Did God actually create Rabies?

Myles said:
That is still a statement, not an argument. Are you suggesting that, in your view, some people have trouble finding insight ...., or are you putting forward an argument that this is a fact which you can support with evidence ?
Click to expand...
are you kidding me? the premise is that some people have difficulty finding valuable insight in certain questions and the conclusion is that it is due to damn foolness. Other premises are assumed from common knowledge so no, it is not a decent formalized argument. It is informal inductive reasoning based on the previously demonstrated idea that fools do stupid shit hence the descriptive "fool", and it is full of assumptions. Assumption that you know what the word fool implies among others.

myles said:
You also seem to be suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is a fool. Can you come down from your lofty heights and explain what you mean by a fool in terms other than your personal view.
Click to expand...
No no no no no.
I never ever suggested that. Or hinted at that in any way. Many people, fools or not, disagree with me on many subjects i am sure, and that is great. You are just playing games which is fine, but you obviously didn't really want an actual debate about any of this shit, and i don't blame you because an objection to such an ambiguous statement as what i put forth is only a sophist trick with no connection to logic or meaning - which clearly points out that you were just being a pompous dick in bringing up the word argument in the first place. QED.

myles said:
Are you seriously suggesting that people who have started asking questions lack the desire to use their intellect to evaluate what they have found ? Surely anyone with no desire to use their intellect would not question things in the first place ?
Click to expand...
I think you can read better than that. I didn't say that. Other people can ask the questions and the fools can just shout out "inane" - and the intellectual fools most certainly will use that word.
myles said:
You give me the impression that you are a prig who likes to tell others what a smart fellow you are, but who takes evasive action by hiding behind aphorisms and bon mots when challenged.
Click to expand...
I don't need to tell anybody anything. My only point was for you not to act like a dick and shift the conversation to a formalized debate in order to hide behind the fact that you don't have a valid response to defend against the intimations of a simple aphorism which was entirely applicable to the comment to which i applied it.
 
cole grey said:
are you kidding me? the premise is that some people have difficulty finding valuable insight in certain questions and the conclusion is that it is due to damn foolness. Other premises are assumed from common knowledge so no, it is not a decent formalized argument. It is informal inductive reasoning based on the previously demonstrated idea that fools do stupid shit hence the descriptive "fool", and it is full of assumptions. Assumption that you know what the word fool implies among others.

You are difficult to talk to. You give me:

Premise: Some people have difficuly , etc.

Gap

Conclusion: It is due to damn foolishness

That's an argument ?

Just when was that idea previously demonstrated?

I don't know what you take to be comon knowledge.I imagine it's what you believe to be true. In your view , what exactly is a fool ?

Is a foolish man always foolish or is he a fool in certain contexts only ?

No no no no no.
I never ever suggested that. Or hinted at that in any way. Many people, fools or not, disagree with me on many subjects i am sure, and that is great. You are just playing games which is fine, but you obviously didn't really want an actual debate about any of this shit, and i don't blame you because an objection to such an ambiguous statement as what i put forth is only a sophist trick with no connection to logic or meaning - which clearly points out that you were just being a pompous dick in bringing up the word argument in the first place. QED.



I think you can read better than that. I didn't say that. Other people can ask the questions and the fools can just shout out "inane" - and the intellectual fools most certainly will use that word.

"Intellectual fool " is an oxymoron. I seem to remember you were the one to accuse me of being full of shit, for no apparent reason. Does that make you an "intellectual fool" or how else would you classify yourself ? I have no recollection of "inane" being used

I don't need to tell anybody anything. My only point was for you not to act like a dick and shift the conversation to a formalized debate in order to hide behind the fact that you don't have a valid response to defend against the intimations of a simple aphorism which was entirely applicable to the comment to which i applied it.

Yet another ad hom.How can anyone have a valid response when you have not put forward an argument ?


Tell me what your aphorism about the well and the mountain is meant to convey ?
Click to expand...
 
lightgigantic said:
my point is that whether one hates or loves the body, it still remains as a temporary vehicle of identity of uncertain future
Click to expand...

Agreed.


killing and the use of drugs also has its proper application - collapsing under a barrage of emotional issues as a result tends to indicate improper use however
Click to expand...

Agreed. But again, a lot is up to an individual person's karma. I do think it is wrong to presume there are "forms of normalcy" in the use of the body that are true for all people regardless of their karma and to which all people should strive and subject themselves to.

