82 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

How does it relate to 3? It doesn’t and that makes 3) false.

That in itself is a contradiction. For example, if a given condition of A dictates B, then B is contingent upon A. If you're looking for a mathematical parallel you might consider the relationship between dependent and independent variables. Anyway, you can't say that A doesn't relate to B--meaning it's independent (Is this the third or fourth time I've said this?)--and then assert a conclusion based on a contingency. Honestly, I'd be hard pressed to produce another example of somebody contradicting himself in so few words.

It's baffling how you claim to be an authority on the subject of philosophy and yet you don't understand rudimentary logical principles.

Also, your reference to my mention of how premise three could be applied to two is not the same as a contingency. This, again, is a non sequitur. And, lastly, you still haven't answered the crux of the argument (w/the omission of premise two), nor have you provided any connection between premise two and three or four.

I'm not angry. I'm just in disbelief at how somebody could argue as vehemently as you do while using arguments that appeal to the intellect of a child.

This is the part where you accuse me of name-calling, but if you reread my post you'll see that everything I said has some logical countenance, which contradicts this accusation. If you disagree with my explanations here I'd be happy to explain things differently. I could even use formal logic if you like.

Read it again, no use arguing with a thought disorder.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry614321

I agree that Christians love and cherish human life. They are very interested in extending it in every way. Believe it.

[Deep Thought]

How does it relate to 3? It doesn’t and that makes 3) false.

That in itself is a contradiction. For example, if a given condition of A dictates B, then B is contingent upon A. If you're looking for a mathematical parallel you might consider the relationship between dependent and independent variables. Anyway, you can't say that A doesn't relate to B--meaning it's independent (Is this the third or fourth time I've said this?)--and then assert a conclusion based on a contingency. Honestly, I'd be hard pressed to produce another example of somebody contradicting himself in so few words.

It's baffling how you claim to be an authority on the subject of philosophy and yet you don't understand rudimentary logical principles.

Also, your reference to my mention of how premise three could be applied to two is not the same as a contingency. This, again, is a non sequitur. And, lastly, you still haven't answered the crux of the argument (w/the omission of premise two), nor have you provided any connection between premise two and three or four.

I'm not angry. I'm just in disbelief at how somebody could argue as vehemently as you do while using arguments that appeal to the intellect of a child.

This is the part where you accuse me of name-calling, but if you reread my post you'll see that everything I said has some logical countenance, which contradicts this accusation. If you disagree with my explanations here I'd be happy to explain things differently. I could even use formal logic if you like.

Read it again, no use arguing with a thought disorder.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry614321

I agree that Christians love and cherish human life. They are very interested in extending it in every way. Believe it.

Name calling, a typical shadowhawk response.

If heaven is infinitely better than life on earth, why would a christian want to extend his lifespan?

As in being close to the eternal splendour of God, for all eternity - would a christian prefer living an immortal infinite life, with an infinite amount of sins?

Edited by Deep Thought, 04 October 2013 - 12:43 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Deep Thought: Name calling, a typical shadowhawk response.

If heaven is infinitely better than life on earth, why would a christian want to extend his lifespan?

As in being close to the eternal splendour of God, for all eternity - would a christian prefer living an immortal infinite life, with an infinite amount of sins?

You must agree with the logic of N.T.M.. For you it makes perfectly good sense and though I spent a good amount of time snowing the problems with his off topic argument http://www.longecity...ty/#entry614321
you are now joining him. Lets see you defend this thought disorder.

Apparently you can’t read what I have already written concerning a Christian view of life preferring to insist on your cauterization rather than the evidence. Thought disorder?? You are arguing with a strawman you constructed. OK

Life both now and hereafter is valuable to Christians.

[Deep Thought]

Deep Thought: Name calling, a typical shadowhawk response.

If heaven is infinitely better than life on earth, why would a christian want to extend his lifespan?

As in being close to the eternal splendour of God, for all eternity - would a christian prefer living an immortal infinite life, with an infinite amount of sins?

