Not Darwin's Law, it's God's Law.

[Hollie]

Ceremonial rituals are not directly analogous to your claimed spirit realms. Once again, you're adding your biases toward gawds and supernaturalism to ceremonial rituals.

Give me a practical reason for a ceremonial ritual which is not spiritual?

A matter of expressing grief, for one.

You still have made no case for ceremonial rituals and your alleged spirit realms.

Expressing grief by ceremonial ritual is spiritual. I asked you for a practical purpose other than spiritual. If you can't find one, it's okay because there isn't one.

Hollie, I know you are an airhead, but even you should recognize that when ancient humans buried their loved ones with ceremonial ritual, it was because they felt that was important. Obviously, it couldn't be important to the dead person anymore, unless it was believed the dead one lived on in an afterlife. There is no practical purpose to themselves to perform these rituals and observe the ceremonies, unless they believed in something greater than self.

So there is really not much of an argument here unless you just insist on being obstinate. Human civilization and spirituality are joined at the hip and always have been.

You poor dear. You get incensed when you're required to support your specious claims to magical spirit realms and gawds you have invented.

As usual, you were unable to support your claims to "spirituality" much less even define what that is.

Bossy, I understand that your world is consumed with magical spirit realms, supernaturalism and things that go bump in the night. However, you shouldn't feel a need to impose your fears and superstitions retroactively on all of humanity.

Sorry toots, my argument is supported.

Umm, sorry. It's not. You make absurd claims to something you call "spirituality" which you can't describe except in terms of appeals your imagined spirit realms inhabited by magical gawds.

 

[Boss]

Umm, sorry. It's not. You make absurd claims to something you call "spirituality" which you can't describe except in terms of appeals your imagined spirit realms inhabited by magical gawds.

I've not made any absurd claims. I've made claims you can't refute so you call them absurd. I've described spirituality before. In fact, numerous times. I've never said anything about 'inhabitation by plural gods' and I don't know where you think I did. You've simply whipped up some bizarre concept of God and assume everyone who believes in God must believe in that same bizarre concept. What's funny is, I have met tons of religious people and have never known a polytheist.

As far as what your small limited mind is capable of understanding, that's a problem you have to deal with. Humans are aware of four dimensions; the three perspective dimensions and perception of time. Science is aware of as many as 11 dimensions. So basically, our human awareness can only examine about 36% of the puzzle. You want to assume the remainder is "imagination and magic" but Science disagrees.

 

[the_human_being]

Anyone who even remotely believes that Kim Bassenger's body was haphazardly just thrown together in some cesspool of soup is totally insane.

 

[Hollie]

Umm, sorry. It's not. You make absurd claims to something you call "spirituality" which you can't describe except in terms of appeals your imagined spirit realms inhabited by magical gawds.

I've not made any absurd claims. I've made claims you can't refute so you call them absurd. I've described spirituality before. In fact, numerous times. I've never said anything about 'inhabitation by plural gods' and I don't know where you think I did. You've simply whipped up some bizarre concept of God and assume everyone who believes in God must believe in that same bizarre concept. What's funny is, I have met tons of religious people and have never known a polytheist.

As far as what your small limited mind is capable of understanding, that's a problem you have to deal with. Humans are aware of four dimensions; the three perspective dimensions and perception of time. Science is aware of as many as 11 dimensions. So basically, our human awareness can only examine about 36% of the puzzle. You want to assume the remainder is "imagination and magic" but Science disagrees.

Your specious claims to spirit realms inhabited by magical gawds are totally absurd. You make these outrageous claims, totally unsupported and then get pissy when you're called out for being a fraud.

That's a disaster of your own making.

 

[BreezeWood]

Rawlings, you have a really nasty habit of spewing crap that I never said. Then you strut around like Rick Flair calling me names because you refuted arguments I never made.

You're insane.

The fundamental axioms of (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (comprehensively, the principle of identity) logically hold true. The principle of identity is necessarily justified true belief/knowledge. It holds absolutely and immutably true; it must, therefore, hold true ultimately. There is no argument whatsoever that you can successfully assert to the contrary. Any argument to the contrary will invariably be inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively prove the opposite is true, i.e., that the principle of identity is true. The essence of the principle of identity is prescriptive; hence, it's essence is organizational and entails the processes of identification and differentiation as applied to the empirical realm of being beyond our minds. Period!

The principle of identity is the only justified true belief/knowledge that is constant. It's fixed, immutable. It's absolute.

