Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Shhhhhhhhhhhhh...............there.........Regardless, if we want to talk about Gordon, it's not sufficient to talk exclusively of John, Jack or Jill, at least IMHO.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhh...............there.........Regardless, if we want to talk about Gordon, it's not sufficient to talk exclusively of John, Jack or Jill, at least IMHO.
If you meant Gordon rather than George (I have no idea who George Ramsay is) then of course, to answer both parts of the question.
Does that mean, though, that they can't discuss the origin of the Cottage Pie?
Does that mean you should look to put a stop to such discussion, simply because you think it should all be about the slant that Gordon Ramsay puts on it.
As for the questions you ignored:
How do you think knowledge of Tertullian helps with understanding the origin of triunes within ancient religion?
Do you think the Trinity in Christian doctrine is a wholly new idea?
No, it's not.This is where we beg to differ.
If discussing the origin of Gordon Ramsay's Cottage Pie, how/why is discussing the origin of cottage Pie in general outside of your expectation?If we were discussing anything related to Gordon Ramsey's cottage pie, I would expect that at the end of the day, it be exclusively connected to Gordin Ramsey (and not George, John or Jack)..
I don't disagree.Call me a stickler for detail, but if we are discussing how X influenced Y, at some part of the conversation, one has to deal with the exclusive nature of not only X, but also Y.
Indeed, or local, state and national politics. Come to think of it, even a cottage pie has three levels.Why could the trinity not be Mum,Dad and Son?
These discussions are similar to those upon UFOs each would benefit if the reality of the proposition was first established..
Well that would bring things to a grinding halt in both cases.
Alex
Indeed, or local, state and national politics. Come to think of it, even a cottage pie has three levels.
Does Stranger posting 3 consecutive memes together in a thread also lend itself to this sort of inquiry?
That when you start to look at threes outside of the logical consequence of being more than twos and less than fours, the world starts to look more interesting even if such vision is not necessarily accurate.What are you suggesting?
Unless you are genuinely impressed by the thought that goes into stranger's posting, you are not missing out on much.?
I dont even know what a meme is...perhaps you could start there...
Regardless of your opinions on the authenticity of events that have driven history, the path history has taken is open to analysis.I am sorry to drop in upon the in depth discussion but my point has always been...why talk about this stuff when the original claim for a God has not been established.
If you want to talk about issues that don't have recourse to profit or politics you will find you have little left for discussion ... especially as an atheist.That is what gets to me...why build this delussion with absolutely no evidence...there is nothing to offer any credible reason to invent a God...other than political or for profit...is that it?
Probably because "science" doesn't solve the problems of existence ... and in fact tends to contribute to the production of more problems, especially when combined with the before mentioned profit and politics.We have our science why go back to the bronze age for knowledge..that is just so stupid...so very very stupid..
Why?
Is such a conversation limited to the subject of mere "mythical" ones?You are intelligent and well educated so may I ask upon what basis is this mythical God established?
Trying to discuss cold hard facts without philosophy is like trying to eat a bowl of spaghetti without a bowl.Philosophy will never substitue for cold hard facts...I demand some cold hard facts that entitles anyone to rant that God exists.
Maybe we could take this to JamesR thread ... been wondering if it's worth my while considering how the OP begs the q ... but in short, does knowledge exist independent of any foundational prerequisites?Please show me this God that is in the back of your mind.
I'm not sure ehat you are talking about. Religion seems to get universal coverage in human civilization (so much so, that atheists commonly argue that it arises from some sort of psychological archetype, since explaining the phenomenon in terms of cultural transmission proves too difficult).While we are at it please explain why this God only laid out the deal to one incredibly small number of folk...this seems most strange...why go to some obscure place to let humans in on the deal?
Are you talking about Mao or something else?Why not China who were the smart folk at that time...and still are to a large degree.
Well, your demographic circles aside, one contributing factor is that we don't live in a particularly philosophically astute age. Another is that the popular false dichotomy of what is available on the "religious marketplace" is either fanatical intolerance or homogeneous absurdity. In short, modern society is a royal mess.I have many friends and have met many people and theists are the exception to the folk I meet and most folk think they are basically crazy so why should we think they are not simply delussional.
Illusion and knowledge is the standard fare of this existence. If one wants to look for roles beyond being "conned" or the "con artist ", there is not any scope.I just can not believe theists have not woken up to the fact they have been conned by stuff from the bronze age.
Alex
A meme is an imprint on the brain.I dont even know what a meme is...perhaps you could start there...
That when you start to look at threes outside of the logical consequence of being more than twos and less than fours, the world starts to look more interesting even if such vision is not necessarily accurate.
Illusion and knowledge is the standard fare of this existence. If one wants to look for roles beyond being "conned" or the "con artist ", there is not any scope
Unless you are genuinely impressed by the thought that goes into stranger's posting, you are not missing out on much
Regardless of your opinions on the authenticity of events that have driven history, the path history has taken is open to analysis
I would like to think that is irrelevant but I know the power of the lie.especially as an atheist.
True but its all we have.Probably because "science" doesn't solve the problems of existence
and in fact tends to contribute to the production of more problems, especially when combined with the before mentioned profit and politics.
Ok produce a God who is not mythical... that should be easy..thousands of years but no God just phillosophy.Is such a conversation limited to the subject of mere "mythical" ones?
I will eat off the floor and be fed.Trying to discuss cold hard facts without philosophy is like trying to eat a bowl of spaghetti without a bowl.
If it was important for God to be known why not tell the world...no just a gew folk in some obscure part of the world of no importance compared to say China...it does not makes sense.I'm not sure ehat you are talking about.
You know what I am saying but you are cute.Are you talking about Mao or something else?
I dont think so other than we still have religion keeping folk stupid and accepting less than their fair share of resources.In short, modern society is a royal mess.
It finds a more common usage outside of Dawkins attempt to embarrass himself in the field of semiotics.A meme is an imprint on the brain.
When you talk about something long enough it becomes legitimate by its very familiarity.
This is the fundamental problem with scripture that hasn't changed in thousands of years.
It's so old, it must be true.......NOT.
And what might that be?It finds a more common usage outside of Dawkins attempt to embarrass himself in the field of semiotics.
See the predominant form of strangers posting. If you are still perplexed, try google.And what might that be?
It also means he should have avoided venturing into fields that he has zero professional or academic expertise in (semiotics being but one example ... trauma as a consequence of experiencing pedophilia being another).It means Dawkins doesn't see Jesus in the clouds.
Musika said:
It finds a more common usage outside of Dawkins attempt to embarrass himself in the field of semiotics.
Write4U said:
And what might that be?
My question was, how Dawkins is attempting to embarrass himself, in your eyes, not in the eyes of strangers. To me you are a stranger, so what is your counterpoint to Dawkins?See the predominant form of strangers posting. If you are still perplexed, try google.
Are you implying that theists have experience in the field of semiotics? Have you asked?It also means he should have avoided venturing into fields that he has zero professional or academic expertise in (semiotics being but one example ... trauma as a consequence of experiencing pedophilia being another).
Try google.My question was, how Dawkins is attempting to embarrass himself, in your eyes, not in the eyes of strangers. To me you are a stranger, so what is your counterpoint to Dawkins?
I am implying Dawkins seemed oblivious to it.Are you implying that theists have experience in the field of semiotics? Have you asked?
Once again, its about Dawkins specifically. Try google.Are you implying there is a positive side to pedophilia or that being subjected to pedophilia is unknown to scientists?
Oh, and the Church is exempt from profit and politics?Musika said:
and in fact tends to contribute to the production of more problems, especially when combined with the before mentioned profit and politics