of helpless wildlife.

If you say it was "necessary" because we had to know Evil for "wisdom's" sake, you've still not explained where the "idea" of creating very Evil itself originated. It couldn't stem from a perfect God filled only with perfect Goodness and Righteousness, now could it?

So what lie are you going to make up NOW to explain this one.
Post by aaa
It makes people wiser than animals because animals can't see such line
drawn by God. Why is that so "evil" according to you?
Post by Greywolf
So "immorality" sprang from God. He created the very Evil that has
led to any "immorality" on the part of man. No Evil, no immorality.
It's that simple, nut-job.
False logic.
Not true. How can you possibly claim that if Evil never existed there would still be immorality. Evil would have never been in existence. Immorality is an evil. So immorality could not exist as Evil because Evil by it's very non-existence, would be non-existent.

God only defines what immorality is.

He's defined it as Evil, nincompoop! Therefore immorality is Evil.

Immorality is never
Post by aaa
caused by the definition of immorality.
We've gone over this before. Evil doesn't exist as just a word. Your God created it to be acted upon. That's why he created both angel and man with the will to do evil; the impulse to think or do evil. Evil as word would simply remain a word. And man could never do evil if evil were just a word, you ninny.
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches
out to you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will
help you.' Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist,
imagine that there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help
you'."
Apparently not. It's his "inner sense of morality" made him do that.
God created "immorality" by creating very Evil itself, imbecile. And
not only "immorality" which is a by-product of Evil. But also misery,
suffering, and death.
That's just your continued illogic as an atheist.
No. That's just you continuing to be "nuts." You don't realize it because you're so religiously brain-diseased, but those following your posts can plainly see you're truly "nuts." And not just partially "nuts," but full-ass Nuts. I'm surprised squirrels haven't attacked you by now.
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
That means your God is an IMMORAL God and not a moral one. So just
shut the fuck up and fuck off. You're too damn brain-diseased to have
a rational discussion with.
That should be you since you don't appear to have the ability to
understand logic.
A God who would deliberately create very Evil itself is Evil beyond measure. So go ahead, tell us once more why you think an Evil God creating very Evil itself was a "Good" thing. I want to see you explain that one, one more time.

And, oh, don't forget to tell us where even the *thought* of creating very Evil itself stemmed from in a PERFECT God of PERFECT Goodness and Righteousness.

This ought to be good. I can't wait to see what kind of lie you come up with for this one.
aaa
2018-09-04 18:22:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
Martin Buber wrote, in his book "Tales of Hasidism, Vol 2"
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that
addresses this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches
the student that God created everything in the world to be
appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the
most important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true
compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of
charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need,
and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some
religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded
him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God
at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality.
And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply
because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not
from God?
Uh, you're the crazy-ass dude who feels God creating very Evil
itself was a "Good" thing! That it gave man "wisdom." That it has
made man "wise." Remember?
God creates evil by drawing a clear line between the good and the evil.
That God deliberately created. He created Evil because He IS evil.
That is not a response to what I said.

snip. We can't continue until you can be honest enough to deal with my
actual point.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Greywolf
2018-09-04 18:53:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that
addresses this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches
the student that God created everything in the world to be
appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the
most important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true
compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of
charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need,
and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some
religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded
him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God
at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality.
And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply
because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
Uh, you're the crazy-ass dude who feels God creating very Evil
itself was a "Good" thing! That it gave man "wisdom." That it has
made man "wise." Remember?
God creates evil by drawing a clear line between the good and the evil.
That God deliberately created. He created Evil because He IS evil.
That is not a response to what I said.
This is what you wrote: "God creates evil by drawing a clear line between the good and the evil."

I said the Evil that God created. A point you readily concede.
Post by aaa
snip. We can't continue until you can be honest enough to deal with my
actual point.
_____

I *was* being honest. But now, lets see you explain where even the *thought* of creating Evil came from? How did that idea, that notion enter the mind of a God who's supposed to be perfect in Goodness and Righteousness, a God devoid of Evil? Explain how Evil can originate from an Evil-Free God?

How do you square that without resorting to more of your lying?
aaa
2018-09-04 19:14:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 12:30:14 PM UTC-5, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
Martin Buber wrote, in his book "Tales of Hasidism, Vol
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature
that addresses this very question. The Master [teacher]
teaches the student that God created everything in the
world to be appreciated, since everything is here to
teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us
the most important lesson of them all -- the lesson of
true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act
of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in
need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because
of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not
believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner
sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow
upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
Uh, you're the crazy-ass dude who feels God creating very
Evil itself was a "Good" thing! That it gave man "wisdom."
That it has made man "wise." Remember?
God creates evil by drawing a clear line between the good and the evil.
That God deliberately created. He created Evil because He IS
evil.
That is not a response to what I said.
This is what you wrote: "God creates evil by drawing a clear line
between the good and the evil."
I said the Evil that God created. A point you readily concede.
You are not responding to my point. You are repeating your false point.
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
snip. We can't continue until you can be honest enough to deal with
my actual point.
_____
I *was* being honest.
No, you are not. You are ignoring my point by repeating your point that
has just been proven false by my simple point.

Therefore, the discussion can't continue. We are stuck until you are
willing to address my counter point.

But now, lets see you explain where even the
Post by Greywolf
*thought* of creating Evil came from? How did that idea, that notion
enter the mind of a God who's supposed to be perfect in Goodness and
Righteousness, a God devoid of Evil? Explain how Evil can originate
from an Evil-Free God?
How do you square that without resorting to more of your lying?
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Greywolf
2018-09-04 20:21:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 12:30:14 PM UTC-5, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature
that addresses this very question. The Master [teacher]
teaches the student that God created everything in the
world to be appreciated, since everything is here to
teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us
the most important lesson of them all -- the lesson of
true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act
of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in
need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because
of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not
believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner
sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow
upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
Uh, you're the crazy-ass dude who feels God creating very
Evil itself was a "Good" thing! That it gave man "wisdom."
That it has made man "wise." Remember?
God creates evil by drawing a clear line between the good and the evil.
That God deliberately created. He created Evil because He IS evil.
That is not a response to what I said.
This is what you wrote: "God creates evil by drawing a clear line
between the good and the evil."
I said the Evil that God created. A point you readily concede.
You are not responding to my point. You are repeating your false point.
I'm not repeating a false anything, ding-bat. I quoted you exactly. Are you going to contend that you didn't write: "God creates evil by drawing a clear line between the good and the evil."

Did you, or did you not?
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
snip. We can't continue until you can be honest enough to deal with
my actual point.
_____
I *was* being honest.
No, you are not. You are ignoring my point by repeating your point that
has just been proven false by my simple point.
You've not proved it false. That's just another one of your lies. Your God deliberately created very Evil itself. Even HE deems Evil to be Evil! And certainly not "Good." But you've made it a point to argue that Evil was created to make man "wise." Therefore it's a "good" thing.

Hung yourself with that one, didn't you?
Post by aaa
Therefore, the discussion can't continue. We are stuck until you are
willing to address my counter point.
Type your "counterpoint. And then address the questions below.
Post by aaa
But now, lets see you explain where even the
Post by Greywolf
*thought* of creating Evil came from? How did that idea, that notion
enter the mind of a God who's supposed to be perfect in Goodness and
Righteousness, a God devoid of Evil? Explain how Evil can originate
from an Evil-Free God?
How do you square that without resorting to more of your lying?
aaa
2018-09-05 02:38:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 11:30:47 AM UTC-5, aaa
Post by aaa
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 12:30:14 PM UTC-5, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
Martin Buber wrote, in his book "Tales of Hasidism,
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature
that addresses this very question. The Master
[teacher] teaches the student that God created
everything in the world to be appreciated, since
everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn
from atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach
us the most important lesson of them all -- the
lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist
performs an act of charity, visits someone who is
sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the
world, he is not doing so because of some religious
teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him
to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in
God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense
of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow
upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if
not from God?
Uh, you're the crazy-ass dude who feels God creating very
Evil itself was a "Good" thing! That it gave man
"wisdom." That it has made man "wise." Remember?
God creates evil by drawing a clear line between the good
and the evil.
That God deliberately created. He created Evil because He IS evil.
That is not a response to what I said.
This is what you wrote: "God creates evil by drawing a clear line
between the good and the evil."
I said the Evil that God created. A point you readily concede.
You are not responding to my point. You are repeating your false point.
I'm not repeating a false anything, ding-bat. I quoted you exactly.
Are you going to contend that you didn't write: "God creates evil by
drawing a clear line between the good and the evil."
Did you, or did you not?
Quoting my point doesn't mean answering my point. Without answering my
point, you simply repeated your previous point by claiming "He created
Evil because He IS evil," as if nothing happened. By doing this, you
have only ignored my point. You are being dishonest here.
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
snip. We can't continue until you can be honest enough to deal
with my actual point.
_____
I *was* being honest.
No, you are not. You are ignoring my point by repeating your point
that has just been proven false by my simple point.
You've not proved it false. That's just another one of your lies.
Your God deliberately created very Evil itself. Even HE deems Evil
to be Evil! And certainly not "Good." But you've made it a point to
argue that Evil was created to make man "wise." Therefore it's a
"good" thing.
Hung yourself with that one, didn't you?
Why should I? It's a perfectly valid point.
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Therefore, the discussion can't continue. We are stuck until you
are willing to address my counter point.
Type your "counterpoint. And then address the questions below.
I have made my point. I don't have to deal with another of your point
until you have dealt with mine. If you can't, I will win the debate.
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
But now, lets see you explain where even the
Post by Greywolf
*thought* of creating Evil came from? How did that idea, that
notion enter the mind of a God who's supposed to be perfect in
Goodness and Righteousness, a God devoid of Evil? Explain how
Evil can originate from an Evil-Free God?
How do you square that without resorting to more of your lying?
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Greywolf
2018-09-05 04:27:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 11:30:47 AM UTC-5, aaa
Post by aaa
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 12:30:14 PM UTC-5, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
Martin Buber wrote, in his book "Tales of Hasidism,
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature
that addresses this very question. The Master
[teacher] teaches the student that God created
everything in the world to be appreciated, since
everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn
from atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach
us the most important lesson of them all -- the
lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist
performs an act of charity, visits someone who is
sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the
world, he is not doing so because of some religious
teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him
to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in
God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense
of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow
upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
Uh, you're the crazy-ass dude who feels God creating very
Evil itself was a "Good" thing! That it gave man
"wisdom." That it has made man "wise." Remember?
God creates evil by drawing a clear line between the good and the evil.
That God deliberately created. He created Evil because He IS evil.
That is not a response to what I said.
This is what you wrote: "God creates evil by drawing a clear line
between the good and the evil."
I said the Evil that God created. A point you readily concede.
You are not responding to my point. You are repeating your false point.
I'm not repeating a false anything, ding-bat. I quoted you exactly.
Are you going to contend that you didn't write: "God creates evil by
drawing a clear line between the good and the evil."
Did you, or did you not?
Quoting my point doesn't mean answering my point.
You''re saying God creates Evil. And I've responded by adding that it was because He's an Evil God. Which WAS responding to your point. I typed a response, didn't I?

Without answering my
Post by aaa
point, you simply repeated your previous point by claiming "He created
Evil because He IS evil," as if nothing happened. By doing this, you
have only ignored my point. You are being dishonest here.
What am I being "dishonest" about? You said God created Evil. You've said that God draws a line between Evil and Good. So? What is that supposed to mean? That He's Good? Not if, as you admit, He deliberately created very Evil itself. What are you trying to say?

What does "drawing a line between Good and Evil" accomplish. What, it defines the Evil Evil God deliberately created?
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
snip. We can't continue until you can be honest enough to deal
with my actual point.
_____
I *was* being honest.
No, you are not. You are ignoring my point by repeating your point
that has just been proven false by my simple point.
You've not proved it false. That's just another one of your lies.
Your God deliberately created very Evil itself. Even HE deems Evil
to be Evil! And certainly not "Good." But you've made it a point to
argue that Evil was created to make man "wise." Therefore it's a
"good" thing.
Hung yourself with that one, didn't you?
Why should I? It's a perfectly valid point.
You've just maintained that creating Evil was a "Good" thing! You're so fucking nuts, it's off the charts. Even God deems Evil Evil. And here you, a sick fuck, is claiming it to be a Good thing.

If someone were to break into your mental ward and hack a fellow patient to death, would you consider that a "good" thing or an act of pure evil? And therefore a "bad" thing.
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Therefore, the discussion can't continue. We are stuck until you
are willing to address my counter point.
Type your "counterpoint. And then address the questions below.
I have made my point. I don't have to deal with another of your point
until you have dealt with mine. If you can't, I will win the debate.
You win nothing. You can't even remember what your own point is! If you did you'd type it. Hah! You can't even remember that your point was!!
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
But now, lets see you explain where even the
Post by Greywolf
*thought* of creating Evil came from? How did that idea, that
notion enter the mind of a God who's supposed to be perfect in
Goodness and Righteousness, a God devoid of Evil? Explain how
Evil can originate from an Evil-Free God?
How do you square that without resorting to more of your lying?
Oh!! Stumped you with that one, didn't I? I hear nothing but crickets chirping, you crazy douche-bag? What's the matter? Cat got your tongue?
aaa
2018-09-05 15:05:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 1:22:35 PM UTC-5, aaa
Post by aaa
On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 11:30:47 AM UTC-5, aaa
Post by aaa
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 12:30:14 PM UTC-5,
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
Martin Buber wrote, in his book "Tales of
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic
literature that addresses this very question. The
Master [teacher] teaches the student that God
created everything in the world to be
appreciated, since everything is here to teach us
a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we
learn from atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to
teach us the most important lesson of them all --
the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an
atheist performs an act of charity, visits
someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and
cares for the world, he is not doing so because
of some religious teaching. He does not believe
that God commanded him to perform this act. In
fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his
acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And
look at the kindness he can bestow upon others
simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from
if not from God?
Uh, you're the crazy-ass dude who feels God creating
very Evil itself was a "Good" thing! That it gave
man "wisdom." That it has made man "wise." Remember?
God creates evil by drawing a clear line between the
good and the evil.
That God deliberately created. He created Evil because He IS evil.
That is not a response to what I said.
This is what you wrote: "God creates evil by drawing a clear
line between the good and the evil."
I said the Evil that God created. A point you readily
concede.
You are not responding to my point. You are repeating your
false point.
I'm not repeating a false anything, ding-bat. I quoted you
exactly. Are you going to contend that you didn't write: "God
creates evil by drawing a clear line between the good and the
evil."
Did you, or did you not?
Quoting my point doesn't mean answering my point.
You''re saying God creates Evil. And I've responded by adding that it
was because He's an Evil God. Which WAS responding to your point. I
typed a response, didn't I?
No. The question of God creating evil is not an issue here. My point is
to show why God creating evil is more than good but also important. You
are ignoring my point by pretending to be stupid.
Post by Greywolf
Without answering my
Post by aaa
point, you simply repeated your previous point by claiming "He
created Evil because He IS evil," as if nothing happened. By doing
this, you have only ignored my point. You are being dishonest
here.
What am I being "dishonest" about? You said God created Evil. You've
said that God draws a line between Evil and Good. So? What is that
supposed to mean? That He's Good? Not if, as you admit, He
deliberately created very Evil itself. What are you trying to say?
I said exactly what I said. You may have to reread what I wrote if you
pretend to be this stupid.
Post by Greywolf
What does "drawing a line between Good and Evil" accomplish. What, it
defines the Evil Evil God deliberately created?
It accomplishes the creation of good and evil, but I also said more
after that. Apparently, you decided to be stupid so that you could
ignore everything to repeat your false claim again as if I have said
nothing.
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
snip. We can't continue until you can be honest enough to
deal with my actual point.
_____
I *was* being honest.
No, you are not. You are ignoring my point by repeating your
point that has just been proven false by my simple point.
You've not proved it false. That's just another one of your
lies. Your God deliberately created very Evil itself. Even HE
deems Evil to be Evil! And certainly not "Good." But you've made
it a point to argue that Evil was created to make man "wise."
Therefore it's a "good" thing.
Hung yourself with that one, didn't you?
Why should I? It's a perfectly valid point.
You've just maintained that creating Evil was a "Good" thing! You're
so fucking nuts, it's off the charts. Even God deems Evil Evil. And
here you, a sick fuck, is claiming it to be a Good thing.
I made my point. To bad you can only ignore it.
Post by Greywolf
If someone were to break into your mental ward and hack a fellow
patient to death, would you consider that a "good" thing or an act of
pure evil? And therefore a "bad" thing.
That has nothing to do with God creating evil. In fact, it only thanks
to God we are able to know it is an act of evil.
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Therefore, the discussion can't continue. We are stuck until
you are willing to address my counter point.
Type your "counterpoint. And then address the questions below.
I have made my point. I don't have to deal with another of your
point until you have dealt with mine. If you can't, I will win the
debate.
You win nothing. You can't even remember what your own point is! If
you did you'd type it. Hah! You can't even remember that your point
was!!
I have no need to repeat myself. It's your job to prove me wrong. You
can't, therefore I win.
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
But now, lets see you explain where even the
*thought* of creating Evil came from? How did that idea,
that notion enter the mind of a God who's supposed to be
perfect in Goodness and Righteousness, a God devoid of Evil?
Explain how Evil can originate from an Evil-Free God?
How do you square that without resorting to more of your
lying?
Oh!! Stumped you with that one, didn't I? I hear nothing but crickets
chirping, you crazy douche-bag? What's the matter? Cat got your
tongue?
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Greywolf
2018-09-05 21:44:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 1:22:35 PM UTC-5, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 12:30:14 PM UTC-5,
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
Martin Buber wrote, in his book "Tales of
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic
literature that addresses this very question. The
Master [teacher] teaches the student that God
created everything in the world to be
appreciated, since everything is here to teach us
a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we
learn from atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to
teach us the most important lesson of them all --
the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an
atheist performs an act of charity, visits
someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and
cares for the world, he is not doing so because
of some religious teaching. He does not believe
that God commanded him to perform this act. In
fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his
acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And
look at the kindness he can bestow upon others
simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from
if not from God?
Uh, you're the crazy-ass dude who feels God creating
very Evil itself was a "Good" thing! That it gave
man "wisdom." That it has made man "wise." Remember?
God creates evil by drawing a clear line between the
good and the evil.
That God deliberately created. He created Evil because He IS evil.
That is not a response to what I said.
This is what you wrote: "God creates evil by drawing a clear
line between the good and the evil."
I said the Evil that God created. A point you readily
concede.
You are not responding to my point. You are repeating your false point.
I'm not repeating a false anything, ding-bat. I quoted you
exactly. Are you going to contend that you didn't write: "God
creates evil by drawing a clear line between the good and the
evil."
Did you, or did you not?
Quoting my point doesn't mean answering my point.
You''re saying God creates Evil. And I've responded by adding that it
was because He's an Evil God. Which WAS responding to your point. I
typed a response, didn't I?
No. The question of God creating evil is not an issue here. My point is
to show why God creating evil is more than good but also important.
Yes, you've claimed that it was because it provided man with "wisdom," that it has made man "wise."

But that's *beyond* stupid. If you were stabbed 40 times by a berserk mad-man because he didn't like the color of your hair, would you thank your God for opening your eyes to evil while you're lying in agony in some gutter? Or would you have rather Evil not ever have been created?

If your loved ones were being sent to a concentration camp to either be gassed, hung, or shot, would you thank your Lord for creating Evil, or curse Him for it?


You
Post by aaa
are ignoring my point by pretending to be stupid.
I've addressed that the creation of Evil was NOT a "good" thing countless times now. I've pointed out to you that Even God deems Evil Evil and not a "Good" thing. Why in the Hell do you think He's do punish Evil-doers with eternal punishment if He thought Evil a "Good" thing.

So now explain how is it that YOU think the creation of Evil a good thing, and yet your God deems Evil to be Evil and plans to wipe all of it right out of existence someday if He thought it to be a "good" thing.

