Does The Fact That Evil Exists Mean There Is No God?

Bogan

@maxx ;    I believe that you just agreed with an earlier point or post of mine in which you did not agree at first; it was in the post that was removed. Here you stated that children are taught to be socialized, a decent member of society; in other words, to be taught to be good; or what in bad, our naturally inherent state will simply continue to rear its ugly head.

Once again, maxx, you seem to possess this uncanny ability to read what you want to believe from words that I write, which were never intended to be interpreted in the way you wish.     Your contention was, that all humans are aggressive and that explained why wars will always occur.     I claimed that while humans may have been genetically very aggressive, evolution has been progressively genetically eradicating the most aggressive males to the point where today, most people are not aggressive at all.      Most people today (except HAMAS) prefer to live in peaceful communities where violence within the communities is normally proscribed behaviour, and where only select members are permitted to use violence within legally allowed circumstances.      Children are taught from the age of two that they are not the center of the universe and that they must control their natural desire to be selfish and to moderate their behaviour the benefit of the groups to which they belong.  

maxx

wow, nice debating...You are totally incapable of actual debate, what a fool. you cant debate, so all you do is troll, insult and ridicule.All that shows is lack of intellect.  @Dee

maxx

well, then we must decide here in what we are discussing; god, or human morality. If you are simply upon this post, saying that god defines all our laws and morals, then i can offer no rebuttal, simply because that is just begging the question on if god exists. If he does exist and has given us these laws then who can argue the point; but that is if he exists and that is a personal belief .However if there is no god, again there are no basic concepts that exist in nature for humans developed them.  The actual wording of the original post makes little sense, it is reverse logic. If god does exist, there can still be evil. if god does not exist there is still evil; one way a higher power gave it to us, and in the other way humans created the concept of it.  also i do not have to agree morally with what laws are passed and i am not immoral for saying in my opinion that they are wrong. Many fight in courts and political parties to change such laws. What about the reverse? Is it immoral  for the majority to change a law that if changed would hurt society? Such as prohibition. It was fought even though drinking is bad for the health of people, creates violence, and car wrecks, causes problems at work, and home and so on. So in the absence of god, then by whos standards is morality defined by? @just_sayin ; @just_sayin ;

maxx

without a "just" cause. ok, then what is the cause, or reason they do so ? @GnosticChristian

Bogan

@just_sayin ;   For me morality traces back to the ultimate lawgiver. 

Muslims think exactly the same way that you do.      Allah and his Prophet has ordained that Islam is perfect and can never be changed.  Those that criticise Islam should be murdered..  Women are inferiors who must be controlled by men.    Non Muslims are "vile" and sub human who must be terrorized and forced by the armies of Allah to either convert to Islam, or be mutilated and murdered,         State and religion are inseparable.   .  Raped women should be punished.   God said it so it is the Absolute Truth, carved in stone.  


Just-sayin quote     So if there is a law by a group that violates what the ultimate lawgiver says, its still an immoral law. 

You and ISIS, Al Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood, and HAMAS seem to think identically.    


Just sayin quote   Tell me, when a political party wins control of who makes the laws and they pass a law you do not agree with - are you immoral for rejecting the main group's morality? 

That depends upon context.  If the political party is totalitarian, then they have no legitimacy at all.     If they are part of a democracy, then majority wins, although some majorities are very slim, so in the case of far reaching legislation which seriously affects a minority, and hardly affects the slim majority, then who is morally right or morally wrong can be a difficult decision. 


Just-sayin quote        it would seem like you are - if you believe the group decides what is right and wrong.

That is the democratic way.     It seems to work a lot better than in societies where a bunch of elites find that religious justification for their totalitarian regimes is very advantageous.  


Just-sayin quote      If good and evil are determined by the group, why do you resist what the group wants?  They have determined for you what is good and evil, right?

As a luckless, voteless, young 18 year old man in danger of being conscripted to fight in the Vietnam war that I did not believe in, (voting age ion Australia in 1970 was 21) I thought it was immoral for the majority to deny me a vote, while claiming it had an electoral  mandate to send me off to war,  (No conscription without representation!) the young men of my generation yelled.   So, I did not consider that the majority, who were not effected by the war at all, had any mandate to claim that their version of right and wrong were valid in any way..   

And that, my dear "just-sayin", included the churches who backed the war as some sort of religious crusade against communism.    Which led to the Aussie ditty of........