You must agree with the logic of N.T.M.. For you it makes perfectly good sense and though I spent a good amount of time snowing the problems with his off topic argument http://www.longecity...ty/#entry614321
you are now joining him. Lets see you defend this thought disorder.

Apparently you can’t read what I have already written concerning a Christian view of life preferring to insist on your cauterization rather than the evidence. Thought disorder?? You are arguing with a strawman you constructed. OK

Life both now and hereafter is valuable to Christians.

I've read N.T.M.'s posts - he seems like a reasonable guy with good arguments and sound logic, yes I agree with his logic.

Thought disorder? A strawman?

Immortality implies that there's a slim chance that you may live forever, and thus, as the bible teaches us - only God is perfectly good, therefore, an immortal human would commit sins and violate the laws of God an infinite amount of times - even if it's just one sin (coveting thy neighbours goods etc.) every 1000 year, that still amounts to an infinite amount of sins over an infinite amount of time. Therefore an immortal human is infinitely more immoral than a mortal human, and why would God create such a human in the first place? A human like that would approach God in power as time approaches infinity.
Furthermore, why would a good christian 'stretch' the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross, by living forever and comitting acts of immorality and sins for all time? Going to Heaven means to experience the splendour of God for all eternity. To me, it sounds like you have doubt in your heart - the age old question mankind has always posed itself, what happens when we die? Do I get to live forever or do I cease to exist. Of course, I don't want to put words in your mouth, so take this with a grain of salt. It's purely philosophical.

Sorry if I'm incoherent.

[shadowhawk]

Deep Thought: Sorry if I'm incoherent.

OK, no problem.

[Deep Thought]

Deep Thought: Sorry if I'm incoherent.

OK, no problem.

Not interested in a childish, ignorant, pissing contest. There are important issues some may be interested in which are on topic. Hoping you can understand..

I don't even have to think up a reply anymore! I can just use your arguments against you.

To the moderators: I'm done arguing with this guy.

Edited by Deep Thought, 05 October 2013 - 07:14 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Deep Thought: Sorry if I'm incoherent.

OK, no problem.

Not interested in a childish, ignorant, pissing contest. There are important issues some may be interested in which are on topic. Hoping you can understand..

I don't even have to think up a reply anymore! I can just use your arguments against you.

To the moderators: I'm done arguing with this guy.

Have we been having an argument? I thought you were being as you yourself said, "incoherent." Now you are going to continue the pattern by running and TELLING the moderators. I an sure they can't wait to hear your story. Off topic but you have been thinking this all up? WOW!!!!

Edited by shadowhawk, 05 October 2013 - 08:00 PM.

[N.T.M.]

How does it relate to 3? It doesn’t and that makes 3) false.

That in itself is a contradiction. For example, if a given condition of A dictates B, then B is contingent upon A. If you're looking for a mathematical parallel you might consider the relationship between dependent and independent variables. Anyway, you can't say that A doesn't relate to B--meaning it's independent (Is this the third or fourth time I've said this?)--and then assert a conclusion based on a contingency. Honestly, I'd be hard pressed to produce another example of somebody contradicting himself in so few words.

It's baffling how you claim to be an authority on the subject of philosophy and yet you don't understand rudimentary logical principles.

Also, your reference to my mention of how premise three could be applied to two is not the same as a contingency. This, again, is a non sequitur. And, lastly, you still haven't answered the crux of the argument (w/the omission of premise two), nor have you provided any connection between premise two and three or four.

I'm not angry. I'm just in disbelief at how somebody could argue as vehemently as you do while using arguments that appeal to the intellect of a child.

This is the part where you accuse me of name-calling, but if you reread my post you'll see that everything I said has some logical countenance, which contradicts this accusation. If you disagree with my explanations here I'd be happy to explain things differently. I could even use formal logic if you like.

Read it again, no use arguing with a thought disorder.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry614321

I agree that Christians love and cherish human life. They are very interested in extending it in every way. Believe it.