Face it, you're just "nuts," is all. Loony as they come.
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Without answering my
Post by aaa
point, you simply repeated your previous point by claiming "He
created Evil because He IS evil," as if nothing happened. By doing
this, you have only ignored my point. You are being dishonest
here.
What am I being "dishonest" about? You said God created Evil. You've
said that God draws a line between Evil and Good. So? What is that
supposed to mean? That He's Good? Not if, as you admit, He
deliberately created very Evil itself. What are you trying to say?
I said exactly what I said. You may have to reread what I wrote if you
pretend to be this stupid.
Post by Greywolf
What does "drawing a line between Good and Evil" accomplish. What, it
defines the Evil Evil God deliberately created?
It accomplishes the creation of good and evil, but I also said more
after that. Apparently, you decided to be stupid so that you could
ignore everything to repeat your false claim again as if I have said
nothing.
You've stated that the creation of Evil was good because made man "wise." I've addressed that here and in other threads, so it is *you* that's being disingenuous here.

But let's move on. Address what I've posted below. And the ones above. But I'm most eager to hear you explain how the very idea of evil itself could possibly emanate from an Evil-Free God who's PERFECT in Goodness and Righteousness. From *where* could the notion of Evil originate in God's Evil-Free being?
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
snip. We can't continue until you can be honest enough to
deal with my actual point.
_____
I *was* being honest.
No, you are not. You are ignoring my point by repeating your
point that has just been proven false by my simple point.
You've not proved it false. That's just another one of your
lies. Your God deliberately created very Evil itself. Even HE
deems Evil to be Evil! And certainly not "Good." But you've made
it a point to argue that Evil was created to make man "wise."
Therefore it's a "good" thing.
Hung yourself with that one, didn't you?
Why should I? It's a perfectly valid point.
You've just maintained that creating Evil was a "Good" thing! You're
so fucking nuts, it's off the charts. Even God deems Evil Evil. And
here you, a sick fuck, is claiming it to be a Good thing.
I made my point. To bad you can only ignore it.
All you've done is talk crazy-talk. You're so nuts I'm shocked that you haven't been attacked by a horde of squirrels already.
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
If someone were to break into your mental ward and hack a fellow
patient to death, would you consider that a "good" thing or an act of
pure evil? And therefore a "bad" thing.
That has nothing to do with God creating evil.
It sure does, turds-for-a-brain! Because the non-existence of Evil would mean the hacker 1) wouldn't be insane (insanity is a by-product of Evil), and 2) that fellow patient would never have been attacked due to the absence of Evil.

See, you've been proven wrong, yet again.

In fact, it only thanks
Post by aaa
to God we are able to know it is an act of evil.
But the attack would never have happened if Evil were non-existent, you yo-yo. Would you be glad to be "enlightened" if YOU were the one being hacked to death?
If not, then you wouldn't find Evil so "good" after all, would you?
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Therefore, the discussion can't continue. We are stuck until
you are willing to address my counter point.
Type your "counterpoint. And then address the questions below.
I have made my point. I don't have to deal with another of your
point until you have dealt with mine. If you can't, I will win the
debate.
You win nothing. You can't even remember what your own point is! If
you did you'd type it. Hah! You can't even remember that your point
was!!
I have no need to repeat myself. It's your job to prove me wrong. You
can't, therefore I win.
Sorry. You can't even remember what your own point was. So you win nothing except a medal for being the most insane, brain-diseased idiot plaguing this forum.

Until you post what your point was precisely, I win. But especially because you're refusing to how the very idea of creating evil itself could possibly emanate from an Evil-Free God. Where could the very notion of Evil originate from a God who was Evil-Free?
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
But now, lets see you explain where even the
*thought* of creating Evil came from? How did that idea,
that notion enter the mind of a God who's supposed to be
perfect in Goodness and Righteousness, a God devoid of Evil?
Explain how Evil can originate from an Evil-Free God?
How do you square that without resorting to more of your
lying?
Oh!! Stumped you with that one, didn't I? I hear nothing but crickets
chirping, you crazy douche-bag? What's the matter? Cat got your
tongue?
aaa
2018-09-06 15:25:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 2:14:43 PM UTC-5, aaa
Post by aaa
On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 1:22:35 PM UTC-5, aaa
Post by aaa
On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 11:30:47 AM UTC-5,
Post by aaa
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 12:30:14 PM
On 2018-09-03 01:34 AM,
Post by g***@gmail.com
Martin Buber wrote, in his book "Tales of
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic
literature that addresses this very question.
The Master [teacher] teaches the student that
God created everything in the world to be
appreciated, since everything is here to
teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can
we learn from atheists? Why did God create
them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists
to teach us the most important lesson of them
all -- the lesson of true compassion. You
see, when an atheist performs an act of
charity, visits someone who is sick, helps
someone in need, and cares for the world, he
is not doing so because of some religious
teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact,
he does not believe in God at all, so his
acts are based on an inner sense of morality.
And look at the kindness he can bestow upon
others simply because he feels it to be
right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come
from if not from God?
Uh, you're the crazy-ass dude who feels God
creating very Evil itself was a "Good" thing!
That it gave man "wisdom." That it has made man
"wise." Remember?
God creates evil by drawing a clear line between
the good and the evil.
That God deliberately created. He created Evil
because He IS evil.
That is not a response to what I said.
This is what you wrote: "God creates evil by drawing a
clear line between the good and the evil."
I said the Evil that God created. A point you readily
concede.
You are not responding to my point. You are repeating your false point.
I'm not repeating a false anything, ding-bat. I quoted you
"God creates evil by drawing a clear line between the good
and the evil."
Did you, or did you not?
Quoting my point doesn't mean answering my point.
You''re saying God creates Evil. And I've responded by adding
that it was because He's an Evil God. Which WAS responding to
your point. I typed a response, didn't I?
No. The question of God creating evil is not an issue here. My
point is to show why God creating evil is more than good but also
important.
Yes, you've claimed that it was because it provided man with
"wisdom," that it has made man "wise."
Yes, exactly.
Post by Greywolf
But that's *beyond* stupid.
No, absolutely not.

If you were stabbed 40 times by a berserk
Post by Greywolf
mad-man because he didn't like the color of your hair, would you
thank your God for opening your eyes to evil while you're lying in
agony in some gutter?
Yes, absolutely. I will have to thank God for giving me the wisdom to
know what I have suffered is called evil. Otherwise, I would be
suffering like a stupid farm animal having no idea what is causing me to
suffer and why it is making me suffer.

Or would you have rather Evil not ever have
Post by Greywolf
been created?
No, absolutely not, because I would still suffer the exact same thing
except I wouldn't be able to understand what it is and why.
Post by Greywolf
If your loved ones were being sent to a concentration camp to either
be gassed, hung, or shot, would you thank your Lord for creating
Evil, or curse Him for it?
I would thank God for opening my eyes to evil so that I could die in a
concentration camp as a human rather than in a slaughterhouse as an animal.
Post by Greywolf
You
Post by aaa
are ignoring my point by pretending to be stupid.
I've addressed that the creation of Evil was NOT a "good" thing
countless times now.
No, you haven't addressed anything. You only claimed it without any
logic or reason. You are confusing creating evil with committing evil.
Your logic is flawed from the beginning.

I've pointed out to you that Even God deems Evil
Post by Greywolf
Evil and not a "Good" thing. Why in the Hell do you think He's do
punish Evil-doers with eternal punishment if He thought Evil a "Good"
thing.
So now explain how is it that YOU think the creation of Evil a good
thing, and yet your God deems Evil to be Evil and plans to wipe all
of it right out of existence someday if He thought it to be a "good"
thing.
I have explained this too many times. Creating evil has nothing to do
with committing evil. Creating evil is to establish what evil is. It's
never evil to teach people what evil is.
Post by Greywolf
Face it, you're just "nuts," is all. Loony as they come.
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Without answering my
Post by aaa
point, you simply repeated your previous point by claiming "He
created Evil because He IS evil," as if nothing happened. By
doing this, you have only ignored my point. You are being
dishonest here.
What am I being "dishonest" about? You said God created Evil.
You've said that God draws a line between Evil and Good. So? What
is that supposed to mean? That He's Good? Not if, as you admit,
He deliberately created very Evil itself. What are you trying to
say?
I said exactly what I said. You may have to reread what I wrote if
you pretend to be this stupid.
Post by Greywolf
What does "drawing a line between Good and Evil" accomplish.
What, it defines the Evil Evil God deliberately created?
It accomplishes the creation of good and evil, but I also said
more after that. Apparently, you decided to be stupid so that you
could ignore everything to repeat your false claim again as if I
have said nothing.
You've stated that the creation of Evil was good because made man
"wise." I've addressed that here and in other threads, so it is *you*
that's being disingenuous here.
But let's move on. Address what I've posted below. And the ones
above. But I'm most eager to hear you explain how the very idea of
evil itself could possibly emanate from an Evil-Free God who's
PERFECT in Goodness and Righteousness. From *where* could the notion
of Evil originate in God's Evil-Free being?
I have said it many times. God creates evil by being good. Why is that
so hard to understand?
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
snip. We can't continue until you can be honest enough
to deal with my actual point.
_____
I *was* being honest.
No, you are not. You are ignoring my point by repeating
your point that has just been proven false by my simple
point.
You've not proved it false. That's just another one of your
lies. Your God deliberately created very Evil itself. Even
HE deems Evil to be Evil! And certainly not "Good." But
you've made it a point to argue that Evil was created to make
man "wise." Therefore it's a "good" thing.
Hung yourself with that one, didn't you?
Why should I? It's a perfectly valid point.
You've just maintained that creating Evil was a "Good" thing!
You're so fucking nuts, it's off the charts. Even God deems Evil
Evil. And here you, a sick fuck, is claiming it to be a Good
thing.
I made my point. To bad you can only ignore it.
All you've done is talk crazy-talk. You're so nuts I'm shocked that
you haven't been attacked by a horde of squirrels already.
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
If someone were to break into your mental ward and hack a fellow
patient to death, would you consider that a "good" thing or an
act of pure evil? And therefore a "bad" thing.
That has nothing to do with God creating evil.
It sure does, turds-for-a-brain! Because the non-existence of Evil
would mean the hacker 1) wouldn't be insane (insanity is a by-product
of Evil), and 2) that fellow patient would never have been attacked
due to the absence of Evil.
False. Without creating evil, all the evil things would be considered as
normal. They would all be considered as mere natural disasters. Nobody
would need to complain about them. People would be no different from
animals operating entirely on their natural instinct. The human society
would not be called a civilization. It would be called an animal kingdom.
Post by Greywolf
See, you've been proven wrong, yet again.
In fact, it only thanks
Post by aaa
to God we are able to know it is an act of evil.
But the attack would never have happened if Evil were non-existent,
you yo-yo. Would you be glad to be "enlightened" if YOU were the one
being hacked to death? If not, then you wouldn't find Evil so "good"
after all, would you?
False logic. People don't commit evil by knowing what evil is. On the
contrary, people often stop doing evil when they can realize what they
are doing is evil. Did you start stealing after you have learned what
stealing was? Do you blame your kindergarten teacher for teaching you
the concept of stealing? If no one had taught you what stealing was,
would there be no more stealing in the world? Can you make the world a
better place by being stupid? So why do you have to blame God for giving
you the wisdom to know the difference between good and evil? Where is
your logic in that?
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Therefore, the discussion can't continue. We are stuck
until you are willing to address my counter point.
Type your "counterpoint. And then address the questions
below.
I have made my point. I don't have to deal with another of
your point until you have dealt with mine. If you can't, I will
win the debate.
You win nothing. You can't even remember what your own point is!
If you did you'd type it. Hah! You can't even remember that your
point was!!
I have no need to repeat myself. It's your job to prove me wrong.
You can't, therefore I win.
Sorry. You can't even remember what your own point was. So you win
nothing except a medal for being the most insane, brain-diseased
idiot plaguing this forum.
Until you post what your point was precisely, I win. But especially
because you're refusing to how the very idea of creating evil itself
could possibly emanate from an Evil-Free God. Where could the very
notion of Evil originate from a God who was Evil-Free?
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
But now, lets see you explain where even the
*thought* of creating Evil came from? How did that idea,
that notion enter the mind of a God who's supposed to be
perfect in Goodness and Righteousness, a God devoid of
Evil? Explain how Evil can originate from an Evil-Free
God?
How do you square that without resorting to more of your
lying?
Oh!! Stumped you with that one, didn't I? I hear nothing but
crickets chirping, you crazy douche-bag? What's the matter? Cat
got your tongue?
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Yap Honghor
2018-09-06 09:55:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 11:30:47 AM UTC-5, aaa
Post by aaa
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 12:30:14 PM UTC-5, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
Martin Buber wrote, in his book "Tales of Hasidism,
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature
that addresses this very question. The Master
[teacher] teaches the student that God created
everything in the world to be appreciated, since
everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn
from atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach
us the most important lesson of them all -- the
lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist
performs an act of charity, visits someone who is
sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the
world, he is not doing so because of some religious
teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him
to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in
God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense
of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow
upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
Uh, you're the crazy-ass dude who feels God creating very
Evil itself was a "Good" thing! That it gave man
"wisdom." That it has made man "wise." Remember?
God creates evil by drawing a clear line between the good and the evil.
That God deliberately created. He created Evil because He IS evil.
That is not a response to what I said.
This is what you wrote: "God creates evil by drawing a clear line
between the good and the evil."
I said the Evil that God created. A point you readily concede.
You are not responding to my point. You are repeating your false point.
I'm not repeating a false anything, ding-bat. I quoted you exactly.
Are you going to contend that you didn't write: "God creates evil by
drawing a clear line between the good and the evil."
Did you, or did you not?
Quoting my point doesn't mean answering my point. Without answering my
point, you simply repeated your previous point by claiming "He created
Evil because He IS evil," as if nothing happened. By doing this, you
have only ignored my point. You are being dishonest here.
Quoting your words can have the effect of relegating your insanity to where it belongs....
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
snip. We can't continue until you can be honest enough to deal
with my actual point.
_____
I *was* being honest.
No, you are not. You are ignoring my point by repeating your point
that has just been proven false by my simple point.
You've not proved it false. That's just another one of your lies.
Your God deliberately created very Evil itself. Even HE deems Evil
to be Evil! And certainly not "Good." But you've made it a point to
argue that Evil was created to make man "wise." Therefore it's a
"good" thing.
Hung yourself with that one, didn't you?
Why should I? It's a perfectly valid point.
What valid?
Post by aaa
Post by Greywolf
Post by aaa
Therefore, the discussion can't continue. We are stuck until you
are willing to address my counter point.
Type your "counterpoint. And then address the questions below.
I have made my point. I don't have to deal with another of your point
until you have dealt with mine. If you can't, I will win the debate.
You can't even win any one in your psycho ward, let alone people outside.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-09-04 08:38:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that
God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since
everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists?
Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You
see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who
is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not
doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that
God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe
in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality.
And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he
feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of actions are, from empathy. No God needed.
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches out
to you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help
you.' Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine
that there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help you'."
Apparently not. It's his "inner sense of morality" made him do that.
--
Which comes from reason, observation, empathy, and needs no God to create.
Of course, since your God doesn't have any evidence for its existence and since his description of what is supposed to be his holy word portrays him as a psycho killer, I am free to disregard his bullshit rules, the way most of the world has. That's why we don't stone people to death anymore.
aaa
2018-09-04 14:31:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that
addresses this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the
student that God created everything in the world to be
appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion.
You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits
someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the
world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He
does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In
fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on
an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can
bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of actions
are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and empathy if not
God himself?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches
out to you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will
help you.' Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist,
imagine that there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help
you'."
Apparently not. It's his "inner sense of morality" made him do that.
--
Which comes from reason, observation, empathy, and needs no God to
create. Of course, since your God doesn't have any evidence for its
existence and since his description of what is supposed to be his
holy word portrays him as a psycho killer, I am free to disregard his
bullshit rules, the way most of the world has. That's why we don't
stone people to death anymore.
You only demonstrate your lack of understanding and willful ignorance
about morality and God as an atheist.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Peter Pan
2018-09-04 21:41:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that
addresses this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the
student that God created everything in the world to be
appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion.
You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits
someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the
world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He
does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In
fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on
an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can
bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of actions
are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and empathy if not
God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has
been explained to you already.

You can't even blow your own nose without invoking a god
explanation.

What's the foundation of Kleenex, if not God himself?

Can't you troll more creatively than this?
Smiler
2018-09-05 01:16:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that
addresses this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the
student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated,
since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists?
Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You
see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who
is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not
doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe
that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not
believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of
morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply
because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of actions
are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and empathy if not
God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has been explained to
you already.
You can't even blow your own nose without invoking a god explanation.
What's the foundation of Kleenex, if not God himself?
Can't you troll more creatively than this?
His supposed god is supposedly everywhere, so it must be in his snot and
his turds. Hence Kleenex.
--
Smiler, The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made
to exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
John Locke
2018-09-05 01:47:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that
addresses this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the
student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated,
since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists?
Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You
see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who
is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not
doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe
that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not
believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of
morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply
because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of actions
are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and empathy if not
God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has been explained to
you already.
You can't even blow your own nose without invoking a god explanation.
What's the foundation of Kleenex, if not God himself?
Can't you troll more creatively than this?
His supposed god is supposedly everywhere, so it must be in his snot and
his turds. Hence Kleenex.
...damn...that must be a real drag for "God" to get flushed down the
toilet billions of time per day. Looks like "God" needs to rethink his
"God is everywhere policy".
Smiler
2018-09-06 02:54:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Locke
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that
addresses this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the
student that God created everything in the world to be
appreciated,
since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion.
You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits
someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the
world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He
does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In
fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on
an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can
bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of actions
are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and empathy if not
God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has been explained
to you already.
You can't even blow your own nose without invoking a god explanation.
What's the foundation of Kleenex, if not God himself?
Can't you troll more creatively than this?
His supposed god is supposedly everywhere, so it must be in his snot and
his turds. Hence Kleenex.
...damn...that must be a real drag for "God" to get flushed down the
toilet billions of time per day.
It's the god of the sewer and septic tank.
Post by John Locke
Looks like "God" needs to rethink his "God is everywhere policy".
Theists certainly do.
--
Smiler, The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made
to exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
m***@gmail.com
2018-09-11 07:08:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that
addresses this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the
student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated,
since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists?
Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You
see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who
is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not
doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe
that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not
believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of
morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply
because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of actions
are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and empathy if not
God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has been explained to
you already.
You can't even blow your own nose without invoking a god explanation.
What's the foundation of Kleenex, if not God himself?
Can't you troll more creatively than this?
His supposed god is supposedly everywhere, so it must be in his snot and
his turds. Hence Kleenex.
I answer to his thread title: What Is God Made Of?, I'd say arsenic,
cocaine and heroine. It's addictive and it's killed people since humans
thought it up.
aaa
2018-09-05 15:18:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that
addresses this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the
student that God created everything in the world to be
appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion.
You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits
someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the
world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He
does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In
fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on
an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can
bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of actions
are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and empathy if not
God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has
been explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality. If morality is
nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind, it can't evolve into
anything but still remain the abstract empty concept as it has always
been. If morality is spiritual in existence, it can only come from God
therefore has no need of evolving. What is evolving is only our human
understanding of God's spiritual morality instead.

Therefore, reason, observation, and empathy are only part of our human
understanding of God's morality.
Post by Peter Pan
You can't even blow your own nose without invoking a god
explanation.
What's the foundation of Kleenex, if not God himself?
Can't you troll more creatively than this?
There is nothing wrong to consider the entire universe is based on God.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Peter Pan
2018-09-05 20:23:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that
addresses this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the
student that God created everything in the world to be
appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion.
You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits
someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the
world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He
does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In
fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on
an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can
bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of actions
are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and empathy if not
God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has
been explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality. If morality is
nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind, it can't evolve into
Why do you think morality is only an abstract concept?
Post by aaa
anything but still remain the abstract empty concept as it has always
been. If morality is spiritual in existence, it can only come from God
therefore has no need of evolving. What is evolving is only our human
understanding of God's spiritual morality instead.
No, morality is not "spiritual". Since there is not god,
it's not from god either.

