Extreme Atheism - leads to a Proxy God by default.

[Write4U]

yes it does stand on it's merits....

did he.... ha ha ha lol .. you are amazing...
the way you draw your crazy associations is just beyond compare....

oh dear...sorry but ....

"So then the time times & half a time [sic] are 42 months or 1260 days or three years & an half, recconing twelve months to a year & 30 days to a month as was done in the Calender [sic] of the primitive year. And the days of short lived Beasts being put for the years of [long-]lived kingdoms the period of 1260 days, if dated from the complete conquest of the three kings A.C. 800, will end 2060. It may end later, but I see no reason for its ending sooner". Newton

QQ said,
Given what we know about climate change he might not be that far off....

This was your association to climate change!

So I ask again, that posted rant about the conquest of the three kings was Newton's proof of climate change? Where?

Answer the question or be quiet.

 

[Yazata]

In case members have failed to see it. This thread is primarily about responsibility...

However if we humans are deprived of responsibility for our actions then to requite the need for a reason, a casuse, we must attribute the responsibility to other than our selves and place it on the shoulders of a proxy God

OK. I might have been misinterpreting your intent in starting this thread. I was interpreting it in terms of metaphysics, in terms of philosophy's never-ending free-will/determinism argument. You are coming at it from the direction of ethics.

But I'm still inclined to agree with you. Determinist metaphysics does seem to present a huge challenge to the idea of ethical responsibility.

 

[Write4U]

slip slidin away........slip slidin away........

 

[Quantum Quack]

"So then the time times & half a time [sic] are 42 months or 1260 days or three years & an half, recconing twelve months to a year & 30 days to a month as was done in the Calender [sic] of the primitive year. And the days of short lived Beasts being put for the years of [long-]lived kingdoms the period of 1260 days, if dated from the complete conquest of the three kings A.C. 800, will end 2060. It may end later, but I see no reason for its ending sooner". Newton This was your association to climate change!

So I ask again, that posted rant about the conquest of the three kings was Newton's proof of climate change? Where?

Answer the question or be quiet.

Given what we know about climate change he might not be far off.
Who is the "we" in "we know"?

 

[Quantum Quack]

OK. I might have been misinterpreting your intent in starting this thread. I was interpreting it in terms of metaphysics, in terms of philosophy's never-ending free-will/determinism argument. You are coming at it from the direction of ethics.

But I'm still inclined to agree with you. Determinist metaphysics does seem to present a huge challenge to the idea of ethical responsibility.

Very well put.

To claim the most treasured possession a human can have as an illusion, is extremism to the uhm... extreme.

 

[Write4U]

But I'm still inclined to agree with you. Determinist metaphysics does seem to present a huge challenge to the idea of ethical responsibility

But in a societal setting no one has free will, it is determined by the societal laws of behavior, which can differ starkly from location to location if I may add.
Criminal Laws are part of the deterministic consideration and were invented for that specific purpose to enforce (determine) ethical behavior, on penalty of punishment.

In a way the same principle applies when someone holds a gun to your head. Who's will are you going follow? You're not free to choose anymore are you?

Strangely other animals do not seem to have any problem with ethical behavior and they act purely deterministically, no? Is that not curious?

 

[Sarkus]

oh Sarkus then answer the simple question:

'cos answering your question removes or excuses the insult, attempts at ridicule, and your ignorance? See, you're simply not honest.

According to you do humans have freewill and self determination that isn't an illusion?

simple yes or no would be fine...
I'll quote your answer in the what is free will thread later.

The fact that you want a yes/no answer shows your ignorance of the matter. Or your dishonesty. Or both.
And you can quote that.

 

[Write4U]

Who is the "we" in "we know"?

You tell me, it is your question and they are your words. Again complete obfuscation.....tsk...tsk.....slip slidin away.

 

[Quantum Quack]

But in a societal setting no one has free will, it is determined by the societal laws of behavior, which can differ starkly from location to location if I may add.
Criminal Laws are part of the deterministic consideration and were invented for that specific purpose to enforce (determine) ethical behavior, on penalty of punishment.