You claimed that one of two independent premises could affect the accuracy of the other, to which I responded by saying the following:

"That in itself is a contradiction. For example, if a given condition of A dictates B, then B is contingent upon A. If you're looking for a mathematical parallel you might consider the relationship between dependent and independent variables. Anyway, you can't say that A doesn't relate to B--meaning it's independent (Is this the third or fourth time I've said this?)--and then assert a conclusion based on a contingency."

In response, ironically, you just offered your original mistake. Remember before how I drew a parallel between my argument and a mathematical function? Well one of the wonderful things about functions is that you can use them, meaning you can use your own inputs to discover an outcome (i.e., the output). If, for example, I used the provision in premise three and plugged that into the structure of my argument, I could use it to produce a statement like the following:

It is self-evident that no omnibenevolent god, if also omnipotent, would stipulate a given act--at the price of hell for failure--when reason supporting the act is anything less than indubitable.

It's almost demeaning for me to explain how this relates to my conclusion, but here's a copy of my original post just as a reminder:

An all-loving god would not demand [insert the above] for salvation unless he didn’t have any choice, in which case he’s not omnipotent, and, conversely, if he did have a choice he would be punishing people for not doing something when no reason was offered, in which case he wouldn’t be omnibenevolent.

To Deep Thought: Thank you for the support.

[shadowhawk]

I know you are trying to rescue your disjointed series of unrelated statements put in the form of an argument, which I have already addressed. http://www.longecity...ty/#entry614321

I have nothing further to add. That is mu reply. Read it again. Poor argument, (no argument) against God. Noticed you have yet to answer any question I asked you.

N.T.M.: It's almost demeaning for me to explain how this relates to my conclusion, but here's a copy of my original post just as a reminder:

“An all-loving god would not demand [insert the above] for salvation unless he didn’t have any choice, in which case he’s not omnipotent, and, conversely, if he did have a choice he would be punishing people for not doing something when no reason was offered, in which case he wouldn’t be omnibenevolent.”

God cannot not be God. God cannot sin. God does not do what he does not want to do. I could go on but my point is these are not reasons for His not being omnipotent but an expression of his omnipotent will. What you are talking about is His choice and you are attempting to fault him for having one. There are some things God cannot do, some things, such as not being omnipotent. He cannot make you free to chose (limited determinism) and determine all choices for you. You are trying to make being God, who does what ever he wants, be a limitation.

I hope you are not to demeaned by your, yet another attempt at logic..

[N.T.M.]

I know you are trying to rescue your disjointed series of unrelated statements put in the form of an argument, which I have already addressed. http://www.longecity...ty/#entry614321

I have nothing further to add. That is mu reply. Read it again. Poor argument, (no argument) against God. Noticed you have yet to answer any question I asked you.

N.T.M.: It's almost demeaning for me to explain how this relates to my conclusion, but here's a copy of my original post just as a reminder:

“An all-loving god would not demand [insert the above] for salvation unless he didn’t have any choice, in which case he’s not omnipotent, and, conversely, if he did have a choice he would be punishing people for not doing something when no reason was offered, in which case he wouldn’t be omnibenevolent.”

God cannot not be God. God cannot sin. God does not do what he does not want to do. I could go on but my point is these are not reasons for His not being omnipotent but an expression of his omnipotent will. What you are talking about is His choice and you are attempting to fault him for having one. There are some things God cannot do, some things, such as not being omnipotent. He cannot make you free to chose (limited determinism) and determine all choices for you. You are trying to make being God, who does what ever he wants, be a limitation.

I hope you are not to demeaned by your, yet another attempt at logic..

I've addressed every point you've made, and your only rebuttal has been your repeated dismissal of all my points. They're all there, and very clearly at that.

If you plug in what you just posted into my last statement, it produces a contradiction. Although you may not have realized it, you addressed this in the form of a concession. Yes, God can choose to do whatever he likes, but that doesn't relate to my argument at all. The point is that limited benevolence is a prerequisite to God having the freedom of choice that you've described.

