Good without God?

[graybear13]

Are you good without God? In the eyes of the Gods, probably not.

'You' say "millions are" but I'm afraid you know very little. The sad part is your cup is full.

gray

[Savonarola]

Are you good without God? In the eyes of the Gods, probably not.

What evidence do you have that I'm not good?

'You' say "millions are" but I'm afraid you know very little.

What evidence do you have that I know very little?

[graybear13]

Are you good without God? In the eyes of the Gods, probably not.

What evidence do you have that I'm not good?

'You' say "millions are" but I'm afraid you know very little.

What evidence do you have that I know very little?

I did not say 'you are not good'.

I am human just like you are but I realize that I know very little and my goodness or enlightenment depends on my ability to keep an open mind.

Neither science nor religion can conceive and construct a logical universe...In light of the present world chaos and war I think I can say, unequivocally, humans know very little, so I don't see why you would be the exception.

regards gray

[Savonarola]

I did not say 'you are not good'.

Well, you did, really, when you said that I am not good in the eyes of the gods. Are their eyes broken, or do these gods have an insufficient understanding of good and bad?

I am human just like you

We are both human, but you are not "just like me." You and I are very different.

are but I realize that I know very little

Yes, we've been over this before. You, after all, tried to argue that infinite atomic energy will come from opposite-spin gravity vortices.

Neither science nor religion can conceive and construct a logical universe

I can't be completely sure what you mean here, but I'll try responding anyway. Science is a process that investigates. It has no need to "construct" anything like a universe, and its inability to "construct a universe" is in no way a failing of science. The same goes for religion. The difference is that science can tell us only so much about how the universe probably began, and we know its limitations, whereas religion tends to make bold, unsupported assertions without limitation about the beginning of the universe despite a complete lack of evidence.

I can say, unequivocally, humans know very little, so I don't see why you would be the exception.

Category mistake fallacy. Just because a group has a characteristic doesn't mean that all members of that group have that characteristic. If a random group's average score on an IQ test is 100, that doesn't mean that nobody in the group scored 70, or 140.
That said, what you claim to be "unequivocal" is usually nothing of the sort.

[graybear13]

I did not say 'you are not good'.

Well, you did, really, when you said that I am not good in the eyes of the gods. Are their eyes broken, or do these gods have an insufficient understanding of good and bad?

No, I did not. I was only second guessing what a superior being might think if he or she was observing your attitude and belief system. It's not my call.

To answer your question, no. You are the one with an insufficient understanding of good and bad. Your censorship of "Disclosing the UFO Phenomena" and Dr. Edgar Mitchell was outrageous. Maybe you don't think fascism is bad or maybe freethinking requires it, but if you file censorship under 'good' we are of a different understanding of the whole good/bad thing.

regards gray

[Dardedar]

I was only second guessing what a superior being might think if he or she was observing your attitude and belief system. It's not my call.

Isn't it wonderful that not only do people find the need to invent imaginary sky creatures but they also then insist upon imagining what that critter is thinking and desiring. And then on top of it, once they have regaled us with the completely pulled from their ass... wishes desires likes and dislikes of this vaporous non vertebrate, they then pretend that they don't have any "call" on the matter. It's in the hands of their imaginary God. Like they didn't even have anything to do with the superstitious process.

Your censorship of "Disclosing the UFO Phenomena" and Dr. Edgar Mitchell was...

You've actually never had a post censored here Gray. Sometimes a thread becomes so tedious and redundantly stupid that SAV makes the call of stopping the thread but that's not censoring your ability to make posts. If you do get to the point where you find it necessary to just repeat the same silly and unfounded stuff over and over, you might consider posting it in:

Troll Smear Goes Here

So as to save us the time of moving it over there for you. But your posts won't be censored. Other than porn spam, we've managed to never have to censor a post.

Maybe you don't think fascism is bad or maybe freethinking requires it,...".

Yes, because if Gray can't come on someone else's site and post unlimited amounts of unmoderated repetitive 'pulled from his bottom' silliness, that would be "fascism."

D.
--------------
"In my life, I have prayed but one prayer:
"Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it." –Voltaire

[Savonarola]

No, I did not. I was only...

asserting that an all-powerful deity does so. So you didn't say anything. Got it.

Your censorship of "Disclosing the UFO Phenomena" and Dr. Edgar Mitchell was....

nonexistent. The video is still up on YouTube, and the link is still on the site. Perhaps you need to look up what "censorship" means.

As I've said before, nobody accused you of being very bright.

