Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What you have said in virtually all of your posts has been the same thing. Namely, that whatever you believe -- regardless of the lack of foundation for it, and despite the evidence and objections raised against it by others -- is the truth, and no one who disagrees with any of it has any idea what truth really is. What you propose -- over and over and over again -- is the circular and self-referential argument of blind faith.
Lack of foundation? Are actual historical events a "lack of foundation"?
It is not "blind faith", saganista. That is what you are missing here. We have a "history book" (if you will). Historical accounts, witnesses, and records.
No, it is not "blind faith" at all.
Do you think recorded history has value? Have you studied World History? Do you believe it to be accurate? Or do you write it off as "unprovable"?
Lack of foundation? Are actual historical events a "lack of foundation"? It is not "blind faith", saganista. That is what you are missing here. We have a "history book" (if you will). Historical accounts, witnesses, and records.
I asked you earlier about the silence of Josephus. You didn't reply. How do you account for that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
No, it is not "blind faith" at all.
It is when it claims to "magic wand" all contrary evidence out of existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Do you think recorded history has value? Have you studied World History? Do you believe it to be accurate? Or do you write it off as "unprovable"?
Yes, yes, no, and no. History well done and well supported allows us the best guess possible as to who people really were and what events really transpired. But the historical record is always incomplete, just as is the contemporary record. Claims that the Bible represents a confirmed history are not at all well-founded. Merely the discrepancies between the gospel of John and the three synoptic versions should be sufficient to dispel that notion.
Lack of foundation? Are actual historical events a "lack of foundation"?
It is not "blind faith", saganista. That is what you are missing here. We have a "history book" (if you will). Historical accounts, witnesses, and records.
No, it is not "blind faith" at all.
Do you think recorded history has value? Have you studied World History? Do you believe it to be accurate? Or do you write it off as "unprovable"?
No one would consider the Bible a history book, simply because it includes some historical events. The Civil War occurred but does that make the epic tv show "North and South" a documentary or the book "Gone With The Wind" a text book? To believe that Jesus existed and the events occurred as described in the Bible takes a substantial amount of blind faith.
I prefer to think of Jesus as similar to Homer...an amalgamation, in this case of probably dozens or hundreds of wild-eyed "prophets" wandering the desert way back when.
There are no questions raised by comments such as, It's no wonder then that you worship its miraculous milk. Why, you're the biggest believer on the board! It's just that you graciously genuflect at the First Church of St.Thomas "Tip" O'Neill. Save perhaps for why you bother to post them.
No questions, aside from the uncanny resemblance that the blind faith placed in the government by people like you bears to what you attribute to evangelical zealots....
Quote:
The only spirituality you seem to take seriously is your own, and that quite overly so. The spirtuality of legions among the non-religious is as real and as meaningful. It simply discards the excess baggage and burden of dogma. On this account, you would disrespect it.
I have made no references to my spirituality in this thread or any other. The non-religious (like you), however, seem to dwell in a place where it is necessary to take ones intellectual sustenance from mocking the beliefs of others. I have no idea why.
Quote:
I have certainly had my share of experiences with both beginning- and end-of-life issues, and can suggest as the result that here in the real world, these are among the experiences that one is least likely to forget. Perhaps things are different where you are. Neither are these any impetus toward mysticism or superstition. Many things are beyond one's control. That realization should have set in at about age five. Focusing on the aspects of experience that do lie within one's control or influence can be beneficial. Especially so over time and when a fact-based rational analysis is brought to bear. Turning to a security blanket of weepy emotionalism does not generally serve as a productive strategy in the long-run.
LOL. "Focusing on the the aspects of experience that do lie...etc" should have set in at about five and a half. No weepiness nor emotionalism here; just bemusement at the specter of you thrashing about and tugging that quilt of rationality behind you...
You've made that claim previously, and it was challenged previously, and you were unable to respond to that challenge previously. Even after having been reminded three times...or was it four...of your obligation to do so. See Post-350 et seq in this very thread. UNSCR 687 extended no such unilateral right or authority to the US. The Resolution specifically concludes with the admonition that the Security Council "decides to remain seized of the matter." Please (again) cite whatever language from UNSCR 687 you believe supports your assertion.
It is lying when the "action" is to decide, "Boy, I better just sit on this!" Were there reports from State and DOE experts sent to the President concerning the nature of the "aluminum tubes" and/or their suitability for use in centrifuges? Were those reports ever heard of again, or were they simply deep-sixed while Condi Rice continued to make statements about the tubes that contradicted the information in them? Were CIA reservations about the sources, quality, and certitude of intelligence ever deleted from any of their reports, such that the record forwarded included only the initial report of that intelligence, as if no such reservations had ever been raised?
As for links, these too have been previously posted and previously referred to. Probably some people noticed that...
And since you declined to answer this earlier question, here's another chance to do so now...
What was the scope of the Silberman-Robb Commission's work? Was it asked to look into the use or abuse of intelligence by the administration in arranging lies and other deceptions, or was that sort of thing put off limits?
Iraq War Resolution:
Sec 3 Authorization for use of U.S. armed forces
A) Authorization- the President is authorized to use armed forces as he determines necessary and appropriate in order to...