It is self-evident that no omnibenevolent god, if also omnipotent, would stipulate a given act--at the price of hell for failure--when reason supporting the act is anything less than indubitable.

Textbook presentation of the reaction formation. Truly fascinating.

Edited by N.T.M., 14 October 2013 - 10:37 PM.

[shadowhawk]

I know you are trying to rescue your disjointed series of unrelated statements put in the form of an argument, which I have already addressed. http://www.longecity...ty/#entry614321

I have nothing further to add. That is mu reply. Read it again. Poor argument, (no argument) against God. Noticed you have yet to answer any question I asked you.

N.T.M.: It's almost demeaning for me to explain how this relates to my conclusion, but here's a copy of my original post just as a reminder:

“An all-loving god would not demand [insert the above] for salvation unless he didn’t have any choice, in which case he’s not omnipotent, and, conversely, if he did have a choice he would be punishing people for not doing something when no reason was offered, in which case he wouldn’t be omnibenevolent.”

God cannot not be God. God cannot sin. God does not do what he does not want to do. I could go on but my point is these are not reasons for His not being omnipotent but an expression of his omnipotent will. What you are talking about is His choice and you are attempting to fault him for having one. There are some things God cannot do, some things, such as not being omnipotent. He cannot make you free to chose (limited determinism) and determine all choices for you. You are trying to make being God, who does what ever he wants, be a limitation.

I hope you are not to demeaned by your, yet another attempt at logic..

I've addressed every point you've made, and your only rebuttal has been your repeated dismissal of all my points. They're all there, and very clearly at that.

If you plug in what you just posted into my last statement, it produces a contradiction. Although you may not have realized it, you addressed this in the form of a concession. Yes, God can choose to do whatever he likes, but that doesn't relate to my argument at all. The point is that limited benevolence is a prerequisite to God having the freedom of choice that you've described.

It is self-evident that no omnibenevolent god, if also omnipotent, would stipulate a given act--at the price of hell for failure--when reason supporting the act is anything less than indubitable.

Textbook presentation of the reaction formation. Truly fascinating.

Off topic.

[N.T.M.]

I actually laughed out loud when I read this (above).

"Umm... Yeah, that's off-topic, so I don't have to respond."

You seem to be confined to two responses whenever confronted by a logical argument that contradicts your own--you either refer to a nondescript error (nondescript enough as to be well-hidden), or you claim that it's off-topic. And actually, now that I think about it, there's a third option I've seen you use, and very often, too. It's the mighty non sequitur; "A is completely unrelated to B. Therefore if A changes, B changes accordingly." An intriguing approach to discourse, no doubt.

[shadowhawk]

I actually laughed out loud when I read this (above).

"Umm... Yeah, that's off-topic, so I don't have to respond."

You seem to be confined to two responses whenever confronted by a logical argument that contradicts your own--you either refer to a nondescript error (nondescript enough as to be well-hidden), or you claim that it's off-topic. And actually, now that I think about it, there's a third option I've seen you use, and very often, too. It's the mighty non sequitur; "A is completely unrelated to B. Therefore if A changes, B changes accordingly." An intriguing approach to discourse, no doubt.

The reason we have topics is to facilitate reasoned discussion. Some people have thought disorders and want to change subjects from post to post. Get several people doing that and all you have is insanity. That is why there are “topics,” and rules for using the site. Read them, they are posted.

It is not that your post is logical, (it isn’t) it’s off topic. For example, without example, you accuse me of a non sequitur. The topic is, “Christians and longevity?” OK, off topic and baseless. To engage you on this here, is ridiculous. Start another topic, in an appropriate section, and if interested, I will interact with you there. That I seem to encounter non sequiturs to the topic, is not my doing. Why do you do that? Opps, off topic.

Christians believe in life.

