This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Craig Rock
1
« on: October 11, 2014, 07:04:35 PM »
Israel should ultimately own the land.
2
« on: October 11, 2014, 06:51:42 PM »
Tell me a secret and I'll tell you one of mine. Here's a freebee 
3
« on: October 11, 2014, 06:20:49 PM »
The queen bee or the queen ant?
I feel like the queen bee is a lot like a militaristic ruler while the queen ant puts far more value in elaborate and expansive cities. But the ants would always win if they went to war, just because of their intelligence. They may be scavengers but they're not fools. Bees on the other hand are greedy for sticky gold (honey) and attack without order from the queen. But they're violent, fast, and incredibly intimidating.
4
« on: October 11, 2014, 05:52:43 PM »
Is it anti-scientific to ignore the needs of a child to have two parents of both genders? It's anti-scientific to posit that. The consensus is that homosexual parents are equally capable.
I've seen studies that actually argue the opposite.
I'd love to see these 'studies'
http://www.cfcidaho.org/why-children-need-male-and-female-parentI can't stay to argue because my wife should be back from her errand soon and I promised to watch a movie with her, but this is one of the studies I'm referring to.
5
« on: October 11, 2014, 05:48:55 PM »
Is it anti-scientific to ignore the needs of a child to have two parents of both genders? It's anti-scientific to posit that. The consensus is that homosexual parents are equally capable.
I've seen studies that actually argue the opposite.
6
« on: October 11, 2014, 05:43:37 PM »
I'm trying to get a clue at the kind of politics here. You guys seem to be very anti-feminist, which is closely connected to the LGBT movement, but you guys also happen to be very libertarian, which makes it unpredictable where you guys would stand on this issue. So on the topic of gay marriage where do you guys fall? Personally, I think I'm becoming more okay with the concept as time passes. I used to be against gay marriage however, because I didn't really see it as the most ethical thing you can do for the children growing up in a mono-gender parent family. But I'm still left with a few lingering questions. Is it anti-scientific to ignore the needs of a child to have two parents of both genders? Does it encroach upon religious freedom to force churches to marry gays? Can we really redefine marriage without it losing its merit?
If you have strong opinions, please do your best to control them. You need to keep in mind others may have strong opinions as well.
7
« on: October 11, 2014, 05:31:34 PM »
Don't girls usually wear less revealing skirts?
8
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:51:25 PM »
Spoiler Don't bother, it's Dustin.
Is it? How did you find that out?
It's really quite obvious, to be honest.
Kinder and Challenger seem to agree, and I'm sure a mod would be willing to verify it if you asked.
Of course it's Dustbin. His alts are always incredibly easy to spot.
I don't know why you think I'm him. Isn't he a raging fedora lord or something?
How would you know? Aren't you supposedly a brand new member to the site? Dustbin hasn't been posting on b.net for a while, so if you're new there you wouldn't know him.
Nice try, but no. Too easy.
What the hell are you talking about? He's the one who made the Bungie.net post raging about how much he hates this place. That's the reason why I joined, to see what all the fuss was about. Why don't you PM him on Bungie.net and see what he says.
And you're under the assumption he's a "fedora lord" from a thread in which he mentions nothing about his personal beliefs in any way?
Like I said, that's like the only thread he's made since he's joined here. So you wouldn't know him or what his beliefs are.
It's really sad you're trying this hard. How can you have such a lack of a life? Go play or watch something. Jesus.
I only joined Bungie.net a few months ago, but I've seen Le Dustin around since the beginning. I can guarantee you that isn't his only thread he's ever made. Anyway, this is just an obvious distraction from my argument which you seem unable to confront. I'm going to assume victory over this debate and I'll be back after I watch a movie with my wife.
9
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:46:11 PM »
Spoiler Don't bother, it's Dustin.
Is it? How did you find that out?
It's really quite obvious, to be honest.
Kinder and Challenger seem to agree, and I'm sure a mod would be willing to verify it if you asked.
Of course it's Dustbin. His alts are always incredibly easy to spot.
I don't know why you think I'm him. Isn't he a raging fedora lord or something?
How would you know? Aren't you supposedly a brand new member to the site? Dustbin hasn't been posting on b.net for a while, so if you're new there you wouldn't know him.
Nice try, but no. Too easy.
What the hell are you talking about? He's the one who made the Bungie.net post raging about how much he hates this place. That's the reason why I joined, to see what all the fuss was about. Why don't you PM him on Bungie.net and see what he says.
10
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:41:06 PM »
Spoiler Don't bother, it's Dustin.
Is it? How did you find that out?
It's really quite obvious, to be honest.
Kinder and Challenger seem to agree, and I'm sure a mod would be willing to verify it if you asked.
Of course it's Dustbin. His alts are always incredibly easy to spot.