Further knowledge about the empirical world beyond human consciousness is not constant, but tentatively held to be justified true belief/knowledge in terms of scientific theory. The latter is subjective to revision and/or falsification in the light of new information.

Beyond that, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ information, understanding or truth about the properties and processes of empirical phenomena. The organic logic of human cognition ≠ causation in classical physics, and ≠ causation in quantum physics. In other words, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature, and the essence of the physical laws of nature is descriptive.

The only one here who incessantly confounds this distinction here is you, and you clearly think to attribute this stupidity to me when you claim that I hold logic to be "a place-card for whatever we CURRENTLY believe is truth."

Hello!

I hold no such thing! The organic logic of human cognition is not the ever-changing understanding/knowledge about the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature.

Dude!

The organic logic of human cognition is fixed, absolute, constant. That's why logic and, therefore, the philosophy of science necessarily proceed and have primacy over science. If logic were in flux, we wouldn't have any fixed constant against which to apprehend (identify/differentiate) the points at which our knowledge breaks down or is incomplete regarding the empirical realm of being. Ultimately, what your really confounding is our sensory perception of causation above the near-atomic/subatomic level with our intellectual apprehension of causation. The common sense of propositional and mathematical logic are superior and reliable, whilst the "common sense" of our sensory perception is not. Quantum physics affirms the organic logic of human cognition. It does not defy it.

Once again, precisely what laws of logic are defied/violated by quantum physics and how? Conversely, precisely what aspects of quantum physics are defied/violated by the laws of logic and how?

Answer that question, and watch what happens.

Clearly, you have been confounding the prescriptive logic of human cognition with the descriptive properties, processes and physical laws of nature in general, and with causation in classical physics above the near-atomic or subatomic level of empirical being especially.

First, stop doing that and you'll stop confusing yourself and stop asking meaningless questions.

Second, stop doing that and you'll stop, ironically, attributing your stupidity to me.

Check?

Atheists are insane.

I'd simply say they're mostly uneducated. Most of the ones posting on these forums are simply college students who never attended church or read the Bible. They get their information from internet web sites and from college professors who have never actually done anything or been actually employed in any scientific field. These college atheists are in the same boat. They've never really done anything or been employed in a scientific field either. They get everything out of a book, from their college professors, or from an internet website. Most of them are lucky to tie their own shoes.

The insane atheists are those who knowingly deny basic laws of logic.

Indeed. You, Where Are My Keys, The Human Being and I grasp the essence of the matter with regard to the laws/axioms of thought and mathematics; atheists generally do not. But, then, as Boss demonstrates, not all theists get it either. Boss can't even grasp the fact that his theistic system of thought, such as it is, ultimately amounts to epistemological relativism/irrationalism, which undermines the ontological-epistemological foundation for theism.

mdr: You're insane.
Check?

MaxGrit: Atheists are insane.

the_human_being: I'd simply say they're mostly uneducated.

Where_r_my_Keys: so it is just a contest of respective intellect and that's not a contest anyone on the Left is likely to win.

mdr: Indeed. You, Where Are My Keys, The Human Being and I grasp the essence of the matter with regard to the laws/axioms of thought and mathematics;

... grasp the essence of the matter with regard to the laws/axioms of thought and mathematics; atheists generally do not.

.
and yet not one of them, have among them a single shred of evidence for their creationist theory - but collectively refute anyone who disagrees with them ... as Insane. .

.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

keeper posts thread

thank you all

good information here

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

.
and yet not one of them, have among them a single shred of evidence for their creationist theory - but collectively refute anyone who disagrees with them ... as Insane. .

.

This statement is essentially meaningless.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Anyone who even remotely believes that Kim Bassenger's body was haphazardly just thrown together in some cesspool of soup is totally insane.

 

[Boss]

As usual Boss simply does not grasp the ramifications of his irrational, utterly unsustainable premise, by which he claims to have special knowledge about something that cannot be justified within his theistic system of thought, a premise that is inherently contradictory and self-negating. If the laws/axioms of logic and mathematics were created, they are necessarily nonessential aspects of reality, just like everything else in the created, cosmological order of being.

I have refuted Boss' silliness on this forum over and over again...

You've failed again to explain any of your charges. You want to misrepresent what I've said and pretend my arguments are irrational and unsustainable but you simply point to a list of copy-n-paste replies which are nearly impossible to decipher.