[sthira]

Some people have thought disorders and want to change subjects from post to post. Get several people doing that and all you have is insanity.

[SNIP]

Christians believe in life.

Your own ad hominem aside, I'm sure I'm off topic, but I'm not clear what it means to assert "Christians believe in life." Please explain.

We can cite the contrary. We are clear that Christians have a special affinity with suffering. That's off topic (presumably) so I won't elaborate on the basis of Christianity (suffering of Christ for human sin) and the terrible dark ages of subsequent hair-shirts and burnings at the stake, the torturing, exiling, killing of my non-Christian ancestors. All sickening, criminal, and outrageous.

Nor have Christians throughout history been supportive of public health. Or is that off topic? Since god creates all things, even sickness and injury are His Will, and who are we to question the Divine plan? To cure sickness, to repair injury, to save lives with medicine is to oppose the Will of God.

In many eras of human history the Christian church has declared medicine and hygiene as heretical and often illegal. In the aftermath of plagues, for example, the christian church moved to dominate all fields of medicine. Jesus authorities dictated the response to illness. The sick were to repent for their sins (which had allowed malevolent spirits to enter their body); the sick were to be sent on pilgrimage to holy shrines (where they could purchase relics); the sick were to write holy names on scrolls and wear them on the body; the sick were to offer prayers to the Saints, on and on.

Off topic, oh well, but: no, if Christian history didn't support human health and longevity then why would present or future Christians support them? This entire discussion is completely silly, of course, who cares what Christians think and I'm a little embarrassed I'm even spending my good time on this idiocy.

[shadowhawk]

Sthira: Your own ad hominem aside, I'm sure I'm off topic, but I'm not clear what it means to assert "Christians believe in life." Please explain. I have been explaining it from the beginning of the topic.

We can cite the contrary. We are clear that Christians have a special affinity with suffering. That's off topic (presumably) so I won't elaborate on the basis of Christianity (suffering of Christ for human sin) and the terrible dark ages of subsequent hair-shirts and burnings at the stake, the torturing, exiling, killing of my non-Christian ancestors. All sickening, criminal, and outrageous.

Nor have Christians throughout history been supportive of public health. Or is that off topic? Since god creates all things, even sickness and injury are His Will, and who are we to question the Divine plan? To cure sickness, to repair injury, to save lives with medicine is to oppose the Will of God.

In many eras of human history the Christian church has declared medicine and hygiene as heretical and often illegal. In the aftermath of plagues, for example, the christian church moved to dominate all fields of medicine. Jesus authorities dictated the response to illness. The sick were to repent for their sins (which had allowed malevolent spirits to enter their body); the sick were to be sent on pilgrimage to holy shrines (where they could purchase relics); the sick were to write holy names on scrolls and wear them on the body; the sick were to offer prayers to the Saints, on and on.

Off topic, oh well, but: no, if Christian history didn't support human health and longevity then why would present or future Christians support them? This entire discussion is completely silly, of course, who cares what Christians think and I'm a little embarrassed I'm even spending my good time on this idiocy.

This topic is “christians and longevity?” Your post deliberately confuses it with another topic: “IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY???” You are quoting the second topic as if it were part of this discussion. If anyone wishes to know if I have treated you unfairly, just read your last post to me.
http://www.longecity...ty/#entry618180

Your last words to me were:

sthira “Your history is a bloodbath. You've exiled, tortured, or killed those who won't adhere to your faith. You've done it before, you'll probably do it again. You'll exile, torture or kill we who don't find you pleasant or nice. History repeats itself, and as sure as the sun rises your violent history will attempt to repeat. Until then: go in peace, and we'll work to stop you from committing more violence.”

Total nonsense!

Now we have the post above, full of the same bigotry as before. I have expressed over and again my views regarding Christianity and the value of life. Want to know what Christians think? Read the topic. I will deal with one issue at a time, not endless crap where you dump everywhere.