To give a mild example of such a "form of normalcy": "It is normal that a person smokes two cigarettes per day, whoever doesn't agree with that or doesn't do it, is wrong."
 
cole grey said:
And yes, I do mean aware, and although it is still up for debate whether our higher awareness (beyond the basic animal function) is valid or just concocted out of thin air, all of our thinking has to take place inside this awareness or be evaluated by it, so I have to give it a chance to work.
Click to expand...

Holistic comparisons with animals are basically nothing but speculation. We do not know what it is like inside an animal's mind and body. For the most part, people simply speculate about what they would think and feel if they were that animal. For an interesting take on this, I suggest Thomas Nagel's What is it like to be a bat?


Being born into undifferentiated Nirvana might be an option, but being a creature seems to be part of the game - so, basically, self-consciousness and other-consciousness are just two necessary parts of this "consciousness" I was mentioning. These parts need to be created somehow. This messed up place does a good job of that.

Maybe us moving past that is the part God was too optimistic about.
Click to expand...

Do you believe in eternal hellfire?
 
Myles said:
That's an argument ?
Click to expand...
is it not clear to you that i am not playing your little game?
I don't know what you take to be comon knowledge.I imagine it's what you believe to be true. In your view , what exactly is a fool ?[/COLOR]
Click to expand...
look socrates, a fool is either an idiot or someone who acts like one
"Intellectual fool " is an oxymoron. I seem to remember you were the one to accuse me of being full of shit, for no apparent reason. Does that make you an "intellectual fool" or how else would you classify yourself ? I have no recollection of "inane" being used[/COLOR]
Click to expand...
The word “inane" wasn't used - it was an example of something an intellectual fool would say. I said you were full of shit because of your attempt at intellectual grandstanding, i.e. trying to get all formal on my ass. And it is quite obvious that many phrases which sound like oxymorons when left unanalyzed, are actually quite appropriate and sensible.
Yet another ad hom.How can anyone have a valid response when you have not put forward an argument ?
Click to expand...
an ad hom is a phrase describing an attack meant to undermine an opponent's position in an argument. That isn't what is happening here. My attacks towards you have no such purpose, since we aren't actually having a discussion about anything. I was just annoyed that's all. Using the word “ad hom” to describe what I did is like saying a piece of music has a lot of molecular agitation or something like that – not applicable. And SOOOOOO TOHHHHHHTALLY overused on this forum.

Tell me what your aphorism about the well and the mountain is meant to convey ?
Click to expand...
If you can't find any value in questions like this as expressed by you here when you said - "Alternatively, we could consider an in-depth discussion on whether god created rabies and which god we are talking about. Heady stuff that !" - you should just shut up and let other people find what they can, and not poo-poo it. *It really was quite unfair of me to jump on that one sentence since you had been saying things here and there relating to the questions posed previously, and it would have been quite easy for you to say, "hey, if i didn't have any insight that was at least valuable to myself, why would i be posting here?" and i would have had to just shut up and admit to being overly irritable.* But you came back with that "prig" talk about creating a formal argument, and that annoyed me, so here we are having said basically nothing for two pages. hooray for us.
That’s the truth, all intellectual foolishness aside.
 
Last edited:
greenberg said:
Holistic comparisons with animals are basically nothing but speculation. [/URL]
Click to expand...
I kind of agree with that, but I think we can make some pretty safe assumptions about the complexity of animal consciousness, i.e. that it differs in some ways from humans - but that isn't important. I just use "animal consciousness" or whatever as a shorthand way of describing functions which are able to be performed by an animal (human or otherwise) soon after birth or with little training, i.e. "eat", "want", "fuck" etc.
These are differentiated from higher level "consciousness" and the various functions entailed thereby, which, as i said, may just be results of phantoms we create with our intellectualizing. And yes there is no real line to cross - it is kind of like "i'm los angeles, now i'm somewhere in the desert on the way to las vegas, now i'm in las vegas."

Do you believe in eternal hellfire?
Click to expand...
I guess it is conceivable that I could be wrong, so I am not saying it is impossible, but it seems unlikely that God (even if God is the one described in the bible) would make things work out in the manner described by evangelicals. I have multiple foundations for this belief, by the way, some related to biblical ideas, some related to my own reasoning, most of which are a mixture of both.
 
cole grey said:
I guess it is conceivable that I could be wrong, so I am not saying it is impossible, but it seems unlikely that God (even if God is the one described in the bible) would make things work out in the manner described by evangelicals. I have multiple foundations for this belief, by the way, some related to biblical ideas, some related to my own reasoning, most of which are a mixture of both.
Click to expand...