That's just your habitual comment on everything.
Post by aaa
Therefore, reason, observation, and empathy are only part of our human
understanding of God's morality.
Post by Peter Pan
You can't even blow your own nose without invoking a god
explanation.
What's the foundation of Kleenex, if not God himself?
Can't you troll more creatively than this?
There is nothing wrong to consider the entire universe is based on God.
You can have all the faith you want in your made-up
fantasy. It works as a troll.
aaa
2018-09-06 00:50:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that
addresses this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the
student that God created everything in the world to be
appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion.
You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits
someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the
world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He
does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In
fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on
an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can
bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of actions
are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and empathy if not
God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has
been explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality. If morality is
nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind, it can't evolve into
Why do you think morality is only an abstract concept?
Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and believes. As I
understand it, to modern philosophy, morality is nothing but a
metaphysical abstraction that is void of actual meaning or substance. It
has nothing but an empty definition that can mean nothing and everything
at the same time.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
anything but still remain the abstract empty concept as it has always
been. If morality is spiritual in existence, it can only come from God
therefore has no need of evolving. What is evolving is only our human
understanding of God's spiritual morality instead.
No, morality is not "spiritual". Since there is not god,
it's not from god either.
Since morality isn't physical, by being something real that has real
consequence to life and to this world, morality can only exist
spiritually. Apart from the physical existence, there is only the
spiritual existence. There is nothing else that can exist.

Therefore, according to logic, you have no choice but to admit that
morality has to be spiritual.
Post by Peter Pan
That's just your habitual comment on everything.
No, it's just simple fact you need to recognize.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Therefore, reason, observation, and empathy are only part of our human
understanding of God's morality.
Post by Peter Pan
You can't even blow your own nose without invoking a god
explanation.
What's the foundation of Kleenex, if not God himself?
Can't you troll more creatively than this?
There is nothing wrong to consider the entire universe is based on God.
You can have all the faith you want in your made-up
fantasy. It works as a troll.
This is not something I can make up.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
_V_infernalis_
2018-09-06 03:50:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that
addresses this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the
student that God created everything in the world to be
appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion.
You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits
someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the
world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He
does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In
fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on
an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can
bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of actions
are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and empathy if not
God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has
been explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality. If morality is
nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind, it can't evolve into
++
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Why do you think morality is only an abstract concept?
Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and believes.
The guy who has repeatedly said that all of modern philosophy is
bogus and that it all went downhill starting with Aristotle now
claims he believes something because "that is what modern philosophy teaches".
Post by aaa
As I understand it, to modern philosophy, morality is nothing but a
metaphysical abstraction that is void of actual meaning or substance. It
has nothing but an empty definition that can mean nothing and everything
at the same time.
I call bullshit. Show me a single "modern philosopher" who teaches any such thing.

Put your link(s) right here:






V
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
anything but still remain the abstract empty concept as it has always
been. If morality is spiritual in existence, it can only come from God
therefore has no need of evolving. What is evolving is only our human
understanding of God's spiritual morality instead.
No, morality is not "spiritual". Since there is not god,
it's not from god either.
Since morality isn't physical, by being something real that has real
consequence to life and to this world, morality can only exist
spiritually. Apart from the physical existence, there is only the
spiritual existence. There is nothing else that can exist.
Therefore, according to logic, you have no choice but to admit that
morality has to be spiritual.
Post by Peter Pan
That's just your habitual comment on everything.
No, it's just simple fact you need to recognize.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Therefore, reason, observation, and empathy are only part of our human
understanding of God's morality.
Post by Peter Pan
You can't even blow your own nose without invoking a god
explanation.
What's the foundation of Kleenex, if not God himself?
Can't you troll more creatively than this?
There is nothing wrong to consider the entire universe is based on God.
You can have all the faith you want in your made-up
fantasy. It works as a troll.
This is not something I can make up.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
aaa
2018-09-06 13:27:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 10:30:14 AM UTC-7, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
Martin Buber wrote, in his book "Tales of Hasidism,
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature
that addresses this very question. The Master
[teacher] teaches the student that God created
everything in the world to be appreciated, since
everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn
from atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach
us the most important lesson of them all -- the
lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist
performs an act of charity, visits someone who is
sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world,
he is not doing so because of some religious
teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him
to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in
God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense
of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow
upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if
not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of
actions are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and
empathy if not God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has been
explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality. If
morality is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind,
it can't evolve into
++
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Why do you think morality is only an abstract concept?
Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and believes.
The guy who has repeatedly said that all of modern philosophy is
bogus and that it all went downhill starting with Aristotle now
claims he believes something because "that is what modern philosophy teaches".
No, I never agreed with it.
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
As I understand it, to modern philosophy, morality is nothing but
a metaphysical abstraction that is void of actual meaning or
substance. It has nothing but an empty definition that can mean
nothing and everything at the same time.
I call bullshit. Show me a single "modern philosopher" who teaches any such thing.
Why don't you prove me wrong instead? Show me one modern philosophical
understanding of morality that is not an abstract empty talk.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
_V_infernalis_
2018-09-06 16:47:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 10:30:14 AM UTC-7, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
Martin Buber wrote, in his book "Tales of Hasidism,
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature
that addresses this very question. The Master
[teacher] teaches the student that God created
everything in the world to be appreciated, since
everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn
from atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach
us the most important lesson of them all -- the
lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist
performs an act of charity, visits someone who is
sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world,
he is not doing so because of some religious
teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him
to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in
God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense
of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow
upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of
actions are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and
empathy if not God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has been
explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality. If
morality is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind,
it can't evolve into
++
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Why do you think morality is only an abstract concept?
Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and believes.
The guy who has repeatedly said that all of modern philosophy is
bogus and that it all went downhill starting with Aristotle now
claims he believes something because "that is what modern philosophy teaches".
No, I never agreed with it.
OK, folks, I invite you to debate: is this "aaa" a totally brazen liar, completely
incapable of feeling shame, or is he so delusional that he actually believes
his own lies?

I offer for your consideration

[Peter Pan]: Why do you think morality is only an abstract concept?

[aaa yesterday]: Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and believes.


[aaa, a day later]: No, I never agreed with it.


So, shameless liar or simply delusional?


++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
As I understand it, to modern philosophy, morality is nothing but
a metaphysical abstraction that is void of actual meaning or
substance. It has nothing but an empty definition that can mean
nothing and everything at the same time.
I call bullshit. Show me a single "modern philosopher" who teaches any such thing.
Why don't you prove me wrong instead? Show me one modern philosophical
understanding of morality that is not an abstract empty talk.
In other words, you made one of your usual loud baseless claims, and
when you're called to support it, not only can you not support it, you
try to put your burden of evidence off on someone else.

You really are incapable of feeling shame or embarrassment, aren't you?



V
aaa
2018-09-07 15:24:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 10:30:14 AM UTC-7, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
Martin Buber wrote, in his book "Tales of Hasidism,
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature
that addresses this very question. The Master
[teacher] teaches the student that God created
everything in the world to be appreciated, since
everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn
from atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach
us the most important lesson of them all -- the
lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist
performs an act of charity, visits someone who is
sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world,
he is not doing so because of some religious
teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him
to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in
God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense
of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow
upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of
actions are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and
empathy if not God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has been
explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality. If
morality is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind,
it can't evolve into
++
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Why do you think morality is only an abstract concept?
Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and believes.
The guy who has repeatedly said that all of modern philosophy is
bogus and that it all went downhill starting with Aristotle now
claims he believes something because "that is what modern philosophy teaches".
No, I never agreed with it.
OK, folks, I invite you to debate: is this "aaa" a totally brazen liar, completely
incapable of feeling shame, or is he so delusional that he actually believes
his own lies?
I offer for your consideration
[Peter Pan]: Why do you think morality is only an abstract concept?
[aaa yesterday]: Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and believes.
[aaa, a day later]: No, I never agreed with it.
So, shameless liar or simply delusional?
It must be your misunderstanding instead. You should read what I said
originally in context. I was using the modern philosophical
understanding of morality to show why morality has to come from God.
Peter Pan's questioning was misleading.
Post by _V_infernalis_
++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
As I understand it, to modern philosophy, morality is nothing but
a metaphysical abstraction that is void of actual meaning or
substance. It has nothing but an empty definition that can mean
nothing and everything at the same time.
I call bullshit. Show me a single "modern philosopher" who teaches any such thing.
Why don't you prove me wrong instead? Show me one modern philosophical
understanding of morality that is not an abstract empty talk.
In other words, you made one of your usual loud baseless claims, and
when you're called to support it, not only can you not support it, you
try to put your burden of evidence off on someone else.
You really are incapable of feeling shame or embarrassment, aren't you?
What I have shown isn't some nice thing that modern philosophy would
like to admit. Therefore, it would be easier for you to prove me wrong
instead. You can't, because you know I'm right.
Post by _V_infernalis_
V
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-09-07 17:14:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
What I have shown isn't some nice thing that modern philosophy would
like to admit. Therefore, it would be easier for you to prove me wrong
instead. You can't, because you know I'm right.
_______________________

Another evasion.

You haven't shown anything but your opinions based on what you haven't read and therefore know nothing about.
aaa
2018-09-08 01:09:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
What I have shown isn't some nice thing that modern philosophy would
like to admit. Therefore, it would be easier for you to prove me
wrong instead. You can't, because you know I'm right.
_______________________
Another evasion.
You haven't shown anything but your opinions based on what you
haven't read and therefore know nothing about.
What I have said so far can't be something I made up. It's God who
allowed me to experience and see certain things I didn't expect to find
out. I never spent time to know anything about philosophy. I never
expected to talk about philosophy at all.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Peter Pan
2018-09-08 15:06:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature
that addresses this very question. The Master
[teacher] teaches the student that God created
everything in the world to be appreciated, since
everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn
from atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach
us the most important lesson of them all -- the
lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist
performs an act of charity, visits someone who is
sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world,
he is not doing so because of some religious
teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him
to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in
God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense
of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow
upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of
actions are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and
empathy if not God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has been
explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality. If
morality is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind,
it can't evolve into
++
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Why do you think morality is only an abstract concept?
Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and believes.
The guy who has repeatedly said that all of modern philosophy is
bogus and that it all went downhill starting with Aristotle now
claims he believes something because "that is what modern philosophy teaches".
No, I never agreed with it.
OK, folks, I invite you to debate: is this "aaa" a totally brazen liar, completely
incapable of feeling shame, or is he so delusional that he actually believes
his own lies?
I offer for your consideration
[Peter Pan]: Why do you think morality is only an abstract concept?
[aaa yesterday]: Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and believes.
[aaa, a day later]: No, I never agreed with it.
So, shameless liar or simply delusional?
It must be your misunderstanding instead. You should read what I said
originally in context. I was using the modern philosophical
understanding of morality to show why morality has to come from God.
Peter Pan's questioning was misleading.
If you didn't agree with "philosophers" that morality is
an abstraction, you could have said that when i asked.
Instead you began with "Because..." and answered the
question. That implies you agree with the statement.

Besides, anything spiritual IS an abstraction. (I don't
believe in spiritual, but that's another matter.)
Post by aaa
What I have shown isn't some nice thing that modern philosophy would
like to admit. Therefore, it would be easier for you to prove me wrong
instead. You can't, because you know I'm right.
You are never right. You just say whatever will get you
the most attention.
aaa
2018-09-09 15:34:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature
that addresses this very question. The Master
[teacher] teaches the student that God created
everything in the world to be appreciated, since
everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn
from atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach
us the most important lesson of them all -- the
lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist
performs an act of charity, visits someone who is
sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world,
he is not doing so because of some religious
teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him
to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in
God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense
of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow
upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of
actions are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and
empathy if not God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has been
explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality. If
morality is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind,
it can't evolve into
++
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Why do you think morality is only an abstract concept?
Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and believes.
The guy who has repeatedly said that all of modern philosophy is
bogus and that it all went downhill starting with Aristotle now
claims he believes something because "that is what modern philosophy teaches".
No, I never agreed with it.
OK, folks, I invite you to debate: is this "aaa" a totally brazen liar, completely
incapable of feeling shame, or is he so delusional that he actually believes
his own lies?
I offer for your consideration
[Peter Pan]: Why do you think morality is only an abstract concept?
[aaa yesterday]: Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and believes.
[aaa, a day later]: No, I never agreed with it.
So, shameless liar or simply delusional?
It must be your misunderstanding instead. You should read what I said
originally in context. I was using the modern philosophical
understanding of morality to show why morality has to come from God.
Peter Pan's questioning was misleading.
If you didn't agree with "philosophers" that morality is
an abstraction, you could have said that when i asked.
Instead you began with "Because..." and answered the
question. That implies you agree with the statement.
No. My focus wasn't modern philosophy. My focus is morality that
involves the modern philosophical understanding which I believe to be
incomplete and false. I'm pointing out the fault of modern philosophy to
demonstrate that morality has to be spiritual in order to be considered
as both real and non-physical at the same time. The abstraction in
modern philosophy can never be real. It's just mental brain fart.
Post by Peter Pan
Besides, anything spiritual IS an abstraction. (I don't
believe in spiritual, but that's another matter.)
Abstraction is still nothing but a projection of the human mind. Since
the spiritual is beyond the mind, the spiritual can never be an abstraction.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
What I have shown isn't some nice thing that modern philosophy would
like to admit. Therefore, it would be easier for you to prove me wrong
instead. You can't, because you know I'm right.
You are never right. You just say whatever will get you
the most attention.
I'm glad to get your attention. Too bad you can't prove me wrong.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
_V_infernalis_
2018-09-08 18:31:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature
that addresses this very question. The Master
[teacher] teaches the student that God created
everything in the world to be appreciated, since
everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn
from atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach
us the most important lesson of them all -- the
lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist
performs an act of charity, visits someone who is
sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world,
he is not doing so because of some religious
teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him
to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in
God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense
of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow
upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of
actions are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and
empathy if not God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has been
explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality. If
morality is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind,
it can't evolve into
++
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Why do you think morality is only an abstract concept?
Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and believes.
The guy who has repeatedly said that all of modern philosophy is
bogus and that it all went downhill starting with Aristotle now
claims he believes something because "that is what modern philosophy teaches".
No, I never agreed with it.
OK, folks, I invite you to debate: is this "aaa" a totally brazen liar, completely
incapable of feeling shame, or is he so delusional that he actually believes
his own lies?
I offer for your consideration
[Peter Pan]: Why do you think morality is only an abstract concept?
[aaa yesterday]: Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and believes.
[aaa, a day later]: No, I never agreed with it.
So, shameless liar or simply delusional?
It must be your misunderstanding instead. You should read what I said
originally in context. I was using the modern philosophical
understanding of morality to show why morality has to come from God.
Peter Pan's questioning was misleading.
Post by _V_infernalis_
++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
As I understand it, to modern philosophy, morality is nothing but
a metaphysical abstraction that is void of actual meaning or
substance. It has nothing but an empty definition that can mean
nothing and everything at the same time.
+++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
I call bullshit. Show me a single "modern philosopher" who teaches any such thing.
Why don't you prove me wrong instead? Show me one modern philosophical
understanding of morality that is not an abstract empty talk.
In other words, you made one of your usual loud baseless claims, and
when you're called to support it, not only can you not support it, you
try to put your burden of evidence off on someone else.
You really are incapable of feeling shame or embarrassment, aren't you?
What I have shown isn't some nice thing that modern philosophy would
like to admit. Therefore, it would be easier for you to prove me wrong
instead. You can't, because you know I'm right.
Yep, no shame whatsoever.

See, It works like this sport: you make a claim, you back up that claim.
Not up to others to do the heavy lifting for you.

And right now you're flailing about because you've been called on
it, and you can't come through.

I suspect -- in fact I'd give twenty to one odds -- that you couldn't name
a single "modern philosopher" off the top of your head.

Nor could you give me a single school, theorem, paper, journal, or paper
that is evidence of this "modern philosophy" -- which is nothing other
than an invention of yours, a figment of your endlessly fertile imagination,
an imagination that is bizarrely decoupled from this reality.

So, what's your next excuse for your inability to back up your own
claims going to be?









V
_V_infernalis_
2018-09-09 18:27:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
Martin Buber wrote, in his book "Tales of Hasidism,
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature
that addresses this very question. The Master
[teacher] teaches the student that God created
everything in the world to be appreciated, since
everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn
from atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach
us the most important lesson of them all -- the
lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist
performs an act of charity, visits someone who is
sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world,
he is not doing so because of some religious
teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him
to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in
God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense
of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow
upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if
not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of
actions are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and
empathy if not God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has been
explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality. If
morality is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind,
it can't evolve into
++
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Why do you think morality is only an abstract concept?
Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and believes.
The guy who has repeatedly said that all of modern philosophy is
bogus and that it all went downhill starting with Aristotle now
claims he believes something because "that is what modern philosophy teaches".
No, I never agreed with it.
OK, folks, I invite you to debate: is this "aaa" a totally brazen liar, completely
incapable of feeling shame, or is he so delusional that he actually believes
his own lies?
I offer for your consideration
[Peter Pan]: Why do you think morality is only an abstract concept?
[aaa yesterday]: Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and believes.
[aaa, a day later]: No, I never agreed with it.
So, shameless liar or simply delusional?
It must be your misunderstanding instead. You should read what I said
originally in context. I was using the modern philosophical
understanding of morality to show why morality has to come from God.
Peter Pan's questioning was misleading.
Post by _V_infernalis_
++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
As I understand it, to modern philosophy, morality is nothing but
a metaphysical abstraction that is void of actual meaning or
substance. It has nothing but an empty definition that can mean
nothing and everything at the same time.
+++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
I call bullshit. Show me a single "modern philosopher" who teaches
any such thing.
Why don't you prove me wrong instead? Show me one modern philosophical
understanding of morality that is not an abstract empty talk.
In other words, you made one of your usual loud baseless claims, and
when you're called to support it, not only can you not support it, you
try to put your burden of evidence off on someone else.
You really are incapable of feeling shame or embarrassment, aren't you?
What I have shown isn't some nice thing that modern philosophy would
like to admit. Therefore, it would be easier for you to prove me wrong
instead. You can't, because you know I'm right.
Yep, no shame whatsoever.
See, It works like this sport: you make a claim, you back up that claim.
Not up to others to do the heavy lifting for you.
And right now you're flailing about because you've been called on
it, and you can't come through.
+++
Post by _V_infernalis_
I suspect -- in fact I'd give twenty to one odds -- that you couldn't name
a single "modern philosopher" off the top of your head.
Nor could you give me a single school, theorem, paper, journal, or paper
that is evidence of this "modern philosophy" -- which is nothing other
than an invention of yours, a figment of your endlessly fertile imagination,
an imagination that is bizarrely decoupled from this reality.
So, what's your next excuse for your inability to back up your own
claims going to be?
Your logic is flawed. I'm telling you that the modern philosophical
understanding of morality is abstract and meaningless, and you want me
to show one modern philosopher who makes the exact same claim to trash
modern philosophy like I did. What kind of stupid logic is that?
No. I want you to cite for us the writings of a philosopher which demonstrate
the abstract meaningless you claim they crank out.

I want you to thus provide me with evidence for your entirely-made-up-claim
that "modern philosophy" is "abstract and meaningless".

Turns out that -- as predicted -- you cannot. Quelle surprise.

In this case, as in so very many others, you pull bizarre claims out of
your ass, and then wax hysterical and rant and rave in all directions
when challenged to simply support your claims.

Another day, same old "aaa".