I've told you repeatedly, I don't have a problem with the laws and axioms of identity, human thought and logic. I believe these are all elements of human perspective made possible through God's creation of our atomic universe. I do not believe these things supercede God, control or limit God, or have primacy over God. If it's your belief they do, then that's your opinion, but it doesn't render my opinion irrelevant, irrational or unsustainable. For that, you need an argument... which you seem to be sorely lacking.

Carefully note that Boss has yet to coherently explain to us how the non-locality at the near-atomic and subatomic level of being in quantum physics defies/violates the laws/axioms of thought and mathematics, as if it were not by the latter that we distinguish classical physics from quantum physics.

But I have explained it, in great detail, as a matter of fact. The simplest piece of evidence is the fact there are two kinds of physics, classical and quantum. Now, quantum physics did not exist until mankind invented it. Same for classical physics, for that matter. But classical physics breaks down at the subatomic level. The laws, axioms, math, designed for the atomic universe, no longer apply because the subatomic universe defies them. So we needed a new kind of math, a new kind of physics to explain this subatomic universe.

Boss merely confounds the characteristics and causality of phenomena at the perceptible level of being in classical physics with the laws/axioms of thought and mathematics, as he confounds the prescriptive laws/axioms of thought and mathematics with the descriptive, physical laws of nature.

I've not confounded anything, that's what you're doing here. Then you are being a belligerent asshole because you think you're hot shit. I personally think you're a smack head who likes to get tweaked up and flood the board with your meandering drug-induced thoughts. But that's just my opinion.

Ultimately, he inexplicably confounds our lack of knowledge about the cosmological order (our current lack of a unified theory and/or the potentiality that may never be able to accurately determine both velocity and position simultaneously beyond mathematical probability) with the laws/axioms of thought and mathematics themselves.

Boss simply doesn't grasp what the real problem/limitation is.

Again, I have not confounded anything and you've not stated any evidence for the charge. All of your laws and axioms are human constructs for the purpose of understanding the universe and reality we exist in. A universe and reality that was created by God.

It's okay with me if you disagree with my opinion, but you don't have the right to lie about things I've said or misrepresent my arguments the way you have. It's out of line and I'm goign to call you on it. You're not God, I don't answer to you and I don't value your opinion over my own.

 

[Steven_R]

And humans did NOT always bury their dead with ceremonial rituals or objects. That was one point I was asking you about

Boss I apologize. I got you mixed up with some dopey character in this thread. won't happen again

I'm not sure if humans always buried their dead with ceremonial rituals or objects, that's not what I said. Every human civilization we've unearthed shows indications of ceremonial rituals... human spirituality. There is not an exception, you will not find an example to the contrary.

Ceremonial rituals are not directly analogous to your claimed spirit realms. Once again, you're adding your biases toward gawds and supernaturalism to ceremonial rituals.

Give me a practical reason for a ceremonial ritual which is not spiritual?

A matter of expressing grief, for one.

You still have made no case for ceremonial rituals and your alleged spirit realms.

I wonder why the need for grief. We don't cry and wail and miss people going on vacation like we do with the passing of loved ones. If religion is right, we'll see them again in the afterlife, so why the tears?

Also, there are any number of ceremonial rituals that aren't spiritual. Promotion, graduations, change of commands, initiation in organizations, expulsions, parades.

 

[BreezeWood]

This statement is essentially meaningless.

.
you are the exception to the saying - where there is smoke there is fire ....

.

 

[the_human_being]

You're insane.

The fundamental axioms of (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (comprehensively, the principle of identity) logically hold true. The principle of identity is necessarily justified true belief/knowledge. It holds absolutely and immutably true; it must, therefore, hold true ultimately. There is no argument whatsoever that you can successfully assert to the contrary. Any argument to the contrary will invariably be inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively prove the opposite is true, i.e., that the principle of identity is true. The essence of the principle of identity is prescriptive; hence, it's essence is organizational and entails the processes of identification and differentiation as applied to the empirical realm of being beyond our minds. Period!

The principle of identity is the only justified true belief/knowledge that is constant. It's fixed, immutable. It's absolute.

Further knowledge about the empirical world beyond human consciousness is not constant, but tentatively held to be justified true belief/knowledge in terms of scientific theory. The latter is subjective to revision and/or falsification in the light of new information.

Beyond that, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ information, understanding or truth about the properties and processes of empirical phenomena. The organic logic of human cognition ≠ causation in classical physics, and ≠ causation in quantum physics. In other words, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature, and the essence of the physical laws of nature is descriptive.