Edited by shadowhawk, 17 October 2013 - 11:22 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Bu the way sthira, are you a trained scientists, academicians, thinkers, artists who studied to ignore christian people AS YOU claimed. A trained ...... http://www.longecity...ty/#entry618180

[sthira]

I grew up in an strong atheist family who was asking negative questions about God since I could walk. I became a Christian about half way through the military. Later my entire family converted. Quite a heated time. After the military, I started school and have spent the rest of my life asking questions.

I am a Devout Christian who is here because of my interest in life extension. I got into discussing religion when I was attacked by a bunch of atheists when I answered “Christian,” to a question of faith.

Your words are kind but I have been called about every name in the book. It is all true.

Your personal biography and cry of martyrdom is fascinating and off topic. Please stick to the topic -- christians and longevity.

The longevity movement is one of science and medicine. Religion has little role in science and medicine. Religion will adapt, as others in the thread have already stated (to which you inarticulately responded.) Religion attempts to stay flexible (sorta flexible? do Christians still believe HIV was given to sinful homosexuals by god? Are women priests allowed yet? Contraceptives in third world countries? ... Ok, maybe religion ain't so flexible?)

The scientific method – the empirical observation of the natural world, the testing of hypotheses and revision of assumptions – has no role in an age in which "eternal truth" has been made known to man by the revealed Word of God.

And so the topic is "christians and longevity.". Christians have not historically supported public health, medicine, or science.

"The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell." St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram

When science and medicine lift the waters of health and longevity for all humans, christians will adapt to profit. Christianity, Inc. (J-Money) is a tax-free business of brainwashing and theft. It has a deep history of violence rooted against people with different cultures and different worldviews. Christianity (and hence christians) has little to do with science; longevity is a movement of science and medicine.

[shadowhawk]

I grew up in an strong atheist family who was asking negative questions about God since I could walk. I became a Christian about half way through the military. Later my entire family converted. Quite a heated time. After the military, I started school and have spent the rest of my life asking questions.

I am a Devout Christian who is here because of my interest in life extension. I got into discussing religion when I was attacked by a bunch of atheists when I answered "Christian," to a question of faith.

Your words are kind but I have been called about every name in the book. It is all true.

Your personal biography and cry of martyrdom is fascinating and off topic. Please stick to the topic -- christians and longevity. The topic starter asked me a question and I answered him. http://www.longecity...ty/#entry588769

The longevity movement is one of science and medicine. Religion has little role in science and medicine. Religion will adapt, as others in the thread have already stated (to which you inarticulately responded.) Religion attempts to stay flexible (sorta flexible? do Christians still believe HIV was given to sinful homosexuals by god? Are women priests allowed yet? Contraceptives in third world countries? ... Ok, maybe religion ain't so flexible?)

The scientific method – the empirical observation of the natural world, the testing of hypotheses and revision of assumptions – has no role in an age in which "eternal truth" has been made known to man by the revealed Word of God. Nonsense, you have no understanding of how the physical and spiritual world relate. Christians have no problem doing science.

And so the topic is "christians and longevity.". Christians have not historically supported public health, medicine, or science. Nonsense, proof?

"The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell." St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram My son is a mathematican. does this make him in covenant with the devil? Wait until i tell him. Put this in its historical context. Who was he talking about and why? So much of your .... is like this.

When science and medicine lift the waters of health and longevity for all humans, christians will adapt to profit. Christianity, Inc. (J-Money) is a tax-free business of brainwashing and theft. It has a deep history of violence rooted against people with different cultures and different worldviews. Christianity (and hence christians) has little to do with science; longevity is a movement of science and medicine. Oh yes, we will do it for money.

Actually. This is all off topic and to get into a pissing contest with a self proclaimed, trained bigot who professes to listen to no theist. It would be useless. Rave on, I choose not to relate to the foolish errors of this diatribe and the others.