"Archbishop and Cardinal crusade against the "cong"
Now that God's on our side, we can do no wrong"  

Bogan

@just_sayin quote     Hell is punishment for sin. 

Dee

@maxx

                                         URGENT PLEA VILLAGE MISSING THIS TWAT BELOW 

                                            

PLEASE HELP .......IF ANYONE SEES THIS GREASY  HAIRED , BEER BELLIED ,4 EYED TWAT WANDERING ABOUT  RING THE AUTHORITIES IMMEDIATELY , HES A VILLAGE ID-OT WHO HAS BEEN MISSING FOR SOME TIME .......IT WALKS ON ALL FOURS AND HAS THE   IQ  OF A CABBAGE.....IT RESPONDS TO WHISTLES AND GENTLE COOING SOUNDS.


                      

GnosticChristian

maxx said:

without a "just" cause. ok, then what is the cause, or reason they do so ? @GnosticChristian

Evolutional forces.

A natural selfish tendency to stick to your side, even when you know it is wrong.
That love created tendency creates a hate bias to all that might jeopardize that which is loved.
Ones side in this case.

No one want to be seen as a traitor or heretic to their side.
Even being a Loyal Heretic like a Gnostic Christian is a tough go at times.

Solution.

The right wing has to stop hating their own bloodlines and remember their first principle of all of us being born in God's image.

The LGBTQ+ haters have to stop hating God's image and likeness, and that all souls are created perfect.
 

maxx

well we were not talking about why wars happen, but in actually wars occur because of aggression. aggression does not occur because of wars. You may be correct in saying that society may be weeding out those who are more aggressive, but that is simply brainwashing so to speak. However, evolutionary speaking, it is almost impossible for society to weed out anything inherent, let alone aggression. Evolution "decides" at its own pace, and society  wont help it along. You can teach any number of people to behave like a saint, but no matter what, their most basic traits, behaviorisms, and instinct  will still be there. One thing i asked before in which i did not receive an answer to my satisfaction, is why you do not think aggression is inherent; I believe your reply was we are social animals. Yet we can be social animals with aggression built into us. We also became stuck on the definition; in which you said aggression is more of intent; fine; everything humans have done with aggressive behavior is done with intent to do so.  Sure one may once in a while accidently kill someone, but that is more of a rarity that is done without aggression. A  main sticking point in our argument is , and as you believe, if aggression is not inherent, then we must learn it; yet again, many young children exhibit aggression at a very young age without learning it; with every intent to bully and huer the other even at ages of two and three.  I believe your answer was that they were born a difficult baby; yet that means little. Difficult in what regard? That they are harder to teach to be good and not show unacceptable behavior? If we never taught children to be good, what will they do and why? and another sticking point is you said that they will show all kinds of instinctive behaviorisms and traits except for aggression. So I ask; where do we get aggressive behaviorism from.  After all if it exists and "EVEN" if it is taught somehow, then it had to originally be part of our human genome, somewhere on our genes, or we simply would not have it.  Normative Trends in Physically Aggressive Behavior: Age-Aggression Curves from 6 to 24 Months - PMC (nih.gov) Now if you agree with the link, then i ask why are these children aggressive at such an age? Are they impulsive? sure. are they me me me? sure. that is greed . but biting, throwing things, are still simple forms of aggression; in which left uncheck will continue as they grow, correct? @Bogan

GnosticChristian

Dee 

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

GnosticChristian

maxx said:

why you do not think aggression is inherent;

At our basic, we live for bread and circuses. We live to sustain ourselves and entertain ourselves.
War is the epitome of entertainment.
Men love to see the killer instinct and love of war pop out in their children.
Watch any man watching his child play. His eyes shine the most when his child gives instead of gets.
Humans are a hierarchic, biological species that has a leader or Alpha.
We earn that position, in part, by physical prowess as far as our instincts know.
We are created to compete, even to the point of war and death. 
We should not change in other than controlling ourselves better in war, now that we can self destruct with nuclear M.A.D. 

Bogan

@GnosticChristian ;   No one want to be seen as a traitor or heretic to their side. 

Oh, I dunno.   Jack/excon says that he is a Jew and he supports HAMAS.      Treason is now fashionable in the western world today.   It is hip.

