Religion III

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by TJDave

This thread is a broken record.

So...why do you lurk to listen?

[porchy44]

Originally Posted by TJDave

This thread is a broken record.

Actually its more like the "pursuit of 50,000 years" of the episode "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield". You have to be a Star Trek fan to understand.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, basically the "benevolent dictator" idea is a non-starter ...

You don't get the joke. "Benevolent dictator" is an oxymoron. The joke has been around for decades if not centuries. Look up Lucius Cornelius Sulla.

Originally Posted by boxcar

At the end of the day, in your universe, all that is wrong with the human race in this world is no fault of our own; for "natural selection" made us do it.

Made us do what, exactly? You don't understand natural selection. It is a process that operates on populations, not individuals, over great spans of time.

Originally Posted by boxcar

We cannot get out from under the all-controlling power of "natural selection". Human behavior is as natural as the sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening. We have about as much chance of changing our human nature as a leopard does changing its spots or an Ethiopian the color of his skin.

Why would we want to? Natural selection has made us the dominant species on the planet. (When was the last time you saw a living Neanderthal?) We have walked on the moon. We have discovered the germ theory of disease.

Originally Posted by boxcar

All this proves that the philosophy of Naturalism logically terminates in despair, ...

We have drugs for that. Another victory for natural selection.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... as do all other worldly philosophies.

Including Christianity. Try Buddhism.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Naturalism is no different than saying that "the devil made us do it"; ...

The burden of proof is yours.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by porchy44

Actually its more like the "pursuit of 50,000 years" of the episode "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield". You have to be a Star Trek fan to understand.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So...why do you lurk to listen?

It's fun!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You don't get the joke. "Benevolent dictator" is an oxymoron. The joke has been around for decades if not centuries. Look up Lucius Cornelius Sulla.9

So, you were cracking a joke while I was asking a serious question. This "joke" of yours was your way of saying, "I don't have a clue what you're talking about"...or "I don't know what the alternative to anarchy would be". In other words, you're as shallow as a mud puddle -- again proving "mudder nature", i.e. "natural selection" has not been kind to you.

And for your info, the phrase "benevolent dictator" is not an oxymoron, any more than the phrase "benevolent king" would be one, which is what Jesus is. But he also has to be much more than that. He must also be an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise King so that he can transform the hearts of human beings -- so that he can actually change our corrupt nature. Therefore, He's not only a "benevolent king" in name only, but in deeds as well.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, you were cracking a joke while I was asking a serious question. This "joke" of yours was your way of saying, "I don't have a clue what you're talking about"...or "I don't know what the alternative to anarchy would be". In other words, you're as shallow as a mud puddle -- again proving "mudder nature", i.e. "natural selection" has not been kind to you.

Ad hominem.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And for your info, the phrase "benevolent dictator" is not an oxymoron, any more than the phrase "benevolent king" would be one, which is what Jesus is. But he also has to be much more than that. He must also be an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise King so that he can transform the hearts of human beings -- so that he can actually change our corrupt nature. Therefore, He's not only a "benevolent king" in name only, but in deeds as well.

You have yet to prove that Jesus ever existed. The burden of proof is yours.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Ad hominem.

Not at all. It's the sad, pathetic truth about yourself. You're just a clueless clown. You're opposed to divine and human authority, but have no alternative to offer. This can only imply that you, too, are a "man of lawlessness" -- a fan of anarchy in which everyone should be free to do what is right in his own eyes.

You have yet to prove that Jesus ever existed. The burden of proof is yours.[/QUOTE]

Plenty of proof out there. Even the extra-biblical kind. Also, there's no reason under the sun why I shouldn't believe the Word of God. You have yet to give me one.

Have a nice evening.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're opposed to divine ... authority,

Divine authority presupposes a divinity. There is zero evidence that one exists.

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're opposed to ... human authority, ...

Not at all. I pay my taxes. I obey the speed limit. I don't kill people. Etc., etc.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... you, too, are a "man of lawlessness" -- a fan of anarchy in which everyone should be free to do what is right in his own eyes.

Again, false. I expect others to pay their taxes just as I do. I expect that part of my taxes be used to pay police to protect me from others who would steal from me and from killing me. I expect that part of my taxes support a military to protect me and mine and my country from foreign invaders.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Plenty of proof out there. Even the extra-biblical kind.

Give me an example. I have searched for such proof and found nothing.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Also, there's no reason under the sun why I shouldn't believe the Word of God. You have yet to give me one.

I'm not trying to for the simple reason that such a goal is impossible to achieve. So turn that around. Why should I believe the "Word of God?' You have given me no reason to believe that any god exists.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Not at all. It's the sad, pathetic truth about yourself. You're just a clueless clown.

Ad hominem means "to the man." In other words you attack the man, or some attribute which you perceive about the man, instead of addressing his argument. If you only attack the man instead of addressing his argument then it's an ad hominem.

https://www.logicalfallacies.org/ad-hominem.html

By the way, your recent post about Darwin's use of the phrase "natural selection" is an Etymological Fallacy.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Ad hominem means "to the man." In other words you attack the man, or some attribute which you perceive about the man, instead of addressing his argument. If you only attack the man instead of addressing his argument then it's an ad hominem.

https://www.logicalfallacies.org/ad-hominem.html

By the way, your recent post about Darwin's use of the phrase "natural selection" is an Etymological Fallacy.

What "argument" of yours would that be: Your inane joke to my serious question an alternative to anarchy?

To "select" is to choose, pick out, to make a choice. This is what making a selection means. An impersonal, inorganic, irrational universe cannot make selections. Unless by magic or the miraculous, of course...

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What "argument" of yours would that be: Your inane joke to my serious question an alternative to anarchy?

To "select" is to choose, pick out, to make a choice. This is what making a selection means. An impersonal, inorganic, irrational universe cannot make selections. Unless by magic or the miraculous, of course...

Greetings, Boxcar. If you are interested, page down to "Where Has All the Telos Gone?" for an overview of moderns discarding goal-orientated behavior in nature, loosely supporting your second paragraph. There is no need for "personal universe" necessarily. Teleology can be inherent in nature without introducing theism, e.g., Aristotle...

http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2011/10/...olutionis.html

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Greetings, Boxcar. If you are interested, page down to "Where Has All the Telos Gone?" for an overview of moderns discarding goal-orientated behavior in nature, loosely supporting your second paragraph. There is no need for "personal universe" necessarily. Teleology can be inherent in nature without introducing theism, e.g., Aristotle...

http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2011/10/...olutionis.html

Ahh...the "moderns". These folks were around in the first century too. As was the evil one who is still active today, and who has blinded the minds of unbelievers throughout the ages so that they "cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the image of God" (2Cor 4:4).

Thanks for the link. I may take a look later.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What "argument" of yours would that be: Your inane joke to my serious question an alternative to anarchy?

It's not my joke. I pointed out that it has been around for quite a while, decades or centuries.

And I see nothing wrong with injecting a little humor into a serious discussion.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

It's not my joke. I pointed out that it has been around for quite a while, decades or centuries.

When you adopted it, it became yours.

And I see nothing wrong with injecting a little humor into a serious discussion, especially when I have no intelligent, reasonable answers to offer.

FTFY.