V
aaa
2018-09-10 02:29:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 8:33:03 AM UTC-7, aaa
Post by aaa
On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 6:58:47 PM UTC-7, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 10:30:14 AM
On 2018-09-03 01:34 AM,
Post by g***@gmail.com
Martin Buber wrote, in his book "Tales of
"There is a famous story told in
Chassidic literature that addresses this
very question. The Master [teacher]
teaches the student that God created
everything in the world to be
appreciated, since everything is here to
teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson
can we learn from atheists? Why did God
create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created
atheists to teach us the most important
lesson of them all -- the lesson of true
compassion. You see, when an atheist
performs an act of charity, visits
someone who is sick, helps someone in
need, and cares for the world, he is not
doing so because of some religious
teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In
fact, he does not believe in God at all,
so his acts are based on an inner sense
of morality. And look at the kindness he
can bestow upon others simply because he
feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality"
come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the
consequences of actions are, from empathy.
No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason,
observation, and empathy if not God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature,
as has been explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human
morality. If morality is nothing but an abstract
concept in the human mind, it can't evolve into
++
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Why do you think morality is only an abstract
concept?
Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and
believes.
The guy who has repeatedly said that all of modern
philosophy is bogus and that it all went downhill
starting with Aristotle now claims he believes something
because "that is what modern philosophy teaches".
No, I never agreed with it.
OK, folks, I invite you to debate: is this "aaa" a totally
brazen liar, completely incapable of feeling shame, or is he
so delusional that he actually believes his own lies?
I offer for your consideration
[Peter Pan]: Why do you think morality is only an abstract concept?
[aaa yesterday]: Because that is what modern philosophy
teaches and believes.
[aaa, a day later]: No, I never agreed with it.
So, shameless liar or simply delusional?
It must be your misunderstanding instead. You should read what
I said originally in context. I was using the modern
philosophical understanding of morality to show why morality
has to come from God. Peter Pan's questioning was misleading.
++
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
As I understand it, to modern philosophy, morality is
nothing but a metaphysical abstraction that is void of
actual meaning or substance. It has nothing but an
empty definition that can mean nothing and everything
at the same time.
+++
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
I call bullshit. Show me a single "modern philosopher"
who teaches any such thing.
Why don't you prove me wrong instead? Show me one modern
philosophical understanding of morality that is not an
abstract empty talk.
In other words, you made one of your usual loud baseless
claims, and when you're called to support it, not only can
you not support it, you try to put your burden of evidence
off on someone else.
You really are incapable of feeling shame or embarrassment, aren't you?
What I have shown isn't some nice thing that modern philosophy
would like to admit. Therefore, it would be easier for you to
prove me wrong instead. You can't, because you know I'm right.
Yep, no shame whatsoever.
See, It works like this sport: you make a claim, you back up that
claim. Not up to others to do the heavy lifting for you.
And right now you're flailing about because you've been called
on it, and you can't come through.
+++
Post by _V_infernalis_
I suspect -- in fact I'd give twenty to one odds -- that you
couldn't name a single "modern philosopher" off the top of your
head.
Nor could you give me a single school, theorem, paper, journal,
or paper that is evidence of this "modern philosophy" -- which is
nothing other than an invention of yours, a figment of your
endlessly fertile imagination, an imagination that is bizarrely
decoupled from this reality.
So, what's your next excuse for your inability to back up your
own claims going to be?
Your logic is flawed. I'm telling you that the modern
philosophical understanding of morality is abstract and
meaningless, and you want me to show one modern philosopher who
makes the exact same claim to trash modern philosophy like I did.
What kind of stupid logic is that?
No. I want you to cite for us the writings of a philosopher which
demonstrate the abstract meaningless you claim they crank out.
It's not my job to demolish modern philosophy. They have to clean up
their own trash.
Post by _V_infernalis_
I want you to thus provide me with evidence for your
entirely-made-up-claim that "modern philosophy" is "abstract and
meaningless".
There is nothing made up. It's my simple understanding that can be
recognized by all.
Post by _V_infernalis_
Turns out that -- as predicted -- you cannot. Quelle surprise.
In this case, as in so very many others, you pull bizarre claims out
of your ass, and then wax hysterical and rant and rave in all
directions when challenged to simply support your claims.
Another day, same old "aaa".
What I said is rather open fact. There is nothing for me to prove or
support.
Post by _V_infernalis_
V
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
_V_infernalis_
2018-09-10 05:34:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 8:33:03 AM UTC-7, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 10:30:14 AM
On 2018-09-03 01:34 AM,
Post by g***@gmail.com
Martin Buber wrote, in his book "Tales of
"There is a famous story told in
Chassidic literature that addresses this
very question. The Master [teacher]
teaches the student that God created
everything in the world to be
appreciated, since everything is here to
teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson
can we learn from atheists? Why did God
create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created
atheists to teach us the most important
lesson of them all -- the lesson of true
compassion. You see, when an atheist
performs an act of charity, visits
someone who is sick, helps someone in
need, and cares for the world, he is not
doing so because of some religious
teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In
fact, he does not believe in God at all,
so his acts are based on an inner sense
of morality. And look at the kindness he
can bestow upon others simply because he
feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality"
come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the
consequences of actions are, from empathy.
No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason,
observation, and empathy if not God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature,
as has been explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human
morality. If morality is nothing but an abstract
concept in the human mind, it can't evolve into
++
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Why do you think morality is only an abstract
concept?
Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and
believes.
The guy who has repeatedly said that all of modern
philosophy is bogus and that it all went downhill
starting with Aristotle now claims he believes something
because "that is what modern philosophy teaches".
No, I never agreed with it.
OK, folks, I invite you to debate: is this "aaa" a totally
brazen liar, completely incapable of feeling shame, or is he
so delusional that he actually believes his own lies?
I offer for your consideration
[Peter Pan]: Why do you think morality is only an abstract concept?
[aaa yesterday]: Because that is what modern philosophy
teaches and believes.
[aaa, a day later]: No, I never agreed with it.
So, shameless liar or simply delusional?
It must be your misunderstanding instead. You should read what
I said originally in context. I was using the modern
philosophical understanding of morality to show why morality
has to come from God. Peter Pan's questioning was misleading.
++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
As I understand it, to modern philosophy, morality is
nothing but a metaphysical abstraction that is void of
actual meaning or substance. It has nothing but an
empty definition that can mean nothing and everything
at the same time.
+++
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
I call bullshit. Show me a single "modern philosopher"
who teaches any such thing.
Why don't you prove me wrong instead? Show me one modern
philosophical understanding of morality that is not an
abstract empty talk.
In other words, you made one of your usual loud baseless
claims, and when you're called to support it, not only can
you not support it, you try to put your burden of evidence
off on someone else.
You really are incapable of feeling shame or embarrassment, aren't you?
What I have shown isn't some nice thing that modern philosophy
would like to admit. Therefore, it would be easier for you to
prove me wrong instead. You can't, because you know I'm right.
Yep, no shame whatsoever.
See, It works like this sport: you make a claim, you back up that
claim. Not up to others to do the heavy lifting for you.
And right now you're flailing about because you've been called
on it, and you can't come through.
+++
Post by _V_infernalis_
I suspect -- in fact I'd give twenty to one odds -- that you
couldn't name a single "modern philosopher" off the top of your
head.
Nor could you give me a single school, theorem, paper, journal,
or paper that is evidence of this "modern philosophy" -- which is
nothing other than an invention of yours, a figment of your
endlessly fertile imagination, an imagination that is bizarrely
decoupled from this reality.
So, what's your next excuse for your inability to back up your
own claims going to be?
+++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Your logic is flawed. I'm telling you that the modern
philosophical understanding of morality is abstract and
meaningless, and you want me to show one modern philosopher who
makes the exact same claim to trash modern philosophy like I did.
What kind of stupid logic is that?
No. I want you to cite for us the writings of a philosopher which
demonstrate the abstract meaningless you claim they crank out.
It's not my job to demolish modern philosophy. They have to clean up
their own trash.
It's your job to support our own claims.

Obviously you cannot.

Nothing new there.
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
I want you to thus provide me with evidence for your
entirely-made-up-claim that "modern philosophy" is "abstract and
meaningless".
There is nothing made up. It's my simple understanding that can be
recognized by all.
Given that exactly no one does recognize it, we can dismiss that bogus claim.

Next?
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Turns out that -- as predicted -- you cannot. Quelle surprise.
In this case, as in so very many others, you pull bizarre claims out
of your ass, and then wax hysterical and rant and rave in all
directions when challenged to simply support your claims.
Another day, same old "aaa".
What I said is rather open fact.
What you said is something you pulled out of your ass, and are now
running away from as fast as you can, because you have zero evidence
for it.

But of course, you don't do "evidence" do you?

Oh, and by the way? The philosophical movement which those
who study philosophy term "modern philosophy" extended
from the Renaissance to the early 20th century.

Beats me why you're ranting and raving and hurling unsupported allegations
at a school of thought that's over a century in the past now.

Probably because you didn't even know that simple fact about it.
Post by aaa
There is nothing for me to prove or support.
How convenient ... because there is nothing you can prove or support.

Ever.


V
aaa
2018-09-10 16:11:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 8:33:03 AM UTC-7, aaa
Post by aaa
On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 6:58:47 PM UTC-7,
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
On 2018-09-04 04:38 AM, Cloud Hobbit
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 10:30:14
On 2018-09-03 01:34 AM,
Post by g***@gmail.com
Martin Buber wrote, in his book
"There is a famous story told in
Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master
[teacher] teaches the student that
God created everything in the world
to be appreciated, since everything
is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What
lesson can we learn from atheists?
Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created
atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the
lesson of true compassion. You see,
when an atheist performs an act of
charity, visits someone who is sick,
helps someone in need, and cares for
the world, he is not doing so because
of some religious teaching. He does
not believe that God commanded him to
perform this act. In fact, he does
not believe in God at all, so his
acts are based on an inner sense of
morality. And look at the kindness
he can bestow upon others simply
because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of
morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what
the consequences of actions are, from
empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason,
observation, and empathy if not God
himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human
nature, as has been explained to you
already.
I deny that is a correct description of human
morality. If morality is nothing but an
abstract concept in the human mind, it can't
evolve into
++
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Why do you think morality is only an abstract
concept?
Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and
believes.
The guy who has repeatedly said that all of modern
philosophy is bogus and that it all went downhill
starting with Aristotle now claims he believes
something because "that is what modern philosophy
teaches".
No, I never agreed with it.
OK, folks, I invite you to debate: is this "aaa" a
totally brazen liar, completely incapable of feeling
shame, or is he so delusional that he actually believes
his own lies?
I offer for your consideration
[Peter Pan]: Why do you think morality is only an
abstract concept?
[aaa yesterday]: Because that is what modern philosophy
teaches and believes.
[aaa, a day later]: No, I never agreed with it.
So, shameless liar or simply delusional?
It must be your misunderstanding instead. You should read
what I said originally in context. I was using the modern
philosophical understanding of morality to show why
morality has to come from God. Peter Pan's questioning was
misleading.
++
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
As I understand it, to modern philosophy, morality
is nothing but a metaphysical abstraction that is
void of actual meaning or substance. It has nothing
but an empty definition that can mean nothing and
everything at the same time.
+++
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
I call bullshit. Show me a single "modern
philosopher" who teaches any such thing.
Why don't you prove me wrong instead? Show me one
modern philosophical understanding of morality that is
not an abstract empty talk.
In other words, you made one of your usual loud baseless
claims, and when you're called to support it, not only
can you not support it, you try to put your burden of
evidence off on someone else.
You really are incapable of feeling shame or
embarrassment, aren't you?
What I have shown isn't some nice thing that modern
philosophy would like to admit. Therefore, it would be
easier for you to prove me wrong instead. You can't,
because you know I'm right.
Yep, no shame whatsoever.
See, It works like this sport: you make a claim, you back up
that claim. Not up to others to do the heavy lifting for
you.
And right now you're flailing about because you've been
called on it, and you can't come through.
+++
Post by _V_infernalis_
I suspect -- in fact I'd give twenty to one odds -- that you
couldn't name a single "modern philosopher" off the top of
your head.
Nor could you give me a single school, theorem, paper,
journal, or paper that is evidence of this "modern
philosophy" -- which is nothing other than an invention of
yours, a figment of your endlessly fertile imagination, an
imagination that is bizarrely decoupled from this reality.
So, what's your next excuse for your inability to back up
your own claims going to be?
+++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Your logic is flawed. I'm telling you that the modern
philosophical understanding of morality is abstract and
meaningless, and you want me to show one modern philosopher
who makes the exact same claim to trash modern philosophy like
I did. What kind of stupid logic is that?
No. I want you to cite for us the writings of a philosopher
which demonstrate the abstract meaningless you claim they crank
out.
It's not my job to demolish modern philosophy. They have to clean
up their own trash.
It's your job to support our own claims.
Obviously you cannot.
Nothing new there.
What I said is just simple logic. There is nothing that needs support.
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
I want you to thus provide me with evidence for your
entirely-made-up-claim that "modern philosophy" is "abstract and
meaningless".
There is nothing made up. It's my simple understanding that can be
recognized by all.
Given that exactly no one does recognize it, we can dismiss that bogus claim.
Next?
Why bother to have the next when you are determined to blindly deny it
anyway?
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Turns out that -- as predicted -- you cannot. Quelle surprise.
In this case, as in so very many others, you pull bizarre claims
out of your ass, and then wax hysterical and rant and rave in
all directions when challenged to simply support your claims.
Another day, same old "aaa".
What I said is rather open fact.
What you said is something you pulled out of your ass, and are now
running away from as fast as you can, because you have zero evidence
for it.
But of course, you don't do "evidence" do you?
Oh, and by the way? The philosophical movement which those who study
philosophy term "modern philosophy" extended from the Renaissance to
the early 20th century.
Beats me why you're ranting and raving and hurling unsupported
allegations at a school of thought that's over a century in the past
now.
Probably because you didn't even know that simple fact about it.
Actually, I dismiss everything in philosophy starting from Aristotle.
Aristotle is the root cause for philosophy to have gone astray. Modern
philosophy is special because it's especially dead by outright denying
the existence of God.
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
There is nothing for me to prove or support.
How convenient ... because there is nothing you can prove or
support.
Ever.
That's only because they are things that everybody can understand.
Post by _V_infernalis_
V
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
_V_infernalis_
2018-09-10 18:00:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 6:58:47 PM UTC-7,
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
On 2018-09-04 04:38 AM, Cloud Hobbit
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 10:30:14
On 2018-09-03 01:34 AM,
Post by g***@gmail.com
Martin Buber wrote, in his book
"There is a famous story told in
Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master
[teacher] teaches the student that
God created everything in the world
to be appreciated, since everything
is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What
lesson can we learn from atheists?
Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created
atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the
lesson of true compassion. You see,
when an atheist performs an act of
charity, visits someone who is sick,
helps someone in need, and cares for
the world, he is not doing so because
of some religious teaching. He does
not believe that God commanded him to
perform this act. In fact, he does
not believe in God at all, so his
acts are based on an inner sense of
morality. And look at the kindness
he can bestow upon others simply
because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of
morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what
the consequences of actions are, from
empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason,
observation, and empathy if not God
himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human
nature, as has been explained to you
already.
I deny that is a correct description of human
morality. If morality is nothing but an
abstract concept in the human mind, it can't
evolve into
++
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Why do you think morality is only an abstract
concept?
Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and
believes.
The guy who has repeatedly said that all of modern
philosophy is bogus and that it all went downhill
starting with Aristotle now claims he believes
something because "that is what modern philosophy
teaches".
No, I never agreed with it.
OK, folks, I invite you to debate: is this "aaa" a
totally brazen liar, completely incapable of feeling
shame, or is he so delusional that he actually believes
his own lies?
I offer for your consideration
[Peter Pan]: Why do you think morality is only an
abstract concept?
[aaa yesterday]: Because that is what modern philosophy
teaches and believes.
[aaa, a day later]: No, I never agreed with it.
So, shameless liar or simply delusional?
It must be your misunderstanding instead. You should read
what I said originally in context. I was using the modern
philosophical understanding of morality to show why
morality has to come from God. Peter Pan's questioning was
misleading.
Post by _V_infernalis_
++
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
As I understand it, to modern philosophy, morality
is nothing but a metaphysical abstraction that is
void of actual meaning or substance. It has nothing
but an empty definition that can mean nothing and
everything at the same time.
+++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
I call bullshit. Show me a single "modern
philosopher" who teaches any such thing.
Why don't you prove me wrong instead? Show me one
modern philosophical understanding of morality that is
not an abstract empty talk.
In other words, you made one of your usual loud baseless
claims, and when you're called to support it, not only
can you not support it, you try to put your burden of
evidence off on someone else.
You really are incapable of feeling shame or
embarrassment, aren't you?
What I have shown isn't some nice thing that modern
philosophy would like to admit. Therefore, it would be
easier for you to prove me wrong instead. You can't,
because you know I'm right.
Yep, no shame whatsoever.
See, It works like this sport: you make a claim, you back up
that claim. Not up to others to do the heavy lifting for
you.
And right now you're flailing about because you've been
called on it, and you can't come through.
+++
Post by _V_infernalis_
I suspect -- in fact I'd give twenty to one odds -- that you
couldn't name a single "modern philosopher" off the top of
your head.
Nor could you give me a single school, theorem, paper,
journal, or paper that is evidence of this "modern
philosophy" -- which is nothing other than an invention of
yours, a figment of your endlessly fertile imagination, an
imagination that is bizarrely decoupled from this reality.
So, what's your next excuse for your inability to back up
your own claims going to be?
+++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Your logic is flawed. I'm telling you that the modern
philosophical understanding of morality is abstract and
meaningless, and you want me to show one modern philosopher
who makes the exact same claim to trash modern philosophy like
I did. What kind of stupid logic is that?
No. I want you to cite for us the writings of a philosopher
which demonstrate the abstract meaningless you claim they crank
out.
It's not my job to demolish modern philosophy. They have to clean
up their own trash.
It's your job to support our own claims.
Obviously you cannot.
Nothing new there.
What I said is just simple logic. There is nothing that needs support.
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
I want you to thus provide me with evidence for your
entirely-made-up-claim that "modern philosophy" is "abstract and
meaningless".
There is nothing made up. It's my simple understanding that can be
recognized by all.
Given that exactly no one does recognize it, we can dismiss that bogus claim.
Next?
Why bother to have the next when you are determined to blindly deny it
anyway?
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Turns out that -- as predicted -- you cannot. Quelle surprise.
In this case, as in so very many others, you pull bizarre claims
out of your ass, and then wax hysterical and rant and rave in
all directions when challenged to simply support your claims.
Another day, same old "aaa".
What I said is rather open fact.
What you said is something you pulled out of your ass, and are now
running away from as fast as you can, because you have zero evidence
for it.
+++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
But of course, you don't do "evidence" do you?
Oh, and by the way? The philosophical movement which those who study
philosophy term "modern philosophy" extended from the Renaissance to
the early 20th century.
Beats me why you're ranting and raving and hurling unsupported
allegations at a school of thought that's over a century in the past
now.
Probably because you didn't even know that simple fact about it.
Actually, I dismiss everything in philosophy starting from Aristotle.
Aristotle is the root cause for philosophy to have gone astray.
Ah, of course: twenty-five centuries of subsequent philosophical thought have
been bogus, but finally, you have come along to expose it all.

Nope, no grandiose ideation there.
Post by aaa
Modern philosophy is special because it's especially dead by outright denying
the existence of God.
And yet oddly enough, you cannot support that claim with specific examples.

Can you?







And somehow, in spite of all your hairy-ass claims, the fields of theology
and philosophy chug right on, with many a devout believer contributing
to them.

Would you like a few names for you to read up on?