[Cherryj]

Are you good without God? In the eyes of the Gods, probably not.

'You' say "millions are" but I'm afraid you know very little. The sad part is your cup is full.

gray

Are you good without Zeus? In the eyes of Zeus, probably not.

The trouble with untestable claims is that anyone can make any claim one wants with no accountability at all to actually defend or justify one's claims, at least not until after we've applied that wonderfully and uniquely human heuristic we call "logic." For example, suppose god is an introvert who really does not like people pestering him with annoying requests he has no moral intention of fulfilling, given that his universe (very obviously, so he thinks) works according to natural law. Suppose further that god highly values self-reliance and doesn't appreciate all the really silly things that people do to try to appease his wrath (logically speaking, he's not all that angry, a condition that implies both impotence and inferiority) - such as raising one's arms up in the air like French surrender monkeys circa 1940 and tone deaf mumbling "worthy is the lamb" through forty or fifty repeats.

God, perhaps, prefers genuine moral and ethical behavior from his creations, and not merely hollow attempts to appease him by appealing to "grace," 5 Pillars, abiding by bronze-age law or any other arbitrary formula for salvation. Sucking up to god could just be a mortal sin. And god, as the creator of logic, is not bound by logic and therefore he has no moral responsibility to directly tell humankind himself that would-be worshipers are really peeving him off. Instead, just like Jesus, Allah, the Mormon Elohim and L. Ron Hubbard before him, this particular god has chosen to use hearsay and anonymous writings - mucked up with all kinds of other stuff that a logical god clearly would not have actually said himself - and the unjustified authority of oftentimes morally dubious men, all to help him get the word out that he really cannot abide religious sycophants. Your immortal soul could be at stake here, so pay attention.

Perhaps god created the eternal, noncorrective punishment of Hell, despite his obvious sense of perfect, absolute justice, mercy and morality (and the usual human heuristic of letting the punishment fit the crime) purely to spite the sort of people who really annoy him the most: religious people whom refuse to be self-reliant and act ethically and moraly without requiring some sort of divine threat or other coercive action. And there is just as much evidence that the claim I have just made about "god" is as legitimate as any other claim that has ever been made about any of the gods before, wither it be YHWH, Allah, Zeus, Ra, Ahura-Mazada, Brahma, Sol Invictus, Jesus, Odin, The Great Spirit, Quetzalcoatl, The Flying Spaghetti Monster - ad infinitum, ad nauseaum. This is my gospel, so accept it on my authority. God said so, and he speaks only to me, not to you (because you and others of your ilk annoy him).

This is why we ask for evidence before we accept any given claim as true - is that too much to ask?

Sincerely,

CherryJ
(aka the anonymous author thought by scholars to be St. James of Fayetteville, whom encountered god's true spokesman in a vision one day while out walking the Frisco Trail - an event witnessed only by two dogs, Silby and Murphy. The rest of you will just have to take my testimony on faith)

[graybear13]

This is why we ask for evidence before we accept any given claim as true - is that too much to ask?

Are you good without the Anunnaki http://www.Anunnaki? In the eyes of the Anunnaki, probably not.

I have shown evidence that a civilization existed during the last ice age. Check out 'The Mystery of the Sphinx-youtube'. John Anthony West and Dr. Robert Schoch submitted their findings to the Annual Conference of the Goelogical Society of America.

IMHO the entire history of ancient man has to be rewritten.

I thought you would embrace this theory that, if proven, would put an end to the vicious, annoying suckups of the church. I am not buying Doug's argument that primitive man, living during the last ice age, struggling to survive with stone weapons used for hunting somehow cut and lifted into place 200 ton blocks of stone.

There is credible evidence of interplanetary beings sojourning on this planet in the past and we would do good to be open to it.

regards gray

[Dardedar]

There is credible evidence of interplanetary beings sojourning on this planet in the past...

No there isn't.

[Cherryj]

There is credible evidence of interplanetary beings sojourning on this planet in the past...

No there isn't.

New rule: an assertion is equivalent to credible proof. My pink unicorn wrote a memo on the subject which was hand-delivered by an army of flying monkeys. You were CC'ed on the memo, Dar, so you should have read it.

[graybear13]

"I suppose you could never prove to the mind of the most ingenious mollusk that such a creature as a whale could exist" Emerson

"You are good in countless ways, and you
are not evil when you are not good,
You are only loitering and sluggard.
Pity that the stages cannot teach swiftness
to the turtles."