GnosticChristian

Bogan said:

@GnosticChristian ;   No one want to be seen as a traitor or heretic to their side. 

Oh, I dunno.   Jack/excon says that he is a Jew and he supports HAMAS.      Treason is now fashionable in the western world today.   It is hip.

Thanks for showing blips.

Do you have an argument against the premise?

maxx

i am not sure where you stole these quotes, but they have no basis in reality; or a least a few of them. They are meaningless quotes that are not correct. war is not, nor is entertainment. It is not nor was ever a game. Now days we may live for entertainment, due to society, but in ancient humans we lived for survival. Also, i believe if you gave a two year old a gift he will be happier than if he gave it away. Also i do not think you even know the evolutionary reason as to why we were born to compete. At least not without looking it up. You also seemed to combine your quotes to different aspects of time. So I ask where did you get the idea we war for entertainment, either today or in ancient humans?  @GnosticChristian

maxx

Well, no, not exactly. we simply do not like those who are different, for different can cause trouble to the tribe so to speak. Difference in others were mainly because of strangers, who brought war, disease, and who stole. Even among the same tribe we did not like a baby to be born different than the rest. Yet here you are claiming the solution is political??? @GnosticChristian

Bogan

@GnosticChristian ;      Do you have an argument against the premise?

No.    My opinion is that the idea that some god created the entire universe is just so silly, it is beyond words.      But I realise that some people have a deep compulsive psychological need to think that there is some sort of father figure watching over them, and that if they believe that, then somehow their conscious mind will live on into infinity after their body dies.    I don't usually bother contributing on religious debates, but business on Debate Island is a bit slow at the moment, so I could not resist coming into this debate to have a bit of fun.

Dee

@GnosticChristian ;

Well when I talk to great minds I will, dicuss ideas , it's remarkable you come on to support the bible thumping bigot Maxx who once issued death threats on here all because he flies into a rage when asked to answer questions,  you two are well matched.

MayCaesar

It seems to me that, by definition, there can be no good without evil and vice versa. Much like with numbers: the concept of "negative numbers" makes no sense if there are no positive numbers: negative numbers are the inverse of positive numbers with respect to the operation of addition. Similarly, evil is the inverse of good. If there is good, there must be evil; if there was no evil, there would be no good. And if there was no good or evil, there would be no morals. For a moral system to exist, there must be a distinction made between good and evil deeds, and both must be metaphysically possible in this Universe.

A god would not be able to create an exclusively good Universe for it would not make sense to call it "good" due to there not being anything to compare it to. There is no satiety without hunger, no pleasure without pain, no happiness without sadness, no victory without loss.

Then again, the idea of "god" itself makes little sense. When humans did not know how to explain lightning, they used to attribute it to a god (Zeus, Perun, Jupiter, etc.). Then they learned a bit of electrodynamics and the need of these gods fell off - now they could not explain the Universe, so they decided to attribute that to the "uber-god". One day they will be able to explain the origin of the Universe, and then they will talk about the next iteration of "godhood": the being that made the laws which made the emergence of the Universe possible. And so on and so on. Always substituting ignorance with "god".
Perhaps "god" should be defined in the dictionary as "imaginary creature one hides behind when refusing to admit their ignorance"?

GnosticChristian

maxx said:

i am not sure where you stole these quotes, but they have no basis in reality;
or a least a few of them. They are meaningless quotes that are not correct.

war is not, nor is entertainment.

 It is not nor was ever a game. Now days we may live for entertainment, due to society, but in ancient humans we lived for survival. Also, i believe if you gave a two year old a gift he will be happier than if he gave it away. Also i do not think you even know the evolutionary reason as to why we were born to compete. At least not without looking it up. You also seemed to combine your quotes to different aspects of time. So I ask where did you get the idea we war for entertainment, either today or in ancient humans?  @GnosticChristian

To your first. Perhaps because I never quoted anyone and what I put has a basis in reality.

To war as entertainment, check Movie Revues to know otherwise. 

Watch this as well.

(23) Blood Meridian - The Judge on War ("War is God") - Cormac McCarthy - YouTube

To your last. If war is not he epitome of drama to us, what is? 

At the same time, know why we cannot live well without it.