V
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
There is nothing for me to prove or support.
How convenient ... because there is nothing you can prove or
support.
Ever.
That's only because they are things that everybody can understand.
Post by _V_infernalis_
V
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
aaa
2018-09-11 04:32:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 11:03:01 AM UTC-7, aaa
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 8:49:56 AM UTC-7, aaa
Post by aaa
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 8:33:03 AM UTC-7,
Post by aaa
On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 6:58:47 PM
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
On 2018-09-04 04:38 AM, Cloud Hobbit
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at
On 2018-09-03 01:34 AM,
Post by g***@gmail.com
Martin Buber wrote, in his book
"There is a famous story told in
Chassidic literature that
addresses this very question. The
Master [teacher] teaches the
student that God created
everything in the world to be
appreciated, since everything is
here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What
lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create
them?'
The Master responds: 'God
created atheists to teach us the
most important lesson of them all
-- the lesson of true compassion.
You see, when an atheist performs
an act of charity, visits someone
who is sick, helps someone in
need, and cares for the world, he
is not doing so because of some
religious teaching. He does not
believe that God commanded him
to perform this act. In fact, he
does not believe in God at all,
so his acts are based on an inner
sense of morality. And look at
the kindness he can bestow upon
others simply because he feels it
to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of
morality" come from if not from
God?
From reason, from observation of
what the consequences of actions are,
from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason,
observation, and empathy if not God
himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human
nature, as has been explained to you
already.
I deny that is a correct description of
human morality. If morality is nothing but
an abstract concept in the human mind, it
can't evolve into
++
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Why do you think morality is only an
abstract concept?
Because that is what modern philosophy teaches
and believes.
The guy who has repeatedly said that all of
modern philosophy is bogus and that it all went
downhill starting with Aristotle now claims he
believes something because "that is what modern
philosophy teaches".
No, I never agreed with it.
OK, folks, I invite you to debate: is this "aaa" a
totally brazen liar, completely incapable of feeling
shame, or is he so delusional that he actually
believes his own lies?
I offer for your consideration
[Peter Pan]: Why do you think morality is only an
abstract concept?
[aaa yesterday]: Because that is what modern
philosophy teaches and believes.
[aaa, a day later]: No, I never agreed with it.
So, shameless liar or simply delusional?
It must be your misunderstanding instead. You should
read what I said originally in context. I was using the
modern philosophical understanding of morality to show
why morality has to come from God. Peter Pan's
questioning was misleading.
++
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
As I understand it, to modern philosophy,
morality is nothing but a metaphysical
abstraction that is void of actual meaning or
substance. It has nothing but an empty
definition that can mean nothing and everything
at the same time.
+++
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
I call bullshit. Show me a single "modern
philosopher" who teaches any such thing.
Why don't you prove me wrong instead? Show me one
modern philosophical understanding of morality that
is not an abstract empty talk.
In other words, you made one of your usual loud
baseless claims, and when you're called to support
it, not only can you not support it, you try to put
your burden of evidence off on someone else.
You really are incapable of feeling shame or
embarrassment, aren't you?
What I have shown isn't some nice thing that modern
philosophy would like to admit. Therefore, it would be
easier for you to prove me wrong instead. You can't,
because you know I'm right.
Yep, no shame whatsoever.
See, It works like this sport: you make a claim, you back
up that claim. Not up to others to do the heavy lifting
for you.
And right now you're flailing about because you've been
called on it, and you can't come through.
+++
I suspect -- in fact I'd give twenty to one odds -- that
you couldn't name a single "modern philosopher" off the
top of your head.
Nor could you give me a single school, theorem, paper,
journal, or paper that is evidence of this "modern
philosophy" -- which is nothing other than an invention
of yours, a figment of your endlessly fertile
imagination, an imagination that is bizarrely decoupled
from this reality.
So, what's your next excuse for your inability to back
up your own claims going to be?
+++
Post by aaa
Your logic is flawed. I'm telling you that the modern
philosophical understanding of morality is abstract and
meaningless, and you want me to show one modern
philosopher who makes the exact same claim to trash modern
philosophy like I did. What kind of stupid logic is that?
No. I want you to cite for us the writings of a philosopher
which demonstrate the abstract meaningless you claim they
crank out.
It's not my job to demolish modern philosophy. They have to
clean up their own trash.
It's your job to support our own claims.
Obviously you cannot.
Nothing new there.
What I said is just simple logic. There is nothing that needs
support.
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
I want you to thus provide me with evidence for your
entirely-made-up-claim that "modern philosophy" is "abstract
and meaningless".
There is nothing made up. It's my simple understanding that can
be recognized by all.
Given that exactly no one does recognize it, we can dismiss that bogus claim.
Next?
Why bother to have the next when you are determined to blindly deny
it anyway?
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Turns out that -- as predicted -- you cannot. Quelle
surprise.
In this case, as in so very many others, you pull bizarre
claims out of your ass, and then wax hysterical and rant and
rave in all directions when challenged to simply support your
claims.
Another day, same old "aaa".
What I said is rather open fact.
What you said is something you pulled out of your ass, and are
now running away from as fast as you can, because you have zero
evidence for it.
+++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
But of course, you don't do "evidence" do you?
Oh, and by the way? The philosophical movement which those who
study philosophy term "modern philosophy" extended from the
Renaissance to the early 20th century.
Beats me why you're ranting and raving and hurling unsupported
allegations at a school of thought that's over a century in the
past now.
Probably because you didn't even know that simple fact about it.
Actually, I dismiss everything in philosophy starting from
Aristotle. Aristotle is the root cause for philosophy to have gone
astray.
Ah, of course: twenty-five centuries of subsequent philosophical
thought have been bogus, but finally, you have come along to expose
it all.
Nope, no grandiose ideation there.
It's just a matter of fact. There is nothing I can do. Aristotle never
got the slightest clue about the teaching of Socrates and Plato. He is
the very reason why philosophy today is abstract and meaningless.
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Modern philosophy is special because it's especially dead by
outright denying the existence of God.
And yet oddly enough, you cannot support that claim with specific examples.
Can you?
Sure. All philosophical studies are about searching for the
philosophical truth. Since God's truth is the only absolute truth in the
universe, only God's truth can make all philosophical studies meaningful
and fruitful. By denying God, all philosophical studies have become
irrelevant to the truth. As the result, they have lost their actual
meaning and purpose. They are as good as dead.
Post by _V_infernalis_
And somehow, in spite of all your hairy-ass claims, the fields of
theology and philosophy chug right on, with many a devout believer
contributing to them.
Would you like a few names for you to read up on?
Sure. Why not. I would be pleased to know any theologian to have
declared heaven being the study of philosophy.

Earth is the study of science. Heaven is the study of philosophy.

Do you know anyone said similar things before?
Post by _V_infernalis_
V
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
There is nothing for me to prove or support.
How convenient ... because there is nothing you can prove or
support.
Ever.
That's only because they are things that everybody can understand.
Post by _V_infernalis_
V
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness,
intelligence, happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom,
and life itself.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Kevrob
2018-09-11 00:04:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by _V_infernalis_
Beats me why you're ranting and raving and hurling unsupported allegations
at a school of thought that's over a century in the past now.
He's most likely a Poe. It's all a performance.
Intellectual honesty doesn't enter into it, at all.

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
_V_infernalis_
2018-09-11 03:54:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
+++
Post by Kevrob
Post by _V_infernalis_
Beats me why you're ranting and raving and hurling unsupported allegations
at a school of thought that's over a century in the past now.
He's most likely a Poe. It's all a performance.
Intellectual honesty doesn't enter into it, at all.
Two decades of cranking out dozens of posts a day, sometimes
from multiple accounts? I really don't think so. The pleasures
of Poetry would surely have grown weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable
long since.

No, I think he's an obsessive lunatic. I'm sure that all the attention
we give him certainly motivates him, but just pretending?
No, I think it's far more pathological than that.


V
Peter Pan
2018-09-06 10:03:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that
addresses this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the
student that God created everything in the world to be
appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion.
You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits
someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the
world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He
does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In
fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on
an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can
bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of actions
are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and empathy if not
God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has
been explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality. If morality is
nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind, it can't evolve into
Why do you think morality is only an abstract concept?
Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and believes. As I
understand it, to modern philosophy, morality is nothing but a
metaphysical abstraction that is void of actual meaning or substance. It
has nothing but an empty definition that can mean nothing and everything
at the same time.
It's normal human nature to feel a revulsion to murder,
stealing, lying, rape and adultery. It's not simply
cultural or "spiritual" (whatever that means).

The boundaries can vary, but the basics are evolved human
instinct. If morality is abstract, then so is hunger.
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
anything but still remain the abstract empty concept as it has always
been. If morality is spiritual in existence, it can only come from God
therefore has no need of evolving. What is evolving is only our human
understanding of God's spiritual morality instead.
No, morality is not "spiritual". Since there is not god,
it's not from god either.
Since morality isn't physical,
That's your opinion.
Post by aaa
by being something real that has real
consequence to life and to this world, morality can only exist
spiritually. Apart from the physical existence, there is only the
spiritual existence. There is nothing else that can exist.
Therefore, according to logic, you have no choice but to admit that
morality has to be spiritual.
Anything that you can't understand is "spiritual" to you.

To me, these things can be explained plausibly by brain
wiring and chemistry. No need to invoke magic.
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
That's just your habitual comment on everything.
No, it's just simple fact you need to recognize.
I don't recognize it. That's just a simple fact you need
to recognize.
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
You can have all the faith you want in your made-up
fantasy. It works as a troll.
This is not something I can make up.
Of course it is. You do it every day.
aaa
2018-09-06 14:02:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that
addresses this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the
student that God created everything in the world to be
appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion.
You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits
someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the
world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He
does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In
fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on
an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can
bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of actions
are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and empathy if not
God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has
been explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality. If morality is
nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind, it can't evolve into
Why do you think morality is only an abstract concept?
Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and believes. As I
understand it, to modern philosophy, morality is nothing but a
metaphysical abstraction that is void of actual meaning or substance. It
has nothing but an empty definition that can mean nothing and everything
at the same time.
It's normal human nature to feel a revulsion to murder,
stealing, lying, rape and adultery. It's not simply
cultural or "spiritual" (whatever that means).
The boundaries can vary, but the basics are evolved human
instinct. If morality is abstract, then so is hunger.
I never agreed with modern philosophy. Because morality is both real and
non-physical, morality can only come from God by being spiritual.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
anything but still remain the abstract empty concept as it has always
been. If morality is spiritual in existence, it can only come from God
therefore has no need of evolving. What is evolving is only our human
understanding of God's spiritual morality instead.
No, morality is not "spiritual". Since there is not god,
it's not from god either.
Since morality isn't physical,
That's your opinion.
Why? Can you show otherwise?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
by being something real that has real
consequence to life and to this world, morality can only exist
spiritually. Apart from the physical existence, there is only the
spiritual existence. There is nothing else that can exist.
Therefore, according to logic, you have no choice but to admit that
morality has to be spiritual.
Anything that you can't understand is "spiritual" to you.
Why can't you acknowledge the simple logic?
Post by Peter Pan
To me, these things can be explained plausibly by brain
wiring and chemistry. No need to invoke magic.
That's physical(scientific) explanation of the
non-physical(philosophical). It's logically false from the beginning.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
That's just your habitual comment on everything.
No, it's just simple fact you need to recognize.
I don't recognize it. That's just a simple fact you need
to recognize.
Why can't you recognize it?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
You can have all the faith you want in your made-up
fantasy. It works as a troll.
This is not something I can make up.
Of course it is. You do it every day.
Now you overestimate my ability.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Peter Pan
2018-09-08 14:23:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that
addresses this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the
student that God created everything in the world to be
appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion.
You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits
someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the
world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He
does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In
fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on
an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can
bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of actions
are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and empathy if not
God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has
been explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality. If morality is
nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind, it can't evolve into
Why do you think morality is only an abstract concept?
Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and believes. As I
understand it, to modern philosophy, morality is nothing but a
metaphysical abstraction that is void of actual meaning or substance. It
has nothing but an empty definition that can mean nothing and everything
at the same time.
It's normal human nature to feel a revulsion to murder,
stealing, lying, rape and adultery. It's not simply
cultural or "spiritual" (whatever that means).
The boundaries can vary, but the basics are evolved human
instinct. If morality is abstract, then so is hunger.
I never agreed with modern philosophy. Because morality is both real and
non-physical, morality can only come from God by being spiritual.
The opinion of a troll isn't very convincing to me.
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
anything but still remain the abstract empty concept as it has always
been. If morality is spiritual in existence, it can only come from God
therefore has no need of evolving. What is evolving is only our human
understanding of God's spiritual morality instead.
No, morality is not "spiritual". Since there is not god,
it's not from god either.
Since morality isn't physical,
That's your opinion.
Why? Can you show otherwise?
Yes. But you have shown over and over that attempting
rational discussion with you is a fool's errand. You
always find ways to promote your personal
misunderstanding.
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
by being something real that has real
consequence to life and to this world, morality can only exist
spiritually. Apart from the physical existence, there is only the
spiritual existence. There is nothing else that can exist.
Therefore, according to logic, you have no choice but to admit that
morality has to be spiritual.
Anything that you can't understand is "spiritual" to you.
Why can't you acknowledge the simple logic?
Why can't you read books about science and philosophy
like a normal person would? If you can't do that,
acknowledge your misunderstanding and learn from people
who do know.
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
To me, these things can be explained plausibly by brain
wiring and chemistry. No need to invoke magic.
That's physical(scientific) explanation of the
non-physical(philosophical). It's logically false from the beginning.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
That's just your habitual comment on everything.
No, it's just simple fact you need to recognize.
I don't recognize it. That's just a simple fact you need
to recognize.
Why can't you recognize it?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
You can have all the faith you want in your made-up
fantasy. It works as a troll.
This is not something I can make up.
Of course it is. You do it every day.
Now you overestimate my ability.
aaa
2018-09-10 02:21:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 10:30:14 AM UTC-7,
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
Martin Buber wrote, in his book "Tales of
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic
literature that addresses this very question. The
Master [teacher] teaches the student that God
created everything in the world to be
appreciated, since everything is here to teach us
a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we
learn from atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to
teach us the most important lesson of them all --
the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an
atheist performs an act of charity, visits
someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and
cares for the world, he is not doing so because
of some religious teaching. He does not believe
that God commanded him to perform this act. In
fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his
acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And
look at the kindness he can bestow upon others
simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from
if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the
consequences of actions are, from empathy. No God
needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and
empathy if not God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has
been explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality. If
morality is nothing but an abstract concept in the human
mind, it can't evolve into
Why do you think morality is only an abstract concept?
Because that is what modern philosophy teaches and believes. As
I understand it, to modern philosophy, morality is nothing but
a metaphysical abstraction that is void of actual meaning or
substance. It has nothing but an empty definition that can mean
nothing and everything at the same time.
It's normal human nature to feel a revulsion to murder, stealing,
lying, rape and adultery. It's not simply cultural or
"spiritual" (whatever that means).
The boundaries can vary, but the basics are evolved human
instinct. If morality is abstract, then so is hunger.
I never agreed with modern philosophy. Because morality is both
real and non-physical, morality can only come from God by being
spiritual.
The opinion of a troll isn't very convincing to me.
It's just a simple logic.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
anything but still remain the abstract empty concept as it
has always been. If morality is spiritual in existence, it
can only come from God therefore has no need of evolving.
What is evolving is only our human understanding of God's
spiritual morality instead.
No, morality is not "spiritual". Since there is not god,
it's not from god either.
Since morality isn't physical,
That's your opinion.
Why? Can you show otherwise?
Yes. But you have shown over and over that attempting rational
discussion with you is a fool's errand. You always find ways to
promote your personal misunderstanding.
Sorry excuse. You still need to support your claim with evidence.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
by being something real that has real consequence to life and
to this world, morality can only exist spiritually. Apart from
the physical existence, there is only the spiritual existence.
There is nothing else that can exist.
Therefore, according to logic, you have no choice but to admit
that morality has to be spiritual.
Anything that you can't understand is "spiritual" to you.
Why can't you acknowledge the simple logic?
Why can't you read books about science and philosophy like a normal
person would? If you can't do that, acknowledge your
misunderstanding and learn from people who do know.
May I remind you that you are failing to debate the actual issue?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
To me, these things can be explained plausibly by brain wiring
and chemistry. No need to invoke magic.
That's physical(scientific) explanation of the
non-physical(philosophical). It's logically false from the
beginning.
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
That's just your habitual comment on everything.
No, it's just simple fact you need to recognize.
I don't recognize it. That's just a simple fact you need to
recognize.
Why can't you recognize it?
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
You can have all the faith you want in your made-up fantasy.
It works as a troll.
This is not something I can make up.
Of course it is. You do it every day.
Now you overestimate my ability.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Peter Pan
2018-09-10 22:53:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
It's normal human nature to feel a revulsion to murder, stealing,
lying, rape and adultery. It's not simply cultural or
"spiritual" (whatever that means).
The boundaries can vary, but the basics are evolved human
instinct. If morality is abstract, then so is hunger.
I never agreed with modern philosophy. Because morality is both
real and non-physical, morality can only come from God by being
spiritual.
The opinion of a troll isn't very convincing to me.
It's just a simple logic.
Trolling is logic?

That's a, uhm, different definition of it.
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
anything but still remain the abstract empty concept as it
has always been. If morality is spiritual in existence, it
can only come from God therefore has no need of evolving.
What is evolving is only our human understanding of God's
spiritual morality instead.
No, morality is not "spiritual". Since there is not god,
it's not from god either.
Since morality isn't physical,
That's your opinion.
Why? Can you show otherwise?
Yes. But you have shown over and over that attempting rational
discussion with you is a fool's errand. You always find ways to
promote your personal misunderstanding.
Sorry excuse. You still need to support your claim with evidence.
The evidence is love, peace and joy. It's nothing I need
to prove, it's only for you to realize.
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
by being something real that has real consequence to life and
to this world, morality can only exist spiritually. Apart from
the physical existence, there is only the spiritual existence.
There is nothing else that can exist.
Therefore, according to logic, you have no choice but to admit
that morality has to be spiritual.
Anything that you can't understand is "spiritual" to you.
Why can't you acknowledge the simple logic?
Why can't you read books about science and philosophy like a normal
person would? If you can't do that, acknowledge your
misunderstanding and learn from people who do know.
May I remind you that you are failing to debate the actual issue?
No. Read those 2 paragraphs you wrote above. They are
mush. How do you debate mush? It's not to debate, it's
just for you to clean off the wall and put it back in the
kettle so you can throw it again.
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
To me, these things can be explained plausibly by brain wiring
and chemistry. No need to invoke magic.
That's physical(scientific) explanation of the
non-physical(philosophical). It's logically false from the
beginning.
Then you need to prove it's logically false, or simply
realize it.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-09-05 21:03:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that
addresses this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the
student that God created everything in the world to be
appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion.
You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits
someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the
world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He
does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In
fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on
an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can
bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of actions
are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and empathy if not
God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has
been explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality.
You deny reality frequently, and you have been wrong each time.

If morality is
Post by aaa
nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind, it can't evolve into
anything but still remain the abstract empty concept as it has always
been.
But mortality is not an abstract concept in the human mind it is the observation of human activity combined with human empathy which is based on each person's understanding of how they feel about things. Normal sane people do not try and hurt each other unless they are being attacked. Normal people understand that murder is wrong because it means that their life is over and they will never have a chance to love, or smile, or have any kind of experience anymore.
Sane people do not treat others in a way they wouldn't want to be treated, that is human nature and has nothing to do with God.