1) defend national security of the U.S. against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and,
2) Enforce all the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
As there was no peace treaty following the cease-fire, the Gulf War coalition retained the right under international law to resume hostilties if Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire. UNSCR found Iraq in breach of the cease-fire.
Iraq War Resolution:
Sec 3 Authorization for use of U.S. armed forces
Need I point out that this is not UNSCR 687, the document that you have twice now claimed to give the US special unilateral rights, but which in actuality does not? Are there no arguments that are simply too feeble to be resorted to on your end?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
A) Authorization- the President is authorized to use armed forces as he determines necessary and appropriate in order to...
1) defend national security of the U.S. against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and,
2) Enforce all the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
This authorization enables the use of US armed forces in the event that the US was ever authorized by the UN to do any of this enforcing. It never was. The US has no presumptive right to unilateral enforcement of Security Council resolutions via military means. That right can only come from the Security Council itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
As there was no peace treaty following the cease-fire, the Gulf War coalition retained the right under international law to resume hostilties if Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire. UNSCR found Iraq in breach of the cease-fire.
Hogwash. UNSCR 687 extends no unilateral rights of enforcement to anyone, Coalition member or not. You seek to establish your claim merely by repeating it. The claim is entirely false no matter how many times you present it.
No questions, aside from the uncanny resemblance that the blind faith placed in the government by people like you bears to what you attribute to evangelical zealots....
Blind faith in the Bush administration and its one-time rubber-stamp Republican Congress? Not hardly. It seems that you have taken up residence on an even more remote bizarro-planet at this point. The fact is that you've done little more than whine and cavil over a period of rather many posts now. You have raised no questions demanding of answers. None at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
I have made no references to my spirituality in this thread or any other. The non-religious (like you), however, seem to dwell in a place where it is necessary to take ones intellectual sustenance from mocking the beliefs of others. I have no idea why.
Others are free to believe what they will. But if those beliefs are held up as justification for social thought and/or action, and are, upon investigation, shown to be absurd and ridiculous, then they deserve to be called absurd and ridiculous. If you don't like your ideas being labeled absurd and ridiculous, then come up with a few that aren't. And knowing the actual facts behind your examples wouldn't hurt either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
LOL. "Focusing on the the aspects of experience that do lie...etc" should have set in at about five and a half. No weepiness nor emotionalism here; just bemusement at the specter of you thrashing about and tugging that quilt of rationality behind you...
Rationality is as light as a feather. It is no more difficult to carry around than being left- or right-handed. It is fable and superstition that will weigh you down. That is like trying to move around with your hands tied behind your back. How awkward and ungainly one becomes in that...
I asked you earlier about the silence of Josephus. You didn't reply. How do you account for that?
"Silence of Josephus"? I must have missed that post. What are you talking about?
[quote=saganista;5073992]It is when it claims to "magic wand" all contrary evidence out of existence.
Here we go again, if you're refering to "evolution".
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Yes, yes, no, and no. History well done and well supported allows us the best guess possible as to who people really were and what events really transpired. But the historical record is always incomplete, just as is the contemporary record. Claims that the Bible represents a confirmed history are not at all well-founded.
Oh, really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Merely the discrepancies between the gospel of John and the three synoptic versions should be sufficient to dispel that notion.
Not true. You're not a Bible scholar, so you see "discrepencies", but there are none, really. You have to know the reason there appear to be discrepencies. That is what Bible study is all about; but just a cursory reading, without investigation will leave you with that impression.
Most people, will make this assumption, and therefor reject the Bible as inaccurate, because they do not have the desire to do the investigation.
Bible study is all about reading, comparing text, looking at tradition, what the Jews of the day believed, how they traced their geneology, understanding the system of sacrifices, etc., etc.
There is a reason the Gospels appear to have discrepencies. But they don't.
"Silence of Josephus"? I must have missed that post. What are you talking about?
You haven't done so much study into the historicity of Jesus if you haven't encountered the Silence of Josephus before. Josephus, born in 37 CE, wrote a significant history of the time and place of Jesus. All manner of events and personages, large and small, are mentioned. There is no mention of Jesus in the original text. There are two insertions that early Christians added -- one in the third century and one in the fourth century -- but none in the original. How could one go about this region at this time preaching to multitudes. healing the sick, and raising the dead, while still failing to earn a place in such a history?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Here we go again, if you're refering to "evolution".
I'm referring to any evidence at all. You would have condemned Galileo and you still condemn Darwin. You are simply not prepared to hear evidence that contradicts beliefs that themselves are sorely lacking in actual basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Oh, really?
Yes, really. The mere fact that some Biblical references are generally accurate is hardly proof that others have any basis at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Not true. You're not a Bible scholar, so you see "discrepencies", but there are none, really. You have to know the reason there appear to be discrepencies. That is what Bible study is all about; but just a cursory reading, without investigation will leave you with that impression. Most people, will make this assumption, and therefor reject the Bible as inaccurate, because they do not have the desire to do the investigation. Bible study is all about reading, comparing text, looking at tradition, what the Jews of the day believed, how they traced their geneology, understanding the system of sacrifices, etc., etc. There is a reason the Gospels appear to have discrepencies. But they don't.
There goes the Magic Wand again...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