Candide - The best of all possible worlds (Groves/Chenoweth/Allen/Blumenkrantz/LaManna) (youtube.com)

GnosticChristian

maxx said:

Well, no, not exactly. we simply do not like those who are different, for different can cause trouble to the tribe so to speak. Difference in others were mainly because of strangers, who brought war, disease, and who stole. Even among the same tribe we did not like a baby to be born different than the rest. Yet here you are claiming the solution is political??? @GnosticChristian

Not exactly and so to speaks makes your reply intelligible and to vague to speak to.

Learn how to quote, please, so that I can stop having to re-read. Try to follow a logic trail instead of this.

Quote where I said the solution was political. That I could not find.

GnosticChristian

Bogan said:

@GnosticChristian ;      Do you have an argument against the premise?

No.    My opinion is that the idea that some god created the entire universe is just so silly, it is beyond words.      But I realise that some people have a deep compulsive psychological need to think that there is some sort of father figure watching over them, and that if they believe that, then somehow their conscious mind will live on into infinity after their body dies.    I don't usually bother contributing on religious debates, but business on Debate Island is a bit slow at the moment, so I could not resist coming into this debate to have a bit of fun.

My kind of guy on supernatural thinking. The Princess Alice research explains this for 95% of us. It is a protection bias gone too far. Push come to shove though, few believe in talking serpents and donkeys. 

Be I in an Atheist, Believer, --- or In Between or way out of there Camp, --- I have not seen or had any good arguments in  any Camp in a long time.

By good I mean when I, or someone else I support loses an argument, and shares his or her new knowledge/enlightenment.   

The good of the one can effect the good of the many when a new insight is born.

GnosticChristian

Dee said:

@GnosticChristian ;

Well when I talk to great minds I will, dicuss ideas , it's remarkable you come on to support the bible thumping bigot Maxx who once issued death threats on here all because he flies into a rage when asked to answer questions,  you two are well matched.

You forget the saying of --- from the mouth of babes.

I believe in supporting rooky apologists against little minds, and reminding the without the Shaman beside King, none of us would be here.  

Take me on on some time when I say something pro about religions and see who has what.

Where have you seen me fly into a rage, ?

Let's try low before going high. with that challenge for you to put your honesty where your words are.

GnosticChristian

MayCaesar said:

It seems to me that, by definition, there can be no good without evil and vice versa. Much like with numbers: the concept of "negative numbers" makes no sense if there are no positive numbers: negative numbers are the inverse of positive numbers with respect to the operation of addition. Similarly, evil is the inverse of good. If there is good, there must be evil; if there was no evil, there would be no good. And if there was no good or evil, there would be no morals. For a moral system to exist, there must be a distinction made between good and evil deeds, and both must be metaphysically possible in this Universe.

A god would not be able to create an exclusively good Universe for it would not make sense to call it "good" due to there not being anything to compare it to. There is no satiety without hunger, no pleasure without pain, no happiness without sadness, no victory without loss.

Then again, the idea of "god" itself makes little sense. When humans did not know how to explain lightning, they used to attribute it to a god (Zeus, Perun, Jupiter, etc.). Then they learned a bit of electrodynamics and the need of these gods fell off - now they could not explain the Universe, so they decided to attribute that to the "uber-god". One day they will be able to explain the origin of the Universe, and then they will talk about the next iteration of "godhood": the being that made the laws which made the emergence of the Universe possible. And so on and so on. Always substituting ignorance with "god".
Perhaps "god" should be defined in the dictionary as "imaginary creature one hides behind when refusing to admit their ignorance"?

I liked and agree with all you put, ---- except ---- "Then again, the idea of "god" itself makes little sense.

It makes perfect sense, if defined as a mystery and the search for the best rules and laws to live by. 

You are a dualist and thus think in a body/spirit or body/soul way. Right?

If so, it should be easy to see your soul as God as it is seat of your consciousness, which is the only place God or a God concept can exist. We all have a soul/God and Gnostic Christians call that "I am', and mean ourselves.

When born, your DNA told you you were the best of physical breed and to seek to rule as King.

When born, your spirit told you you were the best of breed and to seek to rule as God.  

We are created to seek our best end of both physical and spiritual realms.

just_sayin

Dee said:

@just_sayin


Thanks for posting its still pretty hilarious nonsense .........


Once upon a time there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.  An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified.  But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people.  Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.  This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” - Luke 2:8-12 NIV

Way to 'troll the ancient yuletide carol' .  I know you are trying to get into the Christmas Spirit.  I hope you and your family have a fantastic Christmas.  