Trying to describe the evidence of the Anunnaki to you is like trying to describe the moon to a mole.

regards gray

[Savonarola]

IMHO the entire history of ancient man has to be rewritten.

You think that your opinion based on crackpot stories deserves more weight than the tons of evidence collected by people who are actually trained to and have a vested interest in collecting and analyzing evidence, but your opinion is "humble."

Trying to describe the evidence of the Anunnaki to you is like trying to describe the moon to a mole.

So your analogy here in terms of intellect is either:
graybear is to Fayfreethinkers as graybear is to a mole, or
graybear is to Fayfreethinkers as Fayfreethinkers are to a mole.

Do tell us more about your humility!

[Dardedar]

Trying to describe the evidence of the...

Why do you say "the evidence?" What evidence?

D.
---------------
Again:

"I would love it if there were aliens here, even if they are a little short, sullen, grumpy, and sexually preoccupied. So, if they are harbingers of an advanced civilization and they're here for heaven's sake, let's find out about them. My mind is open.
...People make mistakes, people misapprehend natural phenomena, people look for attention, money, or fame. People sometimes experience alternative states of consciousness--hallucinations are very common in all human beings, including normal people. And with that as the background, to really believe one of these cases you need really good physical evidence. And there is none." --Carl Sagan, March/April '95 issue of Skeptical Inquirer. (pg.52).

[graybear13]

IMHO the entire history of ancient man has to be rewritten.

...and have a vested interest

Trying to describe the evidence of the Anunnaki to you is like trying to describe the moon to a mole.

It's the flat earth society syndrome...You have a 'vested interested' in the present paradigm. It seem that you feel you must defend the status quo; small changes and adjustments, but always in line with the paradigm...Mole/freethinker.

The Mystery of the Sphinx-youtube...John Anthony West supported by
Dr. Robert M. Schoch, Geoligist-Geophysist
Dr. John Kutzbach Paleoclimatologist University of Wisconsin
275 of the attending geologists at the Annual Conference of the Geological Society of America found the evidence interesting even compelling and offered to help with the project...Evidence of an advanced civilization during the Ice Age. A paradigm shift and a new understanding of the facts...The Moon

regards gray

[graybear13]

"I would love it if there were aliens here, even if they are a little short, sullen, grumpy, and sexually preoccupied. So, if they are harbingers of an advanced civilization and they're here for heaven's sake, let's find out about them. My mind is open.
...People make mistakes, people misapprehend natural phenomena, people look for attention, money, or fame. People sometimes experience alternative states of consciousness--hallucinations are very common in all human beings, including normal people. And with that as the background, to really believe one of these cases you need really good physical evidence. And there is none." --Carl Sagan, March/April '95 issue of Skeptical Inquirer. (pg.52).

That quote is almost 20 years old. If he were alive today he would not be afraid to follow the facts and keep an open mind.

regards gray

[Dardedar]

It's the flat earth society syndrome...

Yes, I think that's about right. Your ideas are so silly they should be compared to flat earth claims.

That quote is almost 20 years old.

Sometimes truth is timeless. Sometimes stupidity is timeless.

If [Sagan] were alive today he would not be afraid to follow the facts and keep an open mind.

Absolutely. Just as we are (the co-founder of the Fayetteville Freethinkers is the lead investigator with the local MUFON association).

Sagan's result would be the same today, because, as he said then: "to really believe one of these cases you need really good physical evidence. And there is none."

Grey, you are gullible and have no discernment. You quote the Urantia book. You read crap on the internet or see something on youtube and think it means something. It doesn't. The moment you have some real evidence, something that can pass the laugh test, there will be no end of people anxious to give it consideration. But you don't have any of that and you don't know you don't have it because as I said, you have no discernment, no skills of skepticism. You're just really good at believing, and that sort of thing isn't worth very much for establishing the extraordinary claims you like to make.

[Savonarola]

You have a 'vested interested' in the present paradigm.

No, I have a vested interest in knowing what is true.

It seem that you feel you must defend the status quo;

It seems this way only to you, and only because your position is not the status quo, and I'm not supporting it.

The status quo in what I do includes teaching orbital hybridization. But I'm not a fan of this because we now know that part of our previous explanation of orbital hybridization is completely wrong, but the status quo hasn't caught up to our current knowledge. In addition, teaching orbital hybridization does not enhance student learning, make drawing connections easier, or explain anything in a way that other models do not. My position is not "in line with the paradigm."
Once again, you are taking a position for which there not only is insufficient evidence, but also is sufficient evidence against you. You should probably stop that.