If morality is spiritual in existence, it can only come from God
Post by aaa
therefore has no need of evolving. What is evolving is only our human
understanding of God's spiritual morality instead.
Therefore, reason, observation, and empathy are only part of our human
understanding of God's morality.
God's morality is evil. God's morality involves the killing of innocents and of people who have done nothing to sin or displease God because they are children not old enough to form such concepts. God's morality is evil and inconsistent, and false.
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
You can't even blow your own nose without invoking a god
explanation.
What's the foundation of Kleenex, if not God himself?
Can't you troll more creatively than this?
There is nothing wrong to consider the entire universe is based on God.
There is when there is no evidence or proof that such a thing as a god exists.
aaa
2018-09-06 01:13:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 10:30:14 AM UTC-7, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
Martin Buber wrote, in his book "Tales of Hasidism, Vol
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature
that addresses this very question. The Master [teacher]
teaches the student that God created everything in the
world to be appreciated, since everything is here to
teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us
the most important lesson of them all -- the lesson of
true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act
of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in
need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because
of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not
believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner
sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow
upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of
actions are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and empathy
if not God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has been
explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality.
You deny reality frequently, and you have been wrong each time.
You only claim that, but you have never shown why it is wrong.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If morality is
Post by aaa
nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind, it can't evolve
into anything but still remain the abstract empty concept as it has
always been.
But mortality is not an abstract concept in the human mind it is the
observation of human activity combined with human empathy which is
based on each person's understanding of how they feel about things.
Which is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Normal sane people do not try and hurt each other unless they are
being attacked. Normal people understand that murder is wrong
because it means that their life is over and they will never have a
chance to love, or smile, or have any kind of experience anymore.
Sane people do not treat others in a way they wouldn't want to be
treated, that is human nature and has nothing to do with God.
That can't be true. What you have described is a rather shallow
understanding of morality. If it's put under a different situation, your
description could be shown to be immoral instead. Therefore, without
relying on God, whatever you call morality can always be made into
immorality simply by putting it under a different situation or
circumstance. You would have no real morality if you deny God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If morality is spiritual in existence, it can only come from God
Post by aaa
therefore has no need of evolving. What is evolving is only our
human understanding of God's spiritual morality instead.
Therefore, reason, observation, and empathy are only part of our
human understanding of God's morality.
God's morality is evil. God's morality involves the killing of
innocents and of people who have done nothing to sin or displease God
because they are children not old enough to form such concepts.
God's morality is evil and inconsistent, and false.
That only shows your total misunderstanding of the Bible.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
You can't even blow your own nose without invoking a god
explanation.
What's the foundation of Kleenex, if not God himself?
Can't you troll more creatively than this?
There is nothing wrong to consider the entire universe is based on God.
There is when there is no evidence or proof that such a thing as a god exists.
That's only your old atheist doctrine. The time has changed. I have
shown you the evidence of God with my signature.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
_V_infernalis_
2018-09-06 04:29:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 10:30:14 AM UTC-7, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature
that addresses this very question. The Master [teacher]
teaches the student that God created everything in the
world to be appreciated, since everything is here to
teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us
the most important lesson of them all -- the lesson of
true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act
of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in
need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because
of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not
believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner
sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow
upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of
actions are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and empathy
if not God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has been
explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality.
You deny reality frequently, and you have been wrong each time.
You only claim that, but you have never shown why it is wrong.
++
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If morality is
Post by aaa
nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind, it can't evolve
into anything but still remain the abstract empty concept as it has
always been.
But mortality is not an abstract concept in the human mind it is the
observation of human activity combined
with human empathy which is
based on each person's understanding of how they feel about things.
Which is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind.
Right -- look at how really really abstract empathy is:



My god, if it were any more abstract it'd be a Picasso:



Hell, quantum physics is less abstract than this, right?







V
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Normal sane people do not try and hurt each other unless they are
being attacked. Normal people understand that murder is wrong
because it means that their life is over and they will never have a
chance to love, or smile, or have any kind of experience anymore.
Sane people do not treat others in a way they wouldn't want to be
treated, that is human nature and has nothing to do with God.
That can't be true. What you have described is a rather shallow
understanding of morality. If it's put under a different situation, your
description could be shown to be immoral instead. Therefore, without
relying on God, whatever you call morality can always be made into
immorality simply by putting it under a different situation or
circumstance. You would have no real morality if you deny God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If morality is spiritual in existence, it can only come from God
Post by aaa
therefore has no need of evolving. What is evolving is only our
human understanding of God's spiritual morality instead.
Therefore, reason, observation, and empathy are only part of our
human understanding of God's morality.
God's morality is evil. God's morality involves the killing of
innocents and of people who have done nothing to sin or displease God
because they are children not old enough to form such concepts.
God's morality is evil and inconsistent, and false.
That only shows your total misunderstanding of the Bible.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
You can't even blow your own nose without invoking a god
explanation.
What's the foundation of Kleenex, if not God himself?
Can't you troll more creatively than this?
There is nothing wrong to consider the entire universe is based on God.
There is when there is no evidence or proof that such a thing as a god exists.
That's only your old atheist doctrine. The time has changed. I have
shown you the evidence of God with my signature.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
aaa
2018-09-06 14:04:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 10:30:14 AM UTC-7, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature
that addresses this very question. The Master [teacher]
teaches the student that God created everything in the
world to be appreciated, since everything is here to
teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us
the most important lesson of them all -- the lesson of
true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act
of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in
need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because
of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not
believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner
sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow
upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of
actions are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and empathy
if not God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has been
explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality.
You deny reality frequently, and you have been wrong each time.
You only claim that, but you have never shown why it is wrong.
++
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If morality is
Post by aaa
nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind, it can't evolve
into anything but still remain the abstract empty concept as it has
always been.
But mortality is not an abstract concept in the human mind it is the
observation of human activity combined
with human empathy which is
based on each person's understanding of how they feel about things.
Which is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind.
http://youtu.be/zG3RrLi-d8k
http://youtu.be/Omr6FzY-1sk
Hell, quantum physics is less abstract than this, right?
http://youtu.be/B8k6FCeXNR8
Thanks for proving modern philosophy wrong.
Post by _V_infernalis_
V
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Normal sane people do not try and hurt each other unless they are
being attacked. Normal people understand that murder is wrong
because it means that their life is over and they will never have a
chance to love, or smile, or have any kind of experience anymore.
Sane people do not treat others in a way they wouldn't want to be
treated, that is human nature and has nothing to do with God.
That can't be true. What you have described is a rather shallow
understanding of morality. If it's put under a different situation, your
description could be shown to be immoral instead. Therefore, without
relying on God, whatever you call morality can always be made into
immorality simply by putting it under a different situation or
circumstance. You would have no real morality if you deny God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If morality is spiritual in existence, it can only come from God
Post by aaa
therefore has no need of evolving. What is evolving is only our
human understanding of God's spiritual morality instead.
Therefore, reason, observation, and empathy are only part of our
human understanding of God's morality.
God's morality is evil. God's morality involves the killing of
innocents and of people who have done nothing to sin or displease God
because they are children not old enough to form such concepts.
God's morality is evil and inconsistent, and false.
That only shows your total misunderstanding of the Bible.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
You can't even blow your own nose without invoking a god
explanation.
What's the foundation of Kleenex, if not God himself?
Can't you troll more creatively than this?
There is nothing wrong to consider the entire universe is based on God.
There is when there is no evidence or proof that such a thing as a god exists.
That's only your old atheist doctrine. The time has changed. I have
shown you the evidence of God with my signature.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
_V_infernalis_
2018-09-06 17:04:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 10:30:14 AM UTC-7, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature
that addresses this very question. The Master [teacher]
teaches the student that God created everything in the
world to be appreciated, since everything is here to
teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us
the most important lesson of them all -- the lesson of
true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act
of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in
need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because
of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not
believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner
sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow
upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of
actions are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and empathy
if not God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has been
explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality.
You deny reality frequently, and you have been wrong each time.
You only claim that, but you have never shown why it is wrong.
++
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If morality is
Post by aaa
nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind, it can't evolve
into anything but still remain the abstract empty concept as it has
always been.
+++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
But mortality is not an abstract concept in the human mind it is the
observation of human activity combined
with human empathy which is
based on each person's understanding of how they feel about things.
Which is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind.
http://youtu.be/zG3RrLi-d8k
http://youtu.be/Omr6FzY-1sk
Hell, quantum physics is less abstract than this, right?
http://youtu.be/B8k6FCeXNR8
Thanks for proving modern philosophy wrong.
PFFFFTTT!!!


Still waiting for the slightest bit of evidence from you that
"modern philosophy" teaches any such thing.

Is it safe to assume hell will freeze solid before you do that?


V
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
V
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Normal sane people do not try and hurt each other unless they are
being attacked. Normal people understand that murder is wrong
because it means that their life is over and they will never have a
chance to love, or smile, or have any kind of experience anymore.
Sane people do not treat others in a way they wouldn't want to be
treated, that is human nature and has nothing to do with God.
That can't be true. What you have described is a rather shallow
understanding of morality. If it's put under a different situation, your
description could be shown to be immoral instead. Therefore, without
relying on God, whatever you call morality can always be made into
immorality simply by putting it under a different situation or
circumstance. You would have no real morality if you deny God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If morality is spiritual in existence, it can only come from God
Post by aaa
therefore has no need of evolving. What is evolving is only our
human understanding of God's spiritual morality instead.
Therefore, reason, observation, and empathy are only part of our
human understanding of God's morality.
God's morality is evil. God's morality involves the killing of
innocents and of people who have done nothing to sin or displease God
because they are children not old enough to form such concepts.
God's morality is evil and inconsistent, and false.
That only shows your total misunderstanding of the Bible.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
You can't even blow your own nose without invoking a god
explanation.
What's the foundation of Kleenex, if not God himself?
Can't you troll more creatively than this?
There is nothing wrong to consider the entire universe is based on God.
There is when there is no evidence or proof that such a thing as a god exists.
That's only your old atheist doctrine. The time has changed. I have
shown you the evidence of God with my signature.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
aaa
2018-09-07 15:30:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 10:30:14 AM UTC-7, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature
that addresses this very question. The Master [teacher]
teaches the student that God created everything in the
world to be appreciated, since everything is here to
teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us
the most important lesson of them all -- the lesson of
true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act
of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in
need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because
of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not
believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner
sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow
upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of
actions are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and empathy
if not God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has been
explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality.
You deny reality frequently, and you have been wrong each time.
You only claim that, but you have never shown why it is wrong.
++
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If morality is
Post by aaa
nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind, it can't evolve
into anything but still remain the abstract empty concept as it has
always been.
+++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
But mortality is not an abstract concept in the human mind it is the
observation of human activity combined
with human empathy which is
based on each person's understanding of how they feel about things.
Which is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind.
http://youtu.be/zG3RrLi-d8k
http://youtu.be/Omr6FzY-1sk
Hell, quantum physics is less abstract than this, right?
http://youtu.be/B8k6FCeXNR8
Thanks for proving modern philosophy wrong.
PFFFFTTT!!!
Still waiting for the slightest bit of evidence from you that
"modern philosophy" teaches any such thing.
Is it safe to assume hell will freeze solid before you do that?
Why? Modern philosophy has nothing but abstract concept. It has nothing
else. By rejecting God, modern philosophy is not worth the paper it's
written on. It's nothing but meaningless and fruitless mental exercise.
Post by _V_infernalis_
V
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
V
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Normal sane people do not try and hurt each other unless they are
being attacked. Normal people understand that murder is wrong
because it means that their life is over and they will never have a
chance to love, or smile, or have any kind of experience anymore.
Sane people do not treat others in a way they wouldn't want to be
treated, that is human nature and has nothing to do with God.
That can't be true. What you have described is a rather shallow
understanding of morality. If it's put under a different situation, your
description could be shown to be immoral instead. Therefore, without
relying on God, whatever you call morality can always be made into
immorality simply by putting it under a different situation or
circumstance. You would have no real morality if you deny God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If morality is spiritual in existence, it can only come from God
Post by aaa
therefore has no need of evolving. What is evolving is only our
human understanding of God's spiritual morality instead.
Therefore, reason, observation, and empathy are only part of our
human understanding of God's morality.
God's morality is evil. God's morality involves the killing of
innocents and of people who have done nothing to sin or displease God
because they are children not old enough to form such concepts.
God's morality is evil and inconsistent, and false.
That only shows your total misunderstanding of the Bible.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
You can't even blow your own nose without invoking a god
explanation.
What's the foundation of Kleenex, if not God himself?
Can't you troll more creatively than this?
There is nothing wrong to consider the entire universe is based on God.
There is when there is no evidence or proof that such a thing as a god exists.
That's only your old atheist doctrine. The time has changed. I have
shown you the evidence of God with my signature.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
_V_infernalis_
2018-09-08 18:19:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature
that addresses this very question. The Master [teacher]
teaches the student that God created everything in the
world to be appreciated, since everything is here to
teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us
the most important lesson of them all -- the lesson of
true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act
of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in
need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because
of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not
believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner
sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow
upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of
actions are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and empathy
if not God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has been
explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality.
You deny reality frequently, and you have been wrong each time.
You only claim that, but you have never shown why it is wrong.
++
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If morality is
Post by aaa
nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind, it can't evolve
into anything but still remain the abstract empty concept as it has
always been.
+++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
But mortality is not an abstract concept in the human mind it is the
observation of human activity combined
with human empathy which is
based on each person's understanding of how they feel about things.
Which is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind.
http://youtu.be/zG3RrLi-d8k
http://youtu.be/Omr6FzY-1sk
Hell, quantum physics is less abstract than this, right?
http://youtu.be/B8k6FCeXNR8
Thanks for proving modern philosophy wrong.
PFFFFTTT!!!
+++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Still waiting for the slightest bit of evidence from you that
"modern philosophy" teaches any such thing.
Is it safe to assume hell will freeze solid before you do that?
Why? Modern philosophy has nothing but abstract concept.
<tap> <tap> <tap> <tap> <tap>

S t i l l waiting for your evidence for that claim. Links, quotes, names, documentation of
any sort.

Anything other than because-I-say-so. Because we've all seen exactly what this is worth.

Repeatedly.


So, let's see it:







V
Post by aaa
It has nothing
else. By rejecting God, modern philosophy is not worth the paper it's
written on. It's nothing but meaningless and fruitless mental exercise.
Post by _V_infernalis_
V
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
V
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Normal sane people do not try and hurt each other unless they are
being attacked. Normal people understand that murder is wrong
because it means that their life is over and they will never have a
chance to love, or smile, or have any kind of experience anymore.
Sane people do not treat others in a way they wouldn't want to be
treated, that is human nature and has nothing to do with God.
That can't be true. What you have described is a rather shallow
understanding of morality. If it's put under a different situation, your
description could be shown to be immoral instead. Therefore, without
relying on God, whatever you call morality can always be made into
immorality simply by putting it under a different situation or
circumstance. You would have no real morality if you deny God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If morality is spiritual in existence, it can only come from God
Post by aaa
therefore has no need of evolving. What is evolving is only our
human understanding of God's spiritual morality instead.
Therefore, reason, observation, and empathy are only part of our
human understanding of God's morality.
God's morality is evil. God's morality involves the killing of
innocents and of people who have done nothing to sin or displease God
because they are children not old enough to form such concepts.
God's morality is evil and inconsistent, and false.
That only shows your total misunderstanding of the Bible.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
You can't even blow your own nose without invoking a god
explanation.
What's the foundation of Kleenex, if not God himself?
Can't you troll more creatively than this?
There is nothing wrong to consider the entire universe is based on God.
There is when there is no evidence or proof that such a thing as a god exists.
That's only your old atheist doctrine. The time has changed. I have
shown you the evidence of God with my signature.
aaa
2018-09-10 02:15:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature
that addresses this very question. The Master [teacher]
teaches the student that God created everything in the
world to be appreciated, since everything is here to
teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us
the most important lesson of them all -- the lesson of
true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act
of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in
need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because
of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not
believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner
sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow
upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of
actions are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and empathy
if not God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has been
explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality.
You deny reality frequently, and you have been wrong each time.
You only claim that, but you have never shown why it is wrong.
++
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If morality is
Post by aaa
nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind, it can't evolve
into anything but still remain the abstract empty concept as it has
always been.
+++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
But mortality is not an abstract concept in the human mind it is the
observation of human activity combined
with human empathy which is
based on each person's understanding of how they feel about things.
Which is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind.
http://youtu.be/zG3RrLi-d8k
http://youtu.be/Omr6FzY-1sk
Hell, quantum physics is less abstract than this, right?
http://youtu.be/B8k6FCeXNR8
Thanks for proving modern philosophy wrong.
PFFFFTTT!!!
+++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Still waiting for the slightest bit of evidence from you that
"modern philosophy" teaches any such thing.
Is it safe to assume hell will freeze solid before you do that?
Why? Modern philosophy has nothing but abstract concept.
<tap> <tap> <tap> <tap> <tap>
S t i l l waiting for your evidence for that claim. Links, quotes, names, documentation of
any sort.
Anything other than because-I-say-so. Because we've all seen exactly what this is worth.
Repeatedly.
I don't have to prove it. It's my logical conclusion based on the fact
that modern philosophy denies the existence of God who happens to be the
only source of meaning and substance in all philosophy. Without God,
modern philosophy can have nothing but abstract empty concepts.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Mitchell Holman
2018-09-10 13:02:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature
that addresses this very question. The Master [teacher]
teaches the student that God created everything in the
world to be appreciated, since everything is here to
teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us
the most important lesson of them all -- the lesson of
true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act
of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in
need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because
of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not
believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner
sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow
upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not
from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of
actions are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and
empathy if not God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has been
explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality.
You deny reality frequently, and you have been wrong each time.
You only claim that, but you have never shown why it is wrong.
++
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If morality is
Post by aaa
nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind, it can't
evolve into anything but still remain the abstract empty
concept as it has always been.
+++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
But mortality is not an abstract concept in the human mind it
is the observation of human activity combined
with human empathy which is
based on each person's understanding of how they feel about things.
Which is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind.
http://youtu.be/zG3RrLi-d8k
http://youtu.be/Omr6FzY-1sk
Hell, quantum physics is less abstract than this, right?
http://youtu.be/B8k6FCeXNR8
Thanks for proving modern philosophy wrong.
PFFFFTTT!!!
+++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Still waiting for the slightest bit of evidence from you that
"modern philosophy" teaches any such thing.
Is it safe to assume hell will freeze solid before you do that?
Why? Modern philosophy has nothing but abstract concept.
<tap> <tap> <tap> <tap> <tap>
S t i l l waiting for your evidence for that claim. Links, quotes,
names, documentation of any sort.
Anything other than because-I-say-so. Because we've all seen exactly what this is worth.
Repeatedly.
I don't have to prove it.
You demand proof, but refuse to supply it.