I don't know why you think I'm him. Isn't he a raging fedora lord or something?
11
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:39:56 PM »
Islam believes in God, just as Christianity, but they believe in Him only by a matter of faith, without any logic.
You do realise the ontological argument you've espoused could be used with respect to Allah?
Or anything other you try to define as metaphysically necessary.
Allah isn't purposeful, like the Christian God. Christianity's God suits to solve the logical problem that the Universe exists from nothing, while Allah is only imagined to woo its followers, unlike Christianity.
12
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:32:42 PM »
Unlike Christianity, which has merit, Islam has very few arguments in its defense.
I honestly don't even know what to say to that.
I don't think I've ever come across such a stupid sentiment before.
Islam believes in God, just as Christianity, but they believe in Him only by a matter of faith, without any logic.
13
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:29:38 PM »
Islam has no logical basis for their religion.
. . .
I'm sorry, what?
Unlike Christianity, which has merit, Islam has very few arguments in its defense.
14
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:22:04 PM »
You being unable to find a larger meaning from biblical stories, even the more violent ones, doesn't mean those larger meanings aren't there. Don't try to tell me God sending two bears to maul 42 children for insulting a prophet is a metaphor. . .
What about Muslims, and the meanings they find in the Qur'an? Are they finding meanings which are there, or are they just delusional?
There is a difference between religion and believing in God. Islam has no logical basis for their religion.
15
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:17:47 PM »
Spoiler Don't bother, it's Dustin.
Is it? How did you find that out?
It's really quite obvious, to be honest.
Kinder and Challenger seem to agree, and I'm sure a mod would be willing to verify it if you asked.
I already told you I'm not Le Dustin. Why would he be back on the site if he said if he hated this place back on Bungie.net?
16
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:16:17 PM »
Then what is your understanding of biblical literature?
The Bible derives its moral authority by dint of being divine revelation. Are you to tell me that stories of God punishing people for their crimes is a "cultural guideline" instead of a codified form of (divine) morality? Don't be absurd.
You being unable to find a larger meaning from biblical stories, even the more violent ones, doesn't mean those larger meanings aren't there. When Christians read the Bible, they sense those meanings, and they are blessed by its enlightenment. They aren't scowled and with fear because they take the surface meaning of the literature.
17
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:12:47 PM »
I like how the liberal anti-gun nuts here think this is good news because they're so politicized that tragedies that further their political agenda are things to celebrate. Ask a liberal under a lie detector if they wish Newtown didn't happen and see what the results are. You won't be surprised.
18
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:09:08 PM »
That's why the Bible isn't necessarily evidence of God, it's simply a cultural guideline.
If anybody believes that, their understanding of biblical literature is to be so nonsensical as to not even possibly qualify as wrong.
Then what is your understanding of biblical literature?
19
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:07:12 PM »
ITT: Atheists try to debate and lose horribly.
I think they had a fighting chance, they were simply lost in their overconfidence of their argument (edginess).
20
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:04:50 PM »
It must have taken the supernatural for our universe to exist as it is. We know God must exist in order for everything else to exist. Something cannot come from nothing, not naturally anyway.
You didn't answer the question. Why do you keep calling God "him" if you don't know what it is?
Aside from faith, we have ancient historical texts.
Don't mean to sound like a bitch but the Bible, Torah and Quran are not historical texts.
Back in ancient times people believed the world was flat, didn't make it true.
That's why the Bible isn't necessarily evidence of God, it's simply a cultural guideline.
21
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:03:18 PM »
Aside from faith, we have ancient historical texts.
Dear Me, this whole time I've managed to think your were really trying to make some kind of serious argument and just had a poor grasp of how language worked. But your really meant exactly what you said exactly the way you said it?
I think I've fracking trolled myself.
Don't get upset, there's far more to the argument. From Anselm himself: "Therefore, Lord, who grant understanding to faith, grant me that, in so far as you know it beneficial, I understand that you are as we believe and you are that which we believe. Now we believe that you are something than which nothing greater can be imagined. Then is there no such nature, since the fool has said in his heart: God is not? But certainly this same fool, when he hears this very thing that I am saying - something than which nothing greater can be imagined - understands what he hears; and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it is. For it is one thing for a thing to be in the understanding and another to understand that a thing is. For when a painter imagines beforehand what he is going to make, he has in his undertanding what he has not yet made but he does not yet understand that it is. But when he has already painted it, he both has in his understanding what he has already painted and understands that it is. Therefore even the fool is bound to agree that there is at least in the understanding something than which nothing greater can be imagined, because when he hears this he understands it, and whatever is understood is in the understanding. And certainly that than which a greater cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is at least in the understanding alone, it can be imagined to be in reality too, which is greater. Therefore if that than which a greater cannot be imagined is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be imagined is something than which a greater can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be. There exists, therefore, beyond doubt something than which a greater cannot be imagined, both in the understanding and in reality."