Do tell me more.
What makes you believe that there most likely is no eternal hell?
 
cole grey said:
is it not clear to you that i am not playing your little game?

look socrates, a fool is either an idiot or someone who acts like one

The word “inane" wasn't used - it was an example of something an intellectual fool would say. I said you were full of shit because of your attempt at intellectual grandstanding, i.e. trying to get all formal on my ass. And it is quite obvious that many phrases which sound like oxymorons when left unanalyzed, are actually quite appropriate and sensible.

an ad hom is a phrase describing an attack meant to undermine an opponent's position in an argument. That isn't what is happening here. My attacks towards you have no such purpose, since we aren't actually having a discussion about anything. I was just annoyed that's all. Using the word “ad hom” to describe what I did is like saying a piece of music has a lot of molecular agitation or something like that – not applicable. And SOOOOOO TOHHHHHHTALLY overused on this forum.


If you can't find any value in questions like this as expressed by you here when you said - "Alternatively, we could consider an in-depth discussion on whether god created rabies and which god we are talking about. Heady stuff that !" - you should just shut up and let other people find what they can, and not poo-poo it. *It really was quite unfair of me to jump on that one sentence since you had been saying things here and there relating to the questions posed previously, and it would have been quite easy for you to say, "hey, if i didn't have any insight that was at least valuable to myself, why would i be posting here?" and i would have had to just shut up and admit to being overly irritable.* But you came back with that "prig" talk about creating a formal argument, and that annoyed me, so here we are having said basically nothing for two pages. hooray for us.
That’s the truth, all intellectual foolishness aside.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your considered reply.
 
Theist's rewards are in heaven. Their life on earth is one of servitude, obedience and worship, all they can ever hope to achieve. Death is the release of their plight on earth.

Theists claim their gods created the universe and everything in it.

Who are we to argue their sage advice?
 
Logically, if god outright created it all in one go, as it is, or he laid down the physical laws that lead to it, he still "created it". There's no escaping this. Squirm all you want, all you'll do is hurt your back.
 
S.A.M. said:
Why is it evil?
Click to expand...

Because it can take away everything one thinks one has.
Because its existence is a threat that can make for a dreary outlook on life.
Because death by rabies can be very painful.
 
I don't think the rabies virus is evil. It simply is. But I do perceive the existence of such as an effective argument against a loving, paternal god.

The standard Christian argument for the existence of pain and suffering is the sin of Adam and Eve. But a few months ago I saw a program on Animal Planet about animal rescue, where workers for an animal control agency somewhere in the US were followed around.

After receiving a report of animal neglect, they arrived at a house where a dog had recently had puppies. Due to the owners neglect, the mother wasn't able to properly care for the puppies. They had been attacked by maggots. Several of the puppies were still alive, and crying in pain. Two or three of them had no eyeballs left, and maggots in their eye sockets. One had about a third of its skin eaten away. It was one of the most horrible things I've ever seen. Thankfully, the badly injured puppies were quickly euthanized. What did animals do to incur the wrath of the supposedly loving Christian god? What possible purpose could their short lives, filled with unimaginable pain and suffering, have had?

God Cites 'Moving In Mysterious Ways' As Motive In Killing Of 3,000 Papua New Guineans

VANIMO, PAPUA NEW GUINEA—In His first official statement since the July 17 tsunami that claimed the lives of an estimated 3,000 Papua New Guineans, the Lord announced Monday that He killed the island villagers as part of His longtime "moving in mysterious ways" policy, calling the natural disaster "part of My unknowable, divine plan for mankind."

"Though the need for such a tidal wave is incomprehensible to you mortals, flawed as you are by sin, I can assure you that I had a very good reason for what I did," God said of the disaster, whose death toll is expected to climb to 5,000 once the effects of disease, starvation and marauding crocodiles become known. "Trust me."

Yahweh, whose unknowable purposes have necessitated, among other things, the death of 40 million Europeans from the Bubonic Plague, 40,000 Peruvians in a 1868 earthquake, and six million of His chosen people in Nazi concentration camps, said he was "not unmoved" by the suffering of the Papua New Guinea flood victims.

"Of course I hear their prayers," God said. "I see every sparrow that falls. But it is My will that these prayers not be answered, and that life continues to be nasty, brutish and short for the majority of mankind. And My reasons are not yours to question."
 
greenberg said:
Because it can take away everything one thinks one has.
Because its existence is a threat that can make for a dreary outlook on life.
Because death by rabies can be very painful.
Click to expand...

Those are selfish reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top