In a way the same principle applies when someone holds a gun to your head. Who's will are you going follow? You're not free to choose anymore are you?

Strangely other animals do not seem to have any problem with ethical behavior and they act purely deterministically, no? Is that not curious?

Maybe Sarkus or Bells or Trippy could have a go at answering that...

 

[Quantum Quack]

'cos answering your question removes or excuses the insult, attempts at ridicule, and your ignorance? See, you're simply not honest.
The fact that you want a yes/no answer shows your ignorance of the matter. Or your dishonesty. Or both.
And you can quote that.

Dodge and duck

 

[Quantum Quack]

You tell me, it is your question and they are your words. Again complete obfuscation.....tsk...tsk.....slip slidin away.

Your not fooling any one...

 

[Write4U]

Maybe Sarkus or Bells or Trippy could have a go at answering that...

No, I insist you answer my question. Are you going to "slip slidin away" .... again?

 

[Write4U]

Your not fooling any one...

With what? You're the one slip slidin away.....

You know you are shrinking at every post, don't you?

 

[Quantum Quack]

With what? You're the one slip slidin away.....

You know you are shrinking at every post, don't you?

Sure whatever u say....

 

[Write4U]

Sure whatever u say....

I'm not done yet.....

You started it, I'll finish it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I'm not done yet.....

You started it, I'll finish it.

Obviously..lol

 

[Goldtop]

Do you believe in free will and self determination?

Everyone has the will and determination to do what they want. If that were not true, then nothing would get accomplished. Of course, having the means to do whatever we want is another story altogether. Having the will and determination is not the same thing as having the means.

How does Sir Isaac Newton, being a theist, fit in with your "unicorns"?
He claimed to have special knowledge of God, if I recall, called Gravity.(among many things)

Newton was considered a heretic of his time, often referred to as a Nicodemite. And, while he believed God was gravity, he had no evidence of such a thing. But then, due to the Blasphemy Act of 1697, we'll never really know what he believed simply because it was against the law to say God had not created everything. You should really think about that one when you bring up Newton. Theists love to proclaim their free speech when it suits their agenda, but there was no such thing back then, yet somehow theists still bring up Newton to support their weak arguments.

The question I would then ask you is if Newton were alive today, free to speak his mind, would he still be a Christian? Or, if he understood what we now understand about the origins of our universe, would he even be a theist?

 

[Bells]

quote edited to reflect accuracy
edit: even with the correction your post makes no sense if it is related to my post... Perhaps read it again and try again.

Do you fail to see how dishonest your actions are here?

You completely changed the context and meaning of his post.

His post:

Seriously? Your argument now is who should be more offended by what you have said?

Your edit of his post:

Seriously? Your argument now is who should be more offended by what we have said?

"We"?

He was addressing you and your argument.

You edited it and attempted to change it to make it seem that he was addressing others instead of just you.

It is misleading in the extreme.

 

[Bells]

hey Bells does that sound like a fake theologian to you? You know the one you reckon is a Christian under cultural duress...

Who said he was a "fake theologian"?

No one here has.

You keep deliberately misrepresenting what I actually said. Why do you do that?

You ask if he was a theist. You declare he was a theist as though it was a trump card.

I respond and say, directly, what choice did he have. Because he had no other choice but to be a theist.

And you take that and somehow or other, ask if he sounded like he was a "fake theologian"?

 

[Write4U]

Zeus (god of clouds, rain, thunder and lightning) is no longer a "living" god.
Apocalypse (god of gravity) is no longer a "living" god.
Yahweh (god of volcanoes) is no longer a "living" god.
Thor (warrior god, protector of man) is no longer a "living" god.
All lesser gods are no longer "living" gods.

LORD (god of everything) is no longer a "living" god. Just like all other gods.

These were "proxy figments of the imagination" for otherwise unexplainable Universal phenomena.
Understandable approximate human translations by early "ignorant" people.

All "proxy" Gods have been replaced by scientific "universal" Potentials. And these potentials can be mathematically qualified and quantified into understandable scientific translations by modern "knowledgeable" people..

That is my "mundane" atheist testament..........