MayCaesar

GnosticChristian said:

I liked and agree with all you put, ---- except ---- "Then again, the idea of "god" itself makes little sense.

It makes perfect sense, if defined as a mystery and the search for the best rules and laws to live by. 

You are a dualist and thus think in a body/spirit or body/soul way. Right?

If so, it should be easy to see your soul as God as it is seat of your consciousness, which is the only place God or a God concept can exist. We all have a soul/God and Gnostic Christians call that "I am', and mean ourselves.

When born, your DNA told you you were the best of physical breed and to seek to rule as King.

When born, your spirit told you you were the best of breed and to seek to rule as God.  

We are created to seek our best end of both physical and spiritual realms.

This definition of "god" is extremely vague. I do not think of any duality here: as far as I can tell, every intelligent being is just an organic robot - which is why, when our bodies die, we die. There is no "soul" that escapes; none has ever been detected, and no law of nature has been discovered that would make something like this possible.

I know how I was created: it was a product of hot sex between my parents and subsequent biological processes. That is how every human being that has ever existed was created. Every mammal in general. Every living being that sexually reproduces. Just like herons do not bring us from the sky, "god" does not inhabit anything inside us.

Again, I think that this idea of "god" is just a placeholder for "I do not know how X works". Humans have not figured out how consciousness works exactly, so they attribute it to some god-given soul. It is much more likely that it is yet another question of physics that will be answered one day - or, perhaps, the answer will be that it is not something that can be studied in a meaningful way and, therefore, is to become solely a part of the philosophical domain. There is no need to bring in an imaginary being to explain the mystery away, just like there is no need to bring in Poseidon to explain some of the strange hydrodynamical phenomena away.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

GnosticChristian said:

I liked and agree with all you put, ---- except ---- "Then again, the idea of "god" itself makes little sense.

It makes perfect sense, if defined as a mystery and the search for the best rules and laws to live by. 

You are a dualist and thus think in a body/spirit or body/soul way. Right?

If so, it should be easy to see your soul as God as it is seat of your consciousness, which is the only place God or a God concept can exist. We all have a soul/God and Gnostic Christians call that "I am', and mean ourselves.

When born, your DNA told you you were the best of physical breed and to seek to rule as King.

When born, your spirit told you you were the best of breed and to seek to rule as God.  

We are created to seek our best end of both physical and spiritual realms.

This definition of "god" is extremely vague. I do not think of any duality here: as far as I can tell, every intelligent being is just an organic robot - which is why, when our bodies die, we die. There is no "soul" that escapes; none has ever been detected, and no law of nature has been discovered that would make something like this possible.

I know how I was created: it was a product of hot sex between my parents and subsequent biological processes. That is how every human being that has ever existed was created. Every mammal in general. Every living being that sexually reproduces. Just like herons do not bring us from the sky, "god" does not inhabit anything inside us.

Again, I think that this idea of "god" is just a placeholder for "I do not know how X works". Humans have not figured out how consciousness works exactly, so they attribute it to some god-given soul. It is much more likely that it is yet another question of physics that will be answered one day - or, perhaps, the answer will be that it is not something that can be studied in a meaningful way and, therefore, is to become solely a part of the philosophical domain. There is no need to bring in an imaginary being to explain the mystery away, just like there is no need to bring in Poseidon to explain some of the strange hydrodynamical phenomena away.

OMG!  You just used another science of the gaps defense.  

Humans have not figured out how consciousness works exactly, so they attribute it to some god-given soul. It is much more likely that it is yet another question of physics that will be answered one day - or, perhaps, the answer will be that it is not something that can be studied in a meaningful way and, therefore, is to become solely a part of the philosophical domain.

This is exactly like saying 'science says it doesn't know, but trust me, science knows'.  I saw recently where the Nobel Prize winner in cosmology and quantum mechanics Roger Penrose admitted that science can't explain consciousness.  If a person of faith said something like 'well, only God knows' - people would call it out as a God of the gaps argument.  However, others think when they appeal to an all powerful and all knowing science that we should accept this irrational and illogical conclusion.  If science has already said it doesn't know, then it doesn't know.  If is just unrealistic faith in science that would then claim that it still has the answer.  