The only one here who incessantly confounds this distinction here is you, and you clearly think to attribute this stupidity to me when you claim that I hold logic to be "a place-card for whatever we CURRENTLY believe is truth."

Hello!

I hold no such thing! The organic logic of human cognition is not the ever-changing understanding/knowledge about the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature.

Dude!

The organic logic of human cognition is fixed, absolute, constant. That's why logic and, therefore, the philosophy of science necessarily proceed and have primacy over science. If logic were in flux, we wouldn't have any fixed constant against which to apprehend (identify/differentiate) the points at which our knowledge breaks down or is incomplete regarding the empirical realm of being. Ultimately, what your really confounding is our sensory perception of causation above the near-atomic/subatomic level with our intellectual apprehension of causation. The common sense of propositional and mathematical logic are superior and reliable, whilst the "common sense" of our sensory perception is not. Quantum physics affirms the organic logic of human cognition. It does not defy it.

Once again, precisely what laws of logic are defied/violated by quantum physics and how? Conversely, precisely what aspects of quantum physics are defied/violated by the laws of logic and how?

Answer that question, and watch what happens.

Clearly, you have been confounding the prescriptive logic of human cognition with the descriptive properties, processes and physical laws of nature in general, and with causation in classical physics above the near-atomic or subatomic level of empirical being especially.

First, stop doing that and you'll stop confusing yourself and stop asking meaningless questions.

Second, stop doing that and you'll stop, ironically, attributing your stupidity to me.

Check?

Atheists are insane.

I'd simply say they're mostly uneducated. Most of the ones posting on these forums are simply college students who never attended church or read the Bible. They get their information from internet web sites and from college professors who have never actually done anything or been actually employed in any scientific field. These college atheists are in the same boat. They've never really done anything or been employed in a scientific field either. They get everything out of a book, from their college professors, or from an internet website. Most of them are lucky to tie their own shoes.

The insane atheists are those who knowingly deny basic laws of logic.

Indeed. You, Where Are My Keys, The Human Being and I grasp the essence of the matter with regard to the laws/axioms of thought and mathematics; atheists generally do not. But, then, as Boss demonstrates, not all theists get it either. Boss can't even grasp the fact that his theistic system of thought, such as it is, ultimately amounts to epistemological relativism/irrationalism, which undermines the ontological-epistemological foundation for theism.

mdr: You're insane.
Check?

MaxGrit: Atheists are insane.

the_human_being: I'd simply say they're mostly uneducated.

Where_r_my_Keys: so it is just a contest of respective intellect and that's not a contest anyone on the Left is likely to win.

mdr: Indeed. You, Where Are My Keys, The Human Being and I grasp the essence of the matter with regard to the laws/axioms of thought and mathematics;

... grasp the essence of the matter with regard to the laws/axioms of thought and mathematics; atheists generally do not.

.
and yet not one of them, have among them a single shred of evidence for their creationist theory - but collectively refute anyone who disagrees with them ... as Insane. .

.

That is a totally insane response.

 

[the_human_being]

Some on here have stated that they evolved from monkeys and chimps. I totally agree with them and submit that they should know. As for the rest of us, we came from the Adamic line or more recently from one or the other of the sixteen grandsons of Noah.

 

[Hollie]

Some on here have stated that they evolved from monkeys and chimps. I totally agree with them and submit that they should know. As for the rest of us, we came from the Adamic line or more recently from one or the other of the sixteen grandsons of Noah.

You're totally clueless about human evolution. The "monkeys and chimps" nonsense must have come from your studies at Sunday school, certainly not from an academic background. You should demand a refund of your tuition from the Falwell madrassah.

You just further embarrass yourself with such cluelessness.

 

[Boss]

I wonder why the need for grief. We don't cry and wail and miss people going on vacation like we do with the passing of loved ones. If religion is right, we'll see them again in the afterlife, so why the tears?

Also, there are any number of ceremonial rituals that aren't spiritual. Promotion, graduations, change of commands, initiation in organizations, expulsions, parades.

Yes, there are ceremonial rituals which aren't spiritual, but they don't involve the dead. A ceremonial ritual burial can only signify a spiritual belief of some kind. There is no other practical purpose for it. Whether it was belief in an afterlife or belief in some greater spirit bestowing good fortune, the implications are clearly spiritual.