Christians have the largest private medical establishments in the world. They started the modern hospital system historically. They have the largest charitable organizations in the world. They have the largest private educational system in the world. They started most of our top universities and have schools everywhere. Christians have had massive orphanages all over the world. Christians have produced much of the worlds great art and literature and philosophy. And, yes many of the worlds greatest scientists have been theists. I haven’t even started. I could easily document all this but why, you would not listen. OK, it happens.

Christians value life both here and in the future. It is not an accident the pro life movement is largely Christian. Life is a gift from God in all its forms and life extension is a good and wonderful thing.

The largest Christian Church is larger than any country in the world. One reason for this is we value life. We are growing at a faster rate than any time in our history. Life.

Edited by shadowhawk, 18 October 2013 - 08:37 PM.

[sthira]

(SNIP)
"..you have no understanding of how the physical and spiritual world relate.

Of course I don't, silly. Does anyone? The honest position is agnosticism: I don't know anything verifiable about "how the physical and spiritual world relate" and, um, neither do you.

"My son is a mathematican. does this make him in covenant with the devil? Wait until i tell him. Put this in its historical context. Who was he talking about and why? So much of your .... is like this.

First, congratulations to your son. And second, the quote is from one of your revered leaders, and it's straight forward and clear. Does it really need contextual support? I've cited the source. But for the benefit of doubt, let's just say the Saint had a bad day when he wrote those words. He really didn't think mathematicians are evil, he just said that. Want me to cite more outrageous Christian leaders? It's really embarrassing for y'all -- but I will!

Actually. This is all off topic and to get into a pissing contest with a self proclaimed, trained bigot who professes to listen to no theist. It would be useless. Rave on, I choose not to relate to the foolish errors of this diatribe and the others.

Tisk, tisk, you're both off topic and fallacious.

Christians have the largest private medical establishments in the world. They started the modern hospital system historically.

The "largest private medical establishments in the world" is kinda subjective and vague. But some of the "largest" health providers in the US are the NIH, Johns Hopkins, Mayo, Mass Gen, Cleveland Clinic... And while some of these institutions have had Christian philanthropists and kindly benefactors, they're still institutions of science and medicine. When you get sick, you'll go see a doctor trained in medicine. When you get sick, you won't go see a priest untrained in medicine. Clerical emotional support is a wonderful service, and I support it 100%. But these are typically set up for people of ALL faiths and NO faith, not just for Christians.

[Christians] have the largest charitable organizations in the world.

If you mean charitable *foundations*, then the "largest" (if you mean "wealthiest" or most charitable?) is the IKEA guy, who's a billionaire. Is he Christian? Is IKEA a place to buy crucifixes and bibles? And I think the second is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and he's not all Jesus-ey, izzie? The Wellcome Trust, Howard Hughs Medical Trust, Ford Foundation, J. Paul Getty Trust, Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation -- are any of these Christian? Li Ka Shing Foundation?

They have the largest private educational system in the world. They started most of our top universities and have schools everywhere.

Even if true (it isn't) private schools, are not legally bound to provide equality in admitting or retaining students. Nor are there legal remedies for the wide financial disparity that distinguishes high- and low-spending private schools from each other. Not only do PUBLIC schools enroll all students, but they are more likely than their private counterparts to provide services designed to meet the special needs of particular students. Indeed, it is only the public schools that have the legal obligation to accept many students with special needs. Under federal civil rights laws, public schools must provide educational and related services to meet the needs of children with disabilities. Likewise, they must meet the educational needs of students who do not speak English or whose proficiency in English is limited.

See, eg: http://www.centerfor...blic-education-

What public education in America means: a tuition-free education for all students; the promise of equal educational opportunities no matter race, religion or ability; a commitment to high standards and high expectations for all students;
a system of governance that ensures public accountability; a benefit to society by teaching democratic principles and common values.

Christians have had massive orphanages all over the world.

They should have "massive orphanages all over the world" since they'd like to outlaw a woman's right to choose abortion and contraceptive access everywhere. If women are forced to have children, who assumes responsibility for the unwanted? I think we'll agree that the government is the leader here. DFCS (Department of Family and Children's Services) is the more relevant, reliable player despite the neo-con's tiring attempt to kill it.