Sheesh.............
aaa
2018-09-11 03:41:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
Martin Buber wrote, in his book "Tales of Hasidism, Vol
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature
that addresses this very question. The Master [teacher]
teaches the student that God created everything in the
world to be appreciated, since everything is here to
teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from
atheists? Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us
the most important lesson of them all -- the lesson of
true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act
of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in
need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because
of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not
believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner
sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow
upon others simply because he feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not
from God?
From reason, from observation of what the consequences of
actions are, from empathy. No God needed.
What's the foundation of such reason, observation, and
empathy if not God himself?
Morality and empathy is *evolved* human nature, as has been
explained to you already.
I deny that is a correct description of human morality.
You deny reality frequently, and you have been wrong each time.
You only claim that, but you have never shown why it is wrong.
++
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If morality is
Post by aaa
nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind, it can't
evolve into anything but still remain the abstract empty
concept as it has always been.
+++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
But mortality is not an abstract concept in the human mind it
is the observation of human activity combined
with human empathy which is
based on each person's understanding of how they feel about things.
Which is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind.
http://youtu.be/zG3RrLi-d8k
http://youtu.be/Omr6FzY-1sk
Hell, quantum physics is less abstract than this, right?
http://youtu.be/B8k6FCeXNR8
Thanks for proving modern philosophy wrong.
PFFFFTTT!!!
+++
Post by aaa
Post by _V_infernalis_
Still waiting for the slightest bit of evidence from you that
"modern philosophy" teaches any such thing.
Is it safe to assume hell will freeze solid before you do that?
Why? Modern philosophy has nothing but abstract concept.
<tap> <tap> <tap> <tap> <tap>
S t i l l waiting for your evidence for that claim. Links, quotes,
names, documentation of any sort.
Anything other than because-I-say-so. Because we've all seen exactly
what this is worth.
Repeatedly.
I don't have to prove it.
You demand proof, but refuse to supply it.
Sheesh.............
I did give you my explanation which you have conveniently deleted.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Peter Pan
2018-09-06 10:59:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
But mortality is not an abstract concept in the human mind it is the
observation of human activity combined with human empathy which is
based on each person's understanding of how they feel about things.
Which is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Normal sane people do not try and hurt each other unless they are
being attacked. Normal people understand that murder is wrong
because it means that their life is over and they will never have a
chance to love, or smile, or have any kind of experience anymore.
Sane people do not treat others in a way they wouldn't want to be
treated, that is human nature and has nothing to do with God.
That can't be true. What you have described is a rather shallow
understanding of morality. If it's put under a different situation, your
description could be shown to be immoral instead. Therefore, without
relying on God, whatever you call morality can always be made into
immorality simply by putting it under a different situation or
circumstance. You would have no real morality if you deny God.
Neuroscience and artificial conscience
Numerous case studies of brain damage have shown
that damage to areas of the brain (such as the
anterior prefrontal cortex) results in the
reduction or elimination of inhibitions, with a
corresponding radical change in behaviour.[78] When
the damage occurs to adults, they may still be able
to perform moral reasoning; but when it occurs to
children, they may never develop that
ability.[79][80]

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience#Neuroscience_and_artificial_conscience>

Does this remind you of anyone you might know?
aaa
2018-09-06 14:15:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
But mortality is not an abstract concept in the human mind it is the
observation of human activity combined with human empathy which is
based on each person's understanding of how they feel about things.
Which is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Normal sane people do not try and hurt each other unless they are
being attacked. Normal people understand that murder is wrong
because it means that their life is over and they will never have a
chance to love, or smile, or have any kind of experience anymore.
Sane people do not treat others in a way they wouldn't want to be
treated, that is human nature and has nothing to do with God.
That can't be true. What you have described is a rather shallow
understanding of morality. If it's put under a different situation, your
description could be shown to be immoral instead. Therefore, without
relying on God, whatever you call morality can always be made into
immorality simply by putting it under a different situation or
circumstance. You would have no real morality if you deny God.
Neuroscience and artificial conscience
Numerous case studies of brain damage have shown
that damage to areas of the brain (such as the
anterior prefrontal cortex) results in the
reduction or elimination of inhibitions, with a
corresponding radical change in behaviour.[78] When
the damage occurs to adults, they may still be able
to perform moral reasoning; but when it occurs to
children, they may never develop that
ability.[79][80]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience#Neuroscience_and_artificial_conscience>
Does this remind you of anyone you might know?
The brain is our major communication channel between the physical and
the spiritual. When it's damaged, we will lose the ability to acquire
certain spiritual understandings. As an adult, we can become aware of
our reduced ability. As a child, we may not be able to realize such
damage when we have never developed such ability in the first place.
There is nothing to be surprised about that.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Yap Honghor
2018-09-08 01:49:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
But mortality is not an abstract concept in the human mind it is the
observation of human activity combined with human empathy which is
based on each person's understanding of how they feel about things.
Which is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Normal sane people do not try and hurt each other unless they are
being attacked. Normal people understand that murder is wrong
because it means that their life is over and they will never have a
chance to love, or smile, or have any kind of experience anymore.
Sane people do not treat others in a way they wouldn't want to be
treated, that is human nature and has nothing to do with God.
That can't be true. What you have described is a rather shallow
understanding of morality. If it's put under a different situation, your
description could be shown to be immoral instead. Therefore, without
relying on God, whatever you call morality can always be made into
immorality simply by putting it under a different situation or
circumstance. You would have no real morality if you deny God.
Neuroscience and artificial conscience
Numerous case studies of brain damage have shown
that damage to areas of the brain (such as the
anterior prefrontal cortex) results in the
reduction or elimination of inhibitions, with a
corresponding radical change in behaviour.[78] When
the damage occurs to adults, they may still be able
to perform moral reasoning; but when it occurs to
children, they may never develop that
ability.[79][80]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience#Neuroscience_and_artificial_conscience>
Does this remind you of anyone you might know?
The brain is our major communication channel between the physical and
the spiritual. When it's damaged, we will lose the ability to acquire
certain spiritual understandings. As an adult, we can become aware of
our reduced ability. As a child, we may not be able to realize such
damage when we have never developed such ability in the first place.
There is nothing to be surprised about that.
Our brains are used for useful works, not for you useless imagination!!!
Day dreaming of yours can be psychological beneficial for your broken brain?
I doubt it.....
Post by aaa
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
aaa
2018-09-08 15:36:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
But mortality is not an abstract concept in the human mind it is the
observation of human activity combined with human empathy which is
based on each person's understanding of how they feel about things.
Which is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Normal sane people do not try and hurt each other unless they are
being attacked. Normal people understand that murder is wrong
because it means that their life is over and they will never have a
chance to love, or smile, or have any kind of experience anymore.
Sane people do not treat others in a way they wouldn't want to be
treated, that is human nature and has nothing to do with God.
That can't be true. What you have described is a rather shallow
understanding of morality. If it's put under a different situation, your
description could be shown to be immoral instead. Therefore, without
relying on God, whatever you call morality can always be made into
immorality simply by putting it under a different situation or
circumstance. You would have no real morality if you deny God.
Neuroscience and artificial conscience
Numerous case studies of brain damage have shown
that damage to areas of the brain (such as the
anterior prefrontal cortex) results in the
reduction or elimination of inhibitions, with a
corresponding radical change in behaviour.[78] When
the damage occurs to adults, they may still be able
to perform moral reasoning; but when it occurs to
children, they may never develop that
ability.[79][80]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience#Neuroscience_and_artificial_conscience>
Does this remind you of anyone you might know?
The brain is our major communication channel between the physical and
the spiritual. When it's damaged, we will lose the ability to acquire
certain spiritual understandings. As an adult, we can become aware of
our reduced ability. As a child, we may not be able to realize such
damage when we have never developed such ability in the first place.
There is nothing to be surprised about that.
Our brains are used for useful works, not for you useless imagination!!!
Day dreaming of yours can be psychological beneficial for your broken brain?
I doubt it.....
It's not day dreaming. It's to better understand how the human mind
functions. It will help us better understand who we are and why we are here.
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
duke
2018-09-08 18:11:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
But mortality is not an abstract concept in the human mind it is the
observation of human activity combined with human empathy which is
based on each person's understanding of how they feel about things.
Which is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Normal sane people do not try and hurt each other unless they are
being attacked. Normal people understand that murder is wrong
because it means that their life is over and they will never have a
chance to love, or smile, or have any kind of experience anymore.
Sane people do not treat others in a way they wouldn't want to be
treated, that is human nature and has nothing to do with God.
That can't be true. What you have described is a rather shallow
understanding of morality. If it's put under a different situation, your
description could be shown to be immoral instead. Therefore, without
relying on God, whatever you call morality can always be made into
immorality simply by putting it under a different situation or
circumstance. You would have no real morality if you deny God.
Neuroscience and artificial conscience
Numerous case studies of brain damage have shown
that damage to areas of the brain (such as the
anterior prefrontal cortex) results in the
reduction or elimination of inhibitions, with a
corresponding radical change in behaviour.[78] When
the damage occurs to adults, they may still be able
to perform moral reasoning; but when it occurs to
children, they may never develop that
ability.[79][80]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience#Neuroscience_and_artificial_conscience>
Does this remind you of anyone you might know?
The brain is our major communication channel between the physical and
the spiritual. When it's damaged, we will lose the ability to acquire
certain spiritual understandings. As an adult, we can become aware of
our reduced ability. As a child, we may not be able to realize such
damage when we have never developed such ability in the first place.
There is nothing to be surprised about that.
Our brains are used for useful works,
You mean like a hammer?

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Peter Pan
2018-09-08 15:27:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
But mortality is not an abstract concept in the human mind it is the
observation of human activity combined with human empathy which is
based on each person's understanding of how they feel about things.
Which is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Normal sane people do not try and hurt each other unless they are
being attacked. Normal people understand that murder is wrong
because it means that their life is over and they will never have a
chance to love, or smile, or have any kind of experience anymore.
Sane people do not treat others in a way they wouldn't want to be
treated, that is human nature and has nothing to do with God.
That can't be true. What you have described is a rather shallow
understanding of morality. If it's put under a different situation, your
description could be shown to be immoral instead. Therefore, without
relying on God, whatever you call morality can always be made into
immorality simply by putting it under a different situation or
circumstance. You would have no real morality if you deny God.
Neuroscience and artificial conscience
Numerous case studies of brain damage have shown
that damage to areas of the brain (such as the
anterior prefrontal cortex) results in the
reduction or elimination of inhibitions, with a
corresponding radical change in behaviour.[78] When
the damage occurs to adults, they may still be able
to perform moral reasoning; but when it occurs to
children, they may never develop that
ability.[79][80]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience#Neuroscience_and_artificial_conscience>
Does this remind you of anyone you might know?
The brain is our major communication channel between the physical and
the spiritual.
Nope, wrong guess. The brain does information
processing, control, and decision making. In humans, one
part of it also functions as the conscience. Get it? A
conscience is the seat of human morality. It's a
physical thing.

Brains aren't spiritual.
Post by aaa
When it's damaged, we will lose the ability to acquire
certain spiritual understandings.
Not spiritual. Brains are physical.
Post by aaa
As an adult, we can become aware of
our reduced ability. As a child, we may not be able to realize such
damage when we have never developed such ability in the first place.
There is nothing to be surprised about that.
Certain kinds of brain damage impair the conscience
function. Some brain damage can impair sensibility too.
That seems to have affected you deeply.
aaa
2018-09-10 02:10:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
But mortality is not an abstract concept in the human mind it is the
observation of human activity combined with human empathy which is
based on each person's understanding of how they feel about things.
Which is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Normal sane people do not try and hurt each other unless they are
being attacked. Normal people understand that murder is wrong
because it means that their life is over and they will never have a
chance to love, or smile, or have any kind of experience anymore.
Sane people do not treat others in a way they wouldn't want to be
treated, that is human nature and has nothing to do with God.
That can't be true. What you have described is a rather shallow
understanding of morality. If it's put under a different situation, your
description could be shown to be immoral instead. Therefore, without
relying on God, whatever you call morality can always be made into
immorality simply by putting it under a different situation or
circumstance. You would have no real morality if you deny God.
Neuroscience and artificial conscience
Numerous case studies of brain damage have shown
that damage to areas of the brain (such as the
anterior prefrontal cortex) results in the
reduction or elimination of inhibitions, with a
corresponding radical change in behaviour.[78] When
the damage occurs to adults, they may still be able
to perform moral reasoning; but when it occurs to
children, they may never develop that
ability.[79][80]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience#Neuroscience_and_artificial_conscience>
Does this remind you of anyone you might know?
The brain is our major communication channel between the physical and
the spiritual.
Nope, wrong guess. The brain does information
processing, control, and decision making. In humans, one
part of it also functions as the conscience. Get it? A
conscience is the seat of human morality. It's a
physical thing.
Brains aren't spiritual.
Then the brain can't do the job that can only be accomplished by the
spiritual. Your scientific interpretation of the brain function is
contradicting with the philosophical understanding of the spiritual
ability. From the view of philosophy, the physical brain is incapable to
accomplish any spiritual task at all. Thinking, decision making, and
human conscience are all spiritual abilities.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
When it's damaged, we will lose the ability to acquire
certain spiritual understandings.
Not spiritual. Brains are physical.
It's the passageway for the spiritual to communicate with the physical
world.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
As an adult, we can become aware of
our reduced ability. As a child, we may not be able to realize such
damage when we have never developed such ability in the first place.
There is nothing to be surprised about that.
Certain kinds of brain damage impair the conscience
function. Some brain damage can impair sensibility too.
That seems to have affected you deeply.
That should be even more evidence that the brain is only a communication
hub.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Peter Pan
2018-09-10 20:33:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
But mortality is not an abstract concept in the human mind it is the
observation of human activity combined with human empathy which is
based on each person's understanding of how they feel about things.
Which is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Normal sane people do not try and hurt each other unless they are
being attacked. Normal people understand that murder is wrong
because it means that their life is over and they will never have a
chance to love, or smile, or have any kind of experience anymore.
Sane people do not treat others in a way they wouldn't want to be
treated, that is human nature and has nothing to do with God.
That can't be true. What you have described is a rather shallow
understanding of morality. If it's put under a different situation, your
description could be shown to be immoral instead. Therefore, without
relying on God, whatever you call morality can always be made into
immorality simply by putting it under a different situation or
circumstance. You would have no real morality if you deny God.
Neuroscience and artificial conscience
Numerous case studies of brain damage have shown
that damage to areas of the brain (such as the
anterior prefrontal cortex) results in the
reduction or elimination of inhibitions, with a
corresponding radical change in behaviour.[78] When
the damage occurs to adults, they may still be able
to perform moral reasoning; but when it occurs to
children, they may never develop that
ability.[79][80]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience#Neuroscience_and_artificial_conscience>
Does this remind you of anyone you might know?
The brain is our major communication channel between the physical and
the spiritual.
Nope, wrong guess. The brain does information
processing, control, and decision making. In humans, one
part of it also functions as the conscience. Get it? A
conscience is the seat of human morality. It's a
physical thing.
Brains aren't spiritual.
Then the brain can't do the job that can only be accomplished by the
spiritual. Your scientific interpretation of the brain function is
contradicting with the philosophical understanding of the spiritual
ability. From the view of philosophy, the physical brain is incapable to
accomplish any spiritual task at all. Thinking, decision making, and
human conscience are all spiritual abilities.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
When it's damaged, we will lose the ability to acquire
certain spiritual understandings.
Not spiritual. Brains are physical.
It's the passageway for the spiritual to communicate with the physical
world.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
As an adult, we can become aware of
our reduced ability. As a child, we may not be able to realize such
damage when we have never developed such ability in the first place.
There is nothing to be surprised about that.
Certain kinds of brain damage impair the conscience
function. Some brain damage can impair sensibility too.
That seems to have affected you deeply.
That should be even more evidence that the brain is only a communication
hub.
So how does the brain communicate with the spirit world?
Does it have little spiritual antennae etched into it
like a wifi chip?

How do the spiritual world and the real world interact
with each other? Is "spirit" a particle or a wave?
aaa
2018-09-11 03:48:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
But mortality is not an abstract concept in the human mind it is the
observation of human activity combined with human empathy which is
based on each person's understanding of how they feel about things.
Which is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Normal sane people do not try and hurt each other unless they are
being attacked. Normal people understand that murder is wrong
because it means that their life is over and they will never have a
chance to love, or smile, or have any kind of experience anymore.
Sane people do not treat others in a way they wouldn't want to be
treated, that is human nature and has nothing to do with God.
That can't be true. What you have described is a rather shallow
understanding of morality. If it's put under a different situation, your
description could be shown to be immoral instead. Therefore, without
relying on God, whatever you call morality can always be made into
immorality simply by putting it under a different situation or
circumstance. You would have no real morality if you deny God.
Neuroscience and artificial conscience
Numerous case studies of brain damage have shown
that damage to areas of the brain (such as the
anterior prefrontal cortex) results in the
reduction or elimination of inhibitions, with a
corresponding radical change in behaviour.[78] When
the damage occurs to adults, they may still be able
to perform moral reasoning; but when it occurs to
children, they may never develop that
ability.[79][80]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience#Neuroscience_and_artificial_conscience>
Does this remind you of anyone you might know?
The brain is our major communication channel between the physical and
the spiritual.
Nope, wrong guess. The brain does information
processing, control, and decision making. In humans, one
part of it also functions as the conscience. Get it? A
conscience is the seat of human morality. It's a
physical thing.
Brains aren't spiritual.
Then the brain can't do the job that can only be accomplished by the
spiritual. Your scientific interpretation of the brain function is
contradicting with the philosophical understanding of the spiritual
ability. From the view of philosophy, the physical brain is incapable to
accomplish any spiritual task at all. Thinking, decision making, and
human conscience are all spiritual abilities.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
When it's damaged, we will lose the ability to acquire
certain spiritual understandings.
Not spiritual. Brains are physical.
It's the passageway for the spiritual to communicate with the physical
world.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
As an adult, we can become aware of
our reduced ability. As a child, we may not be able to realize such
damage when we have never developed such ability in the first place.
There is nothing to be surprised about that.
Certain kinds of brain damage impair the conscience
function. Some brain damage can impair sensibility too.
That seems to have affected you deeply.
That should be even more evidence that the brain is only a communication
hub.
So how does the brain communicate with the spirit world?
Does it have little spiritual antennae etched into it
like a wifi chip?
How do the spiritual world and the real world interact
with each other? Is "spirit" a particle or a wave?
The brain is controlled by the human mind. The mind is responsible to
acquire information from the brain to interact with the spiritual world.
When the brain is damaged, the mind will not be able to acquire the
necessary information, so there will not be interaction happening
between the mind and the spiritual world.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Peter Pan
2018-09-11 10:48:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
But mortality is not an abstract concept in the human mind it is the
observation of human activity combined with human empathy which is
based on each person's understanding of how they feel about things.
Which is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Normal sane people do not try and hurt each other unless they are
being attacked. Normal people understand that murder is wrong
because it means that their life is over and they will never have a
chance to love, or smile, or have any kind of experience anymore.
Sane people do not treat others in a way they wouldn't want to be
treated, that is human nature and has nothing to do with God.
That can't be true. What you have described is a rather shallow
understanding of morality. If it's put under a different situation, your
description could be shown to be immoral instead. Therefore, without
relying on God, whatever you call morality can always be made into
immorality simply by putting it under a different situation or
circumstance. You would have no real morality if you deny God.
Neuroscience and artificial conscience
Numerous case studies of brain damage have shown
that damage to areas of the brain (such as the
anterior prefrontal cortex) results in the
reduction or elimination of inhibitions, with a
corresponding radical change in behaviour.[78] When
the damage occurs to adults, they may still be able
to perform moral reasoning; but when it occurs to
children, they may never develop that
ability.[79][80]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience#Neuroscience_and_artificial_conscience>
Does this remind you of anyone you might know?
The brain is our major communication channel between the physical and
the spiritual.
Nope, wrong guess. The brain does information
processing, control, and decision making. In humans, one
part of it also functions as the conscience. Get it? A
conscience is the seat of human morality. It's a
physical thing.
Brains aren't spiritual.
Then the brain can't do the job that can only be accomplished by the
spiritual. Your scientific interpretation of the brain function is
contradicting with the philosophical understanding of the spiritual
ability. From the view of philosophy, the physical brain is incapable to
accomplish any spiritual task at all. Thinking, decision making, and
human conscience are all spiritual abilities.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
When it's damaged, we will lose the ability to acquire
certain spiritual understandings.
Not spiritual. Brains are physical.
It's the passageway for the spiritual to communicate with the physical
world.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
As an adult, we can become aware of
our reduced ability. As a child, we may not be able to realize such
damage when we have never developed such ability in the first place.
There is nothing to be surprised about that.
Certain kinds of brain damage impair the conscience
function. Some brain damage can impair sensibility too.
That seems to have affected you deeply.
That should be even more evidence that the brain is only a communication
hub.
So how does the brain communicate with the spirit world?
Does it have little spiritual antennae etched into it
like a wifi chip?
How do the spiritual world and the real world interact
with each other? Is "spirit" a particle or a wave?
The brain is controlled by the human mind. The mind is responsible to
acquire information from the brain to interact with the spiritual world.
When the brain is damaged, the mind will not be able to acquire the
necessary information, so there will not be interaction happening
between the mind and the spiritual world.
I knew you couldn't answer the question.
aaa
2018-09-11 16:58:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
But mortality is not an abstract concept in the human mind it is the
observation of human activity combined with human empathy which is
based on each person's understanding of how they feel about things.
Which is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Normal sane people do not try and hurt each other unless they are
being attacked. Normal people understand that murder is wrong
because it means that their life is over and they will never have a
chance to love, or smile, or have any kind of experience anymore.
Sane people do not treat others in a way they wouldn't want to be
treated, that is human nature and has nothing to do with God.
That can't be true. What you have described is a rather shallow
understanding of morality. If it's put under a different situation, your
description could be shown to be immoral instead. Therefore, without
relying on God, whatever you call morality can always be made into
immorality simply by putting it under a different situation or
circumstance. You would have no real morality if you deny God.
Neuroscience and artificial conscience
Numerous case studies of brain damage have shown
that damage to areas of the brain (such as the
anterior prefrontal cortex) results in the
reduction or elimination of inhibitions, with a
corresponding radical change in behaviour.[78] When
the damage occurs to adults, they may still be able
to perform moral reasoning; but when it occurs to
children, they may never develop that
ability.[79][80]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience#Neuroscience_and_artificial_conscience>
Does this remind you of anyone you might know?
The brain is our major communication channel between the physical and
the spiritual.
Nope, wrong guess. The brain does information
processing, control, and decision making. In humans, one
part of it also functions as the conscience. Get it? A
conscience is the seat of human morality. It's a
physical thing.
Brains aren't spiritual.
Then the brain can't do the job that can only be accomplished by the
spiritual. Your scientific interpretation of the brain function is
contradicting with the philosophical understanding of the spiritual
ability. From the view of philosophy, the physical brain is incapable to
accomplish any spiritual task at all. Thinking, decision making, and
human conscience are all spiritual abilities.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
When it's damaged, we will lose the ability to acquire
certain spiritual understandings.
Not spiritual. Brains are physical.
It's the passageway for the spiritual to communicate with the physical
world.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
As an adult, we can become aware of
our reduced ability. As a child, we may not be able to realize such
damage when we have never developed such ability in the first place.
There is nothing to be surprised about that.
Certain kinds of brain damage impair the conscience
function. Some brain damage can impair sensibility too.
That seems to have affected you deeply.
That should be even more evidence that the brain is only a communication
hub.
So how does the brain communicate with the spirit world?
Does it have little spiritual antennae etched into it
like a wifi chip?
How do the spiritual world and the real world interact
with each other? Is "spirit" a particle or a wave?
The brain is controlled by the human mind. The mind is responsible to
acquire information from the brain to interact with the spiritual world.
When the brain is damaged, the mind will not be able to acquire the
necessary information, so there will not be interaction happening
between the mind and the spiritual world.
I knew you couldn't answer the question.
Because I don't have to imagine the spiritual world. The spiritual world
is not supposed to be imagined by the human mind. We only need to be
aware of the spiritual.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
duke
2018-09-11 17:50:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
But mortality is not an abstract concept in the human mind it is the
observation of human activity combined with human empathy which is
based on each person's understanding of how they feel about things.
Which is nothing but an abstract concept in the human mind.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Normal sane people do not try and hurt each other unless they are
being attacked. Normal people understand that murder is wrong
because it means that their life is over and they will never have a
chance to love, or smile, or have any kind of experience anymore.
Sane people do not treat others in a way they wouldn't want to be
treated, that is human nature and has nothing to do with God.
That can't be true. What you have described is a rather shallow
understanding of morality. If it's put under a different situation, your
description could be shown to be immoral instead. Therefore, without
relying on God, whatever you call morality can always be made into
immorality simply by putting it under a different situation or
circumstance. You would have no real morality if you deny God.
Neuroscience and artificial conscience
Numerous case studies of brain damage have shown
that damage to areas of the brain (such as the
anterior prefrontal cortex) results in the
reduction or elimination of inhibitions, with a
corresponding radical change in behaviour.[78] When
the damage occurs to adults, they may still be able
to perform moral reasoning; but when it occurs to
children, they may never develop that
ability.[79][80]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience#Neuroscience_and_artificial_conscience>
Does this remind you of anyone you might know?
The brain is our major communication channel between the physical and
the spiritual.
Nope, wrong guess. The brain does information
processing, control, and decision making. In humans, one
part of it also functions as the conscience. Get it? A
conscience is the seat of human morality. It's a
physical thing.
Brains aren't spiritual.
Then the brain can't do the job that can only be accomplished by the
spiritual. Your scientific interpretation of the brain function is
contradicting with the philosophical understanding of the spiritual
ability. From the view of philosophy, the physical brain is incapable to
accomplish any spiritual task at all. Thinking, decision making, and
human conscience are all spiritual abilities.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
When it's damaged, we will lose the ability to acquire
certain spiritual understandings.
Not spiritual. Brains are physical.
It's the passageway for the spiritual to communicate with the physical
world.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
As an adult, we can become aware of
our reduced ability. As a child, we may not be able to realize such
damage when we have never developed such ability in the first place.
There is nothing to be surprised about that.
Certain kinds of brain damage impair the conscience
function. Some brain damage can impair sensibility too.
That seems to have affected you deeply.
That should be even more evidence that the brain is only a communication
hub.
So how does the brain communicate with the spirit world?
Does it have little spiritual antennae etched into it
like a wifi chip?
How do the spiritual world and the real world interact
with each other? Is "spirit" a particle or a wave?
God's ways exceed the quantum. He warms our hearts with love.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