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

That is not what the sentence says. Not sure why people who do not speak English routinely go to English-speaking forums to argue about something... I do not speak Chinese and I do not go to Chinese-speaking forums to argue anything, do I?

GnosticChristian

MayCaesar said:

GnosticChristian said:

I liked and agree with all you put, ---- except ---- "Then again, the idea of "god" itself makes little sense.

It makes perfect sense, if defined as a mystery and the search for the best rules and laws to live by. 

You are a dualist and thus think in a body/spirit or body/soul way. Right?

If so, it should be easy to see your soul as God as it is seat of your consciousness, which is the only place God or a God concept can exist. We all have a soul/God and Gnostic Christians call that "I am', and mean ourselves.

When born, your DNA told you you were the best of physical breed and to seek to rule as King.

When born, your spirit told you you were the best of breed and to seek to rule as God.  

We are created to seek our best end of both physical and spiritual realms.

This definition of "god" is extremely vague. 

I do not see it that way. 

I showed a thinking logic trail for a natural God and good way to think of the word God, and you took off to the supernatural and did not indicate if mine was a good way to think of not.

Here I hang.

maxx

movies are not reality, regardless of it is based upon something true; it is the movie that is entertainment, not the actual war. we also do not live to entertain ourselves, but to survive. Entertainment is not a basic instinct.  @GnosticChristian

maxx

i can quote, it is dumb to do so; for if you can not remember what you wrote, then why post it?  @GnosticChristian

maxx

GnosticChristian said:

maxx said:

without a "just" cause. ok, then what is the cause, or reason they do so ? @GnosticChristian

Evolutional forces.

A natural selfish tendency to stick to your side, even when you know it is wrong.
That love created tendency creates a hate bias to all that might jeopardize that which is loved.
Ones side in this case.

No one want to be seen as a traitor or heretic to their side.
Even being a Loyal Heretic like a Gnostic Christian is a tough go at times.

Solution.

The right wing has to stop hating their own bloodlines and remember their first principle of all of us being born in God's image.

The LGBTQ+ haters have to stop hating God's image and likeness, and that all souls are created perfect. this is what you said, so how is that the solution to people hating others who are different, especially those of different sexual preferences, and mor especially  when it is human nature to hate and dislike those are different? @GnosticChristian ;
 

Bogan

@maxx ;    wow, nice debating    (Dee)...You are totally incapable of actual debate, what a fool. you cant debate, so all you do is troll, insult and ridicule.All that shows is lack of intellect. 

Got that right.   I figured that out within a few posts.     My Troll list of low IQ people who can not debate their way out of a wet paper bag, and who I do not respond to, (unless I just feel like giving them a kick) is,....

  Dee (at the top of the list, nice one, Dee), Barnadot, and Jack/excon.    Piloteer and John Smith are also on my list, but thankfully, they have slunk away to troll somewhere else.   Openminded  (a misnomer if ever there was one) seems to be trying his utmost to get on my troll list, too.   On my "Smart but dishonest" list is MayCaesar, and a brand new new entry, ZeusAries42. 

John-C-84 I don't respond to either.    Not because he is in any way dishonest or abusive, but because I usually can not  understand even a single sentence he writes,     I am sure that he is John Fetterman.

maxx

well as john may reply; ((based on the constitution, all free men mathematically have the right to understand and be a troll, due to the time and space continuum, so trolling may or may not make time travel possible, as we understand the constitution." ( {{ still once in awhile , at least in the past i have had decent debates with him.  @Bogan

Bogan

@maxx ;   Well, the next time that John writes something which I find completely indecipherable, I will get you to translate it for me.

maxx

uhhh no thanks. However once he gets away from the constitution and math, he is not too bad. You just got to push him away from it in a debate. @Bogan

Dee

@Bogan


You should set up a little club with you and Maxx as its leaders where you could sustain  each other by talking about everyone who has whipped you both in debate epwhich seems anever increasingly long list.

Dee

@maxx


You have no " decent " debates with anyone you fly into  a rage when questioned you and fellow racist Bogend are well suited.......get a room.

GnosticChristian

maxx said:

movies are not reality, regardless of it is based upon something true; it is the movie that is entertainment, not the actual war. we also do not live to entertain ourselves, but to survive. Entertainment is not a basic instinct.  @GnosticChristian

At our core, we are only concerned with bread to sustain us and drama to make life worth living. Read Plato on Bread and Circuses.

