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.
At best the scriptures would represent a moral fossil record, but a truer moral fossil record would incorporate any and all writings concerning morality.
Going with the concept, consider how chockablock crowded the moral fossil record will be for future spiritual geologists. It will include graffiti from bathroom walls, President Trump's Tweets, the Communist Manifesto, the history of Prohibition, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the entire self help industry, Bob Dylan songs, The Little Engine That Could and Mein Kampf.
An atheist looks solely at logic and reason. You won't convince for many lifetimes, unless there is scientific evidence of some higher power.
Also, a true atheist pays little mind to "But wonder if something is eluding me/us all this time?" For me, though, this question is always burning dimly in the back of my mind. Hence I call myself an agnostic.
That is absurd. Another pointless obfuscation on the part of Mystic as he tries to bolster his ego by trying to sound intelligent.
I don't need to sound intelligent, fishbrains, it is completely natural. Grandstander is correct that the quantity of material in the spiritual fossil record has expanded beyond my capability to sift through it and detect a pattern or template. But we are developing AI with deep learning algorithms that might be up to the task. I doubt, though, that they would be put to such a task given their obvious commercial and other beneficial uses. The more limited ancient literature responsible for our conceptions of God was doable and the spiritual template within those genetic sources of God was blatantly obvious. I take significance from it because of my experiences. Most do not because evolution (let alone spiritual evolution) is not a favorite conceptual path for most religious or theist proponents.
Nope. No sign of stepping back and thinking again. Just more Faith that all the human struggling for meaning and pattern and explanations and above all an escape from suffering and death through Some Greater power is believed on Faith to be detectable if not with the most powerful human intellects, then a computer (and I needn't rehearse the methods the believers would turn [hint- 'joining the dots'] to if it didn't get the results they wanted)..
And all of this Faith -based speculation in spite of all the reasons to doubt it (in a dismissive manner that old Eusebius couldn't surpass you simply ignored the serious objections to the 'Spiritual fossil record as divine learning -curve...which is pure Belief -based speculation; that's the point, which you don't make plain. {1}. Instead in the must ludicrously overweening manner you present your own Experiences as all the reason anyone could want to take your Faith -based hypotheses on trust.
Cue - another display of faux -persecuted offence as being so unfairly traduced with huffy threats of 'Withdrawing' for all the world like Jesus walking away with an expression of saintly stuffiness. The absurd posturing of the 'When you see me you see the father' types as martyred prophets is a real hoot.
(1) it's too long to dig into the unconscious/instinctive concealment to disguise what deep down the believer knows is going to give the game away - but Hey...subterfuge is ok to support what is known to be true On Faith. I know exactly why you are so obscure all the time. As well as the plonking faith -claims and the attempts to intimidate and browbeat the opposition. I say again; you have been Sussed, old mate.
(1) it's too long to dig into the unconscious/instinctive concealment to disguise what deep down the believer knows is going to give the game away - but Hey...subterfuge is ok to support what is known to be true On Faith. I know exactly why you are so obscure all the time. As well as the plonking faith -claims and the attempts to intimidate and browbeat the opposition. I say again; you have been Sussed, old mate.
Ah, Arq, always so convinced you have "sussed" me again, whatever that means. You never disappoint with your overweening confidence that I must be engaged in subterfuge promoting a secret deceptive agenda for a reason that only you seem to have "sussed." I cannot imagine how often or how badly you must have been taken or misled by others to accumulate such an extreme distrust of motives.
First, my withdrawal offer was in response to mensaguy's complaint about theists participating in the thread. He is a Moderator, after all. Second, you have every right NOT to see any significance in the Spiritual Savior Template that permeates the earliest writings. Why would you? You do not believe there is a God inspiring anyone or trying to influence our consciousness in any way. My experiences inform me differently.
What you call intimidation and browbeating are my, perhaps overzealous, intellectual defense of my legitimate knowledge of the extant science from which I draw my plausible hypotheses. My oppositions' ignorant misunderstanding of both the legitimate science and my attempts to simplify it through analogies for a mass audience is annoying enough that my rancor is difficult to hide.
Ah, Arq, always so convinced you have "sussed" me again, whatever that means. You never disappoint with your overweening confidence that I must be engaged in subterfuge promoting a secret deceptive agenda for a reason that only you seem to have "sussed." I cannot imagine how often or how badly you must have been taken or misled by others to accumulate such an extreme distrust of motives.
First, my withdrawal offer was in response to mensaguy's complaint about theists participating in the thread. He is a Moderator, after all. Second, you have every right NOT to see any significance in the Spiritual Savior Template that permeates the earliest writings. Why would you? You do not believe there is a God inspiring anyone or trying to influence our consciousness in any way. My experiences inform me differently.
What you call intimidation and browbeating are my, perhaps overzealous, intellectual defense of my legitimate knowledge of the extant science from which I draw my plausible hypotheses. My oppositions' ignorant misunderstanding of both the legitimate science and my attempts to simplify it through analogies for a mass audience is annoying enough that my rancor is difficult to hide.
Your increasing attempts to portray yourself as a misunderstood genius trying to educate the reluctant ignorant masses is getting downright comical .
Ah, Arq, always so convinced you have "sussed" me again, whatever that means. You never disappoint with your overweening confidence that I must be engaged in subterfuge promoting a secret deceptive agenda for a reason that only you seem to have "sussed." I cannot imagine how often or how badly you must have been taken or misled by others to accumulate such an extreme distrust of motives.
First, my withdrawal offer was in response to mensaguy's complaint about theists participating in the thread. He is a Moderator, after all. Second, you have every right NOT to see any significance in the Spiritual Savior Template that permeates the earliest writings. Why would you? You do not believe there is a God inspiring anyone or trying to influence our consciousness in any way. My experiences inform me differently.
What you call intimidation and browbeating are my, perhaps overzealous, intellectual defense of my legitimate knowledge of the extant science from which I draw my plausible hypotheses. My oppositions' ignorant misunderstanding of both the legitimate science and my attempts to simplify it through analogies for a mass audience is annoying enough that my rancor is difficult to hide.
I have explained what i have 'sussed'. I understand that you are merely arguing your views as best you can. I accept that you are probably not sitting down and thinking up a lot of dirty tricks to steamroller the opposition It is you making your best efforts. nevertheless the methods and the apologetics are uncannily the same as the other theists. And because I do know your hypothesis in broad outline (the detail does seem to change at times) I can see where your arguments are going, because I have seen them before.
Just one example, the sudden dragging in of A/I. It wasn't much to do with the argument, but was an almost instinctive move to a point that you thought you could argue better. I have seen it before, so I pointed it out.
As to your posting here, and the way in which you effect your zeal, I was putting it from how (I believe) the posters see it. Hopefully (though without much of it) your you to take on board. How the Mods see it is a matter for them.
Your increasing attempts to portray yourself as a misunderstood genius trying to educate the reluctant ignorant masses is getting downright comical.
Is that what I was doing? So, you have "sussed" me too, but apparently in a different way than Arq. Wonder which one of you is correct. (BTW, according to the usual metrics, I would be considered a genius and I am most certainly misunderstood.)
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.