Kevrob
2018-09-11 00:01:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience#Neuroscience_and_artificial_conscience>
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Does this remind you of anyone you might know?
The brain is our major communication channel between the physical and
the spiritual.
Do you own a mirror, Niu?

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
aaa
2018-09-11 04:07:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience#Neuroscience_and_artificial_conscience>
Post by aaa
Post by Peter Pan
Does this remind you of anyone you might know?
The brain is our major communication channel between the physical and
the spiritual.
Do you own a mirror, Niu?
Actually, it all thanks to my brain injury I'm able to realize that the
brain is nothing but complicated cable wires to transmit information
only. My brain damage only makes me unable to recall certain things. It
never requires me to relearn the things I have already known before. I
know the knowledge is there. I just can't reach it.
Post by Peter Pan
---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Yap Honghor
2018-09-04 12:40:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that
God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since
everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists?
Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You
see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who
is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not
doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that
God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe
in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality.
And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he
feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
You moron, whatever character or traits human possess come from nature!!!!!
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches out
to you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help
you.' Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine
that there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help you'."
Apparently not. It's his "inner sense of morality" made him do that.
There is no fucking pixie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
aaa
2018-09-04 18:30:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that
God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since
everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists?
Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You
see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who
is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not
doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that
God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe
in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality.
And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he
feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
You moron, whatever character or traits human possess come from nature!!!!!
Nature is physical. The physical nature is not capable to provide the
non-physical ability of life. The ability demonstrated by life is a lot
greater than any physical functions. The things listed in my signature
are beyond the physical nature. Any of them is far greater than the
things in the physical world.
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches out
to you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help
you.' Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine
that there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help you'."
Apparently not. It's his "inner sense of morality" made him do that.
There is no fucking pixie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Blind denial.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Yap Honghor
2018-09-06 09:48:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that
God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since
everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists?
Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You
see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who
is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not
doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that
God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe
in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality.
And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he
feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
You moron, whatever character or traits human possess come from nature!!!!!
Nature is physical. The physical nature is not capable to provide the
non-physical ability of life. The ability demonstrated by life is a lot
greater than any physical functions. The things listed in my signature
are beyond the physical nature. Any of them is far greater than the
things in the physical world.
Nature is what you have, nothing more!!!
Whatever comes from you is given by nature and your resistance if futile.
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches out
to you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help
you.' Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine
that there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help you'."
Apparently not. It's his "inner sense of morality" made him do that.
There is no fucking pixie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Blind denial.
Your stupidity is obvious.
aaa
2018-09-06 14:18:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that
God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since
everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists?
Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You
see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who
is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not
doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that
God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe
in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality.
And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he
feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
You moron, whatever character or traits human possess come from nature!!!!!
Nature is physical. The physical nature is not capable to provide the
non-physical ability of life. The ability demonstrated by life is a lot
greater than any physical functions. The things listed in my signature
are beyond the physical nature. Any of them is far greater than the
things in the physical world.
Nature is what you have, nothing more!!!
Whatever comes from you is given by nature and your resistance if futile.
I have shown you the world of philosophy that is not physical. Why can't
you recognize it?
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches out
to you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help
you.' Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine
that there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help you'."
Apparently not. It's his "inner sense of morality" made him do that.
There is no fucking pixie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Blind denial.
Your stupidity is obvious.
Your blindness is undeniable.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Yap Honghor
2018-09-08 01:51:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that
God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since
everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists?
Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You
see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who
is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not
doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that
God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe
in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality.
And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he
feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
You moron, whatever character or traits human possess come from nature!!!!!
Nature is physical. The physical nature is not capable to provide the
non-physical ability of life. The ability demonstrated by life is a lot
greater than any physical functions. The things listed in my signature
are beyond the physical nature. Any of them is far greater than the
things in the physical world.
Nature is what you have, nothing more!!!
Whatever comes from you is given by nature and your resistance if futile.
I have shown you the world of philosophy that is not physical. Why can't
you recognize it?
You know nothing about this world, let alone philosophy!!!
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches out
to you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help
you.' Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine
that there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help you'."
Apparently not. It's his "inner sense of morality" made him do that.
There is no fucking pixie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Blind denial.
Your stupidity is obvious.
Your blindness is undeniable.
Find us a pixie then....
aaa
2018-09-08 15:44:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that
God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since
everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists?
Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You
see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who
is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not
doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that
God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe
in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality.
And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he
feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
You moron, whatever character or traits human possess come from nature!!!!!
Nature is physical. The physical nature is not capable to provide the
non-physical ability of life. The ability demonstrated by life is a lot
greater than any physical functions. The things listed in my signature
are beyond the physical nature. Any of them is far greater than the
things in the physical world.
Nature is what you have, nothing more!!!
Whatever comes from you is given by nature and your resistance if futile.
I have shown you the world of philosophy that is not physical. Why can't
you recognize it?
You know nothing about this world, let alone philosophy!!!
Philosophy is not about this world. It's about the greater world
dominating this world. We, as life, are evidence of this greater world
because we are able to dominate this world. By better understanding the
world of philosophy, we will better understand ourselves. This is why
philosophy has all the answers of life.
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches out
to you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help
you.' Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine
that there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help you'."
Apparently not. It's his "inner sense of morality" made him do that.
There is no fucking pixie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Blind denial.
Your stupidity is obvious.
Your blindness is undeniable.
Find us a pixie then....
That's exactly what the physically blind would say about the sun.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-09-10 20:54:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
show quoted text -
Philosophy is not about this world. It's about the greater world
dominating this world. We, as life, are evidence of this greater world
because we are able to dominate this world. By better understanding the
world of philosophy, we will better understand ourselves. This is why
philosophy has all the answers of life.
_________________
No, it isn't. That's just another bit of bullshit you made up.

I have posted the definition of philosophy many times and nowhere does it say anything about a greater world or having all the answers.

You just can't stop lying.
_V_infernalis_
2018-09-10 23:52:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
show quoted text -
//
Post by aaa
Philosophy is not about this world. It's about the greater world
dominating this world. We, as life, are evidence of this greater world
because we are able to dominate this world. By better understanding the
world of philosophy, we will better understand ourselves. This is why
philosophy has all the answers of life.
_________________
No, it isn't. That's just another bit of bullshit you made up.
I have posted the definition of philosophy many times and nowhere does it say anything about a greater world or having all the answers.
You just can't stop lying.
Well, it's only lying if he knows it's false.

I don't think someone who believes, say, the the Earth is flat
or that vaccines cause autism or that you have to be careful
to eat carefully so as to keep your body's pH alkaline is -- in most cases anyhow -- lying.

They're just mistaken.

Just as with "aaa" here. Except in his case you have to ask at
what point mistaken beliefs stop being small, local, and mundane
and become cosmic in scope, encompassing such fundamental issues
as ontology and epistemology.

At which point we've graduated from minor mistaken beliefs and
entered the realm of grandiose egoistical delusional thinking.


V
aaa
2018-09-11 04:36:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
show quoted text -
Philosophy is not about this world. It's about the greater world
dominating this world. We, as life, are evidence of this greater world
because we are able to dominate this world. By better understanding the
world of philosophy, we will better understand ourselves. This is why
philosophy has all the answers of life.
_________________
No, it isn't. That's just another bit of bullshit you made up.
I have posted the definition of philosophy many times and nowhere does it say anything about a greater world or having all the answers.
You just can't stop lying.
I don't care about the dead philosophy. I intend to show you the real
philosophy. There is nothing abstract, and it's absolutely important to
life. The best of all, you don't even need to pretend to be a
philosopher to understand what I'm saying.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-09-11 08:44:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
It's just a matter of fact. There is nothing I can do. Aristotle never
got the slightest clue about the teaching of Socrates and Plato. He is
the very reason why philosophy today is abstract and meaningless.
___________________

Aristotle was a student of Plato you moron.

Aristotle invented logic.

Aristotle is considered the father of western philosophy and was one of the greatest thinkers to ever live.

You are an obsessive, weirdo who pretends to be an idiot.

Guess which of the 2 of you are likely to be respected?
aaa
2018-09-11 17:08:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
It's just a matter of fact. There is nothing I can do. Aristotle never
got the slightest clue about the teaching of Socrates and Plato. He
is the very reason why philosophy today is abstract and meaningless.
___________________
Aristotle was a student of Plato you moron.
A very bad student who was criticized by Plato for failing to understand
his teaching correctly.
Post by aaa
Aristotle invented logic.
Socrates would laugh his ass off. The Greek civilization would be furious.
Post by aaa
Aristotle is considered the father of western philosophy and was one
of the greatest thinkers to ever live.
That is as mistaken and erroneous as Aristotle himself.
Post by aaa
You are an obsessive, weirdo who pretends to be an idiot.
Guess which of the 2 of you are likely to be respected?
Since I'm standing on the shoulders of Socrates and Plato, why do I have
to care?
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
duke
2018-09-08 18:12:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that
God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since
everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists?
Why did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You
see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who
is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not
doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that
God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe
in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality.
And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he
feels it to be right.'
Where does this "inner sense of morality" come from if not from God?
You moron, whatever character or traits human possess come from nature!!!!!
Nature is physical. The physical nature is not capable to provide the
non-physical ability of life. The ability demonstrated by life is a lot
greater than any physical functions. The things listed in my signature
are beyond the physical nature. Any of them is far greater than the
things in the physical world.
Nature is what you have, nothing more!!!
Whatever comes from you is given by nature and your resistance if futile.
I have shown you the world of philosophy that is not physical. Why can't
you recognize it?
You know nothing about this world, let alone philosophy!!!
And you do??????????

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
duke
2018-09-04 22:28:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that God
created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is
here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why
did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You see,
when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick,
helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so
because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God
at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look
at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to
be right.'
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches out to
you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help you.'
Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that
there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help you'."
He didn't. He let some condemn themselves to stroke the fires.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
g***@gmail.com
2018-09-04 23:02:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that God
created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is
here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why
did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You see,
when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick,
helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so
because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God
at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look
at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to
be right.'
++
Post by duke
Post by g***@gmail.com
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches out to
you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help you.'
Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that
there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help you'."
He didn't. He let some condemn themselves to stroke the fires.
"Stroke", is it? Heh.




Quadro Octavius
duke
2018-09-11 17:46:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by duke
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that God
created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is
here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why
did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You see,
when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick,
helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so
because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God
at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look
at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to
be right.'
++
Post by duke
Post by g***@gmail.com
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches out to
you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help you.'
Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that
there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help you'."
He didn't. He let some condemn themselves to stroke the fires.
"Stroke", is it? Heh.
That's right.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
m***@gmail.com
2018-09-04 23:42:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that God
created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is
here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why
did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You see,
when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick,
helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so
because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God
at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look
at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to
be right.'
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches out to
you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help you.'
Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that
there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help you'."
He didn't. He let some condemn themselves to stroke the fires.
You willingly believe in a god that is sadistic and evil. That
explains why you are a theist troll. Fear.You're afraid to admit
to yourself that you've wasted your entire life worshipping a
trickster god.
%
2018-09-04 23:44:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by duke
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that God
created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is
here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why
did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You see,
when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick,
helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so
because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God
at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look
at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to
be right.'
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches out to
you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help you.'
Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that
there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help you'."
He didn't. He let some condemn themselves to stroke the fires.
You willingly believe in a god that is sadistic and evil. That
explains why you are a theist troll. Fear.You're afraid to admit
to yourself that you've wasted your entire life worshipping a
trickster god.
yea ok greywolf
duke
2018-09-07 18:57:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by duke
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that God
created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is
here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why
did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You see,
when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick,
helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so
because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God
at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look
at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to
be right.'
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches out to
you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help you.'
Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that
there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help you'."
He didn't. He let some condemn themselves to stroke the fires.
You willingly believe in a god that is sadistic and evil.
No, total love, while your satan is total evil.


the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Cloud Hobbit
2018-09-07 20:15:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Duke lies again
Post by duke
Post by duke
He didn't. He let some condemn themselves to stroke the fires.
Post by m***@gmail.com
You willingly believe in a god that is sadistic and evil.
No, total love, while your satan is total evil.
the dukester, American-Idiot
_________________

Not our Satan, he's all yours and your God created him.

Atheists don't believe in either.
You believe in a God who supposedly created EVERYTHING that exists, which means it created Satan and evil.
duke
2018-09-08 18:15:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Duke lies again
Post by duke
Post by duke
He didn't. He let some condemn themselves to stroke the fires.
Post by m***@gmail.com
You willingly believe in a god that is sadistic and evil.
No, total love, while your satan is total evil.
Not our Satan, he's all yours and your God created him.
No, no. Angels and men are truly God's creation. But God only deals in love
and goodness. Fallen angel and as sinning man comes from a attitude controlled
by Satan, who is definitely not of God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Atheists don't believe in either.
Yet you openly embrace satan's evil in your heart.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
You believe in a God who supposedly created EVERYTHING that exists, which means it created Satan and evil.
You better check with grey on that one. God doesn't create evil attitudes,
satan does. You see, grey rejects evil as a thing, thus evil is a satanist
attitude.
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
duke
2018-09-11 17:48:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by duke
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that God
created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is
here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why
did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You see,
when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick,
helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so
because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God
at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look
at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to
be right.'
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches out to
you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help you.'
Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that
there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help you'."
He didn't. He let some condemn themselves to stroke the fires.
You willingly believe in a god that is sadistic and evil.
Wrong, dead wrong, hell bound wrong. God is all love.

Jesus gave us 2 commandments to go by: love and obey God and love your neighbor
as you love yourself.

You're certifiably nuts.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Kevrob
2018-09-06 02:03:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
He didn't. He let some condemn themselves to stroke the fires.
I take it you "stoke off' watching porn?

{Mind shudders at what Earl would use to release his Purity
of Essence.}

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
_V_infernalis_
2018-09-06 03:58:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
++
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
He didn't. He let some condemn themselves to stroke the fires.
I take it you "stoke off' watching porn?
Heh. He also received a link to the "You keep using that word" scene
from "The Princess Bride" in response to that Dogberryism.



V.
Post by Kevrob
{Mind shudders at what Earl would use to release his Purity
of Essence.}
---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
m***@gmail.com
2018-09-04 23:26:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
"There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses
this very question. The Master [teacher] teaches the student that God
created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is
here to teach us a lesson.
One cleaver student asks: 'What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why
did God create them?'
The Master responds: 'God created atheists to teach us the most
important lesson of them all -- the lesson of true compassion. You see,
when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick,
helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so
because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God
commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God
at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look
at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to
be right.'
'This means,' the Master continued, 'that when someone reaches out to
you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help you.'
Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that
there is no God who can help, and say: 'I will help you'."
Thank you for that story. When my Jewish aunt started discussing
religion with me, I immediately told her that I was an atheist.
She asked me if I was a good person. I told her that I was. I
couldn't live with myself if I wasn't. She said that was all that
mattered. We got along fine.
Loading...