War is our epitome of drama. If you have something else in mind, then put it instead of a plain old denial.  

GnosticChristian

maxx said:

i can quote, it is dumb to do so; for if you can not remember what you wrote, then why post it?  @GnosticChristian

To show where you got your wrong impression from, .

Keep up the stuff and I will know to ignore your sorry dumb .

maxx

what does a philosopher have to do with reality?. Do you really believe ancient humans sought out entertainment to survive? It is not part of survival of the species. Your quotes are just that, quotes. ancient humans did not fight or war for entertainment, but for survival.  @GnosticChristian

maxx

either join the debate with out insults and ridicule or i wont answer. @Dee

GnosticChristian

maxx said:

GnosticChristian said:

maxx said:

without a "just" cause. ok, then what is the cause, or reason they do so ? @GnosticChristian

Evolutional forces.

A natural selfish tendency to stick to your side, even when you know it is wrong.
That love created tendency creates a hate bias to all that might jeopardize that which is loved.
Ones side in this case.

No one want to be seen as a traitor or heretic to their side.
Even being a Loyal Heretic like a Gnostic Christian is a tough go at times.

Solution.

The right wing has to stop hating their own bloodlines and remember their first principle of all of us being born in God's image.

The LGBTQ+ haters have to stop hating God's image and likeness, and that all souls are created perfect.

this is what you said, so how is that the solution to people hating others who are different, especially those of different sexual preferences, and mor especially  when it is human nature to hate and dislike those are different? @GnosticChristian ;
 

Teaching of our love and hate biases, why we have them and how to control them, is enlightenment 

 Souls are not different. They are all supposed to be perfect to the religious, so how can they differentiate who to hate?

Jesus said to love all people.
He did not say----  only those you approve of --- in terms of  what they do with their private parts.

GnosticChristian

maxx said:

what does a philosopher have to do with reality?. Do you really believe ancient humans sought out entertainment to survive? It is not part of survival of the species. Your quotes are just that, quotes. ancient humans did not fight or war for entertainment, but for survival.  @GnosticChristian

Your knowledge base is low and you seem to want to keep it there.

Thanks for the rather useless chat.

Done here.

maxx

well, i guess you are attempting to give dee a run for the next troll award. Calling someone dumb is not how to debate, now is it, nor is refusing to answer my questions. It does not matter what plato said. Our basic instincts is survival of the species, not entertainment. Do you have; oh i don't know, any kind of proof or actual logic that says war is or was fought over entertainment purposes?   @GnosticChristian

Dee

@maxx


well, i guess you are attempting to give dee a run for the next troll award.

That award is yours you never let up on the constant stalking and trolling , your new best buddy Bogend is a hate filled racist and you follow him around like a lap dog.



Calling someone dumb is not how to debate, 

Yet you issusing death threats is ..........you're a lunatic.

maxx

sure.  bye little man. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

Bye ,Bye tubby .....leave the kids alone......

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

That is not what the sentence says. Not sure why people who do not speak English routinely go to English-speaking forums to argue about something... I do not speak Chinese and I do not go to Chinese-speaking forums to argue anything, do I?

I don't get the 'Chinese' reference.  I thought you were a Russian immigrant?  I'm a white guy who was born in Appalachia.  As I thought about it, I can't remember there ever being an Asian kid in class with me from kindergarten through 12th grade.  There was a kid who came from Hawaii in 6th grade, but he wasn't a Pacific Islander.  

Multiple times when things are brought up that science can't explain, you have appealed to science saying something like 'one day science will explain it' - this is indeed a science of the gaps defense.  Science can't explain it, and it is a faith claim to say science will know the answer in the future.  

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

My point is, when I cannot understand what someone is saying, I do not respond to them. I am not sure what causes you to behave otherwise. You literally post my quote, then claim that it says something entirely different from what it says. I have not "said science will know the answer in the future", and my quote (which you even highlighted) suggests that the exact opposite may be the case.

There is a list of people on this website who do not bother try to understand what they read and just react to a couple of keywords. Their intellectual laziness is puzzling to me. Why come to a debate website if you do not intend on understanding arguments? It is like you have a few stock responses in your database, and whenever you see someone saying something you disagree with, you choose the one that seems to fit the most and post it.

Bogan

@maxx quote  either join the debate with out insults and ridicule or i wont answer. @Dee

Fat chance.