Even in the instances you propose, where modern man conducts ceremonial ritual without a spiritual component, you have to realize the spiritual component is still there. We do those things to honor someone, or in the case of expulsion, dishonor someone. Bestowing honor is in of itself, a spiritual manifestation. We are compelled by our spiritual instincts to abide this aspect of decorum upon an individual or group of individuals as a matter of conscience. We get no practical benefit from it... a parade, a graduation, a promotion... it makes us feel good in our hearts... a spiritual thing.

As for the subject of an Afterlife:

Big Topic! We could (and probably should) devote an entire thread to this one. Some people believe in an afterlife which is somewhat similar to the life we know. We'll see each other, we'll interact with long-lost loved ones, we will reside in Paradise for eternity in a state of bliss. We'll appear in heaven as we did on earth in our prime. We'll know no pain or sorrow and there will be no hate and only love. These are various incarnations of what the Afterlife will be like.

I take a quite different approach to this than the typical Christian or theist in general. I believe our soul and spirit are destined for an Afterlife, but there is not a way for humans to even comprehend what it will be like. It's like... An earthworm will never comprehend what it is like to see a beautiful rainbow or the sunset over Monument Valley. It's an experience beyond their ability to comprehend. Our spiritual Afterlife is something so beyond our imaginations that we can't even create the image in our minds to begin imagining it. Perception which goes way beyond our familiar five senses and renders them meaningless. An experience relating to other spirits and souls on a different level, beyond love and compassion, greater than our mortal imaginations allow us to envision.

But here is the kicker... Our souls and spirits have to be nurtured in this life for passage into the Afterlife. If our souls become dark and our spirit is extinguished, there is nothing to pass on to the Afterlife. What happens to the dead and dying souls? I have no idea, I suppose there might be a lower realm of existence, or 'non-existence' as it were. Again, something beyond our ability to comprehend or imagine.

 

[Boss]

The "monkeys and chimps" nonsense must have come from your studies at Sunday school, certainly not from an academic background. You should demand a refund of your tuition from the Falwell madrassah.

You just further embarrass yourself with such cluelessness.

Well your academic science neanderthals actually go it one better, toots! They believe we all ultimately came from a single living cell. So all the corn and cockroaches are your cousins!

 

[Hollie]

The "monkeys and chimps" nonsense must have come from your studies at Sunday school, certainly not from an academic background. You should demand a refund of your tuition from the Falwell madrassah.

You just further embarrass yourself with such cluelessness.

Well your academic science neanderthals actually go it one better, toots! They believe we all ultimately came from a single living cell. So all the corn and cockroaches are your cousins!

Typically pointless, but of course, all organic life has shared biology.

You should try becoming acquainted with academia, shortstop. Your lack of a science vocabulary that you announce in a public forum would be cause for less ridicule pointed in your direction.

 

[the_human_being]

The "monkeys and chimps" nonsense must have come from your studies at Sunday school, certainly not from an academic background. You should demand a refund of your tuition from the Falwell madrassah.

You just further embarrass yourself with such cluelessness.

Well your academic science neanderthals actually go it one better, toots! They believe we all ultimately came from a single living cell. So all the corn and cockroaches are your cousins!

Typically pointless, but of course, all organic life has shared biology.

You should try becoming acquainted with academia, shortstop. Your lack of a science vocabulary that you announce in a public forum would be cause for less ridicule pointed in your direction.

LOL!! Madam Curie herself. Hollie The Monkey Queen.

 

[Hollie]

The "monkeys and chimps" nonsense must have come from your studies at Sunday school, certainly not from an academic background. You should demand a refund of your tuition from the Falwell madrassah.

You just further embarrass yourself with such cluelessness.

Well your academic science neanderthals actually go it one better, toots! They believe we all ultimately came from a single living cell. So all the corn and cockroaches are your cousins!

Typically pointless, but of course, all organic life has shared biology.

You should try becoming acquainted with academia, shortstop. Your lack of a science vocabulary that you announce in a public forum would be cause for less ridicule pointed in your direction.

LOL!! Madam Curie herself. Hollie The Monkey Queen.

As pointless as your usual failed attempt at coherency.

 

[BreezeWood]

Well your academic science neanderthals actually go it one better, toots! They believe we all ultimately came from a single living cell. So all the corn and cockroaches are your cousins!

.
Not Darwin's Law, it's God's Law.

stop being a hog bossy,


* (Hint) the physiology enables the Spirit ...

.