22
« on: October 11, 2014, 03:44:18 PM »
It must have taken the supernatural for our universe to exist as it is. We know God must exist in order for everything else to exist. Something cannot come from nothing, not naturally anyway.
You didn't answer the question. Why do you keep calling God "him" if you don't know what it is?
Aside from faith, we have ancient historical texts.
23
« on: October 11, 2014, 03:31:50 PM »
Morality isn't calculated mathematically, it's calculated by it's effect on human emotion.
24
« on: October 11, 2014, 03:29:17 PM »
His power. He is supernatural.
Now I'm confused. You kept saying you don't know what God is and that you only defined him as being whatever force cause the first motion, yet you then keep referring to it as "Him" and say he has power, as if to suggest you think he still exists and that creation was some kind of conscious decision.
Which is it?
It must have taken the supernatural for our universe to exist as it is. We know God must exist in order for everything else to exist. Something cannot come from nothing, not naturally anyway.
25
« on: October 11, 2014, 03:28:09 PM »
He must exist.
But he doesn't HAVE TO exist
Something that set in the first movement;
Yes, it's called nature.
Call Him what you want.
him? no. It's not a being.
You don't know that.
I do. There isn't a single reason to think a supernatual being did anything. If you know something I don't, you should really share it with the world. Collect your Nobel prize or something.
Something can't come from nothing.
If something can't come from nothing, what did your God create the universe from?
His power. He is supernatural. It is the only logical way for us to have our universe as it is today.
So something CAN come from nothing, eh?
It must have, granted you have supernatural power.
26
« on: October 11, 2014, 02:18:02 PM »
He must exist.
But he doesn't HAVE TO exist
Something that set in the first movement;
Yes, it's called nature.
Call Him what you want.
him? no. It's not a being.
You don't know that.
I do. There isn't a single reason to think a supernatual being did anything. If you know something I don't, you should really share it with the world. Collect your Nobel prize or something.
Something can't come from nothing.
If something can't come from nothing, what did your God create the universe from?
His power. He is supernatural. It is the only logical way for us to have our universe as it is today.
27
« on: October 11, 2014, 02:16:59 PM »
Something can't come from nothing.
While I take issue with that statement, you're still presenting a false dichotomy between nothingness or an unalterable, infallible, supernatural agency.
I don't know why I'm arguing with you, though, Dustin.
You would need supernaturalism in order for it to work, is what I'm saying. You may not know exactly what, but we do know it must be something similar to God as we understand Him. You mean Le Dustin from Bungie? I thought he was banned here?
28
« on: October 11, 2014, 01:44:07 PM »
He must exist.
But he doesn't HAVE TO exist
Something that set in the first movement;
Yes, it's called nature.
Call Him what you want.
him? no. It's not a being.
You don't know that.
I do. There isn't a single reason to think a supernatual being did anything. If you know something I don't, you should really share it with the world. Collect your Nobel prize or something.
Something can't come from nothing.
29
« on: October 11, 2014, 01:43:04 PM »
I recognize that we do not know what God is, only that He must exist.
Only if you dilute the meaning of the word 'god' to the point that it could be anything. By that line of thought I could call the universe itself God, or even call myself the god of my personal perspective.
However God, especially when capitalized, has a very specific connotation with the vast majority of English speakers; an entity that created the universe, is in some way conscious, and has moral authority. You can assign whatever arbitrary personal definition you wish, but you can't go and assume everyone else uses that definition instead of the standard one I just gave. Language doesn't work like that.
So in short; this whole deal is an Semantic dispute, quite easily the most pointless of disputes. I see now what it is you're trying to say and can see the logic in it, but you completely fail to grasp that as a human construction language is not infallible and that you can't just declare you're own special idea of what a word means as being truer than the common meaning. You may think the word 'god' can be whatever you wish since you don't know what it actually is, but you must realize that the majority do think they know what it is and that is where the common meaning comes from.
So no, "under God" is not a secular term since almost everyone except you thinks "God" refers to a supernatural entity, and ultimately the meaning of a word is dependent on what the majority agrees too not whatever vague ideas individuals attribute to it. That's just how language works.
And like Vincent said, we already have words like "universe" or "nature," however nice you may think it is to consider those synonyms for the word "God," it's totally unnecessary and only generates confusion.
For the Universe to exist as it if today, you would require something quite supernatural.
30
« on: October 11, 2014, 01:40:34 PM »
He must exist.
But he doesn't HAVE TO exist
Something that set in the first movement;
Yes, it's called nature.
Call Him what you want.
him? no. It's not a being.
You don't know that.
|
Show Posts