Christians have produced much of the worlds great art and literature and philosophy.

And so have many other people from non-Christian backgrounds. Are you arguing (seriously) that Christianity is a leader in the world of art, literature, and philosophy? Wowsa! You should spend some time here in ... Oh never mind, have you thought about going back to school and filling in some knowledge gaps? Education is great for longevity!

And, yes many of the worlds greatest scientists have been theists.

Sure, in like olden days when they were threatened with death if they weren't Jesus frothing. Are there many Christian scientists today who cogently reconcile science with bible verses? Incidentally, there’s just no plausible way anyone can take "The Bible" seriously after spending an hour or so on this site: http://bibviz.com/. Go check it out, it's great. It cross references 63,779 bible inconsistencies and makes a colorful, fun graph!

I haven’t even started. I could easily document all this but why, you would not listen. OK, it happens.

Ah Excellent, please do start! And I will listen -- you should practice the grace, kindness and love that your religion espouses and stop saying rude, ugly things at people who are DIFFERENT than you. It'll be good for your blood pressure, too!

[N.T.M.]

For example, without example, you accuse me of a non sequitur.

You ignore everything I say, so I might as well isolate a point so I can prove mine more briefly.

Let's go over some vocabulary first. A non sequitur is a Latin term meaning, "Does not follow." In other words, it's the act of asserting something as a logical consequence of something else when no such connection exists. Now let's look at one of your examples:

You said, "How does it relate to 3? It doesn’t and that makes 3) false."

And then I said, "That in itself is a contradiction. For example, if a given condition of A dictates B, then B is contingent upon A. If you're looking for a mathematical parallel you might consider the relationship between dependent and independent variables. Anyway, you can't say that A doesn't relate to B--meaning it's independent (Is this the third or fourth time I've said this?)--and then assert a conclusion based on a contingency."

Of course this may be confusing if you don't know what independent means, so lets examine that, too. For this one I'll go to the dictionary.

Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent: a decision independent of the outcome of the study.

Should I spell out the contradiction for you (again)? The premises are independent, yet you falsify one through a contingency.

This is logic at its simplest level. What about it do you not understand?

[shadowhawk]

For example, without example, you accuse me of a non sequitur.

You ignore everything I say, so I might as well isolate a point so I can prove mine more briefly.

Let's go over some vocabulary first. A non sequitur is a Latin term meaning, "Does not follow." In other words, it's the act of asserting something as a logical consequence of something else when no such connection exists. Now let's look at one of your examples:

You said, "How does it relate to 3? It doesn’t and that makes 3) false."

And then I said, "That in itself is a contradiction. For example, if a given condition of A dictates B, then B is contingent upon A. If you're looking for a mathematical parallel you might consider the relationship between dependent and independent variables. Anyway, you can't say that A doesn't relate to B--meaning it's independent (Is this the third or fourth time I've said this?)--and then assert a conclusion based on a contingency."

Of course this may be confusing if you don't know what independent means, so lets examine that, too. For this one I'll go to the dictionary.

Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent: a decision independent of the outcome of the study.

Should I spell out the contradiction for you (again)? The premises are independent, yet you falsify one through a contingency.

This is logic at its simplest level. What about it do you not understand?

I teach logic and will add this to my notes. Off topic so I will not respond.

[shadowhawk]

(SNIP)
"..you have no understanding of how the physical and spiritual world relate.

Of course I don't, silly. Does anyone? The honest position is agnosticism: I don't know anything verifiable about "how the physical and spiritual world relate" and, um, neither do you.

"My son is a mathematican. does this make him in covenant with the devil? Wait until i tell him. Put this in its historical context. Who was he talking about and why? So much of your .... is like this.

First, congratulations to your son. And second, the quote is from one of your revered leaders, and it's straight forward and clear. Does it really need contextual support? I've cited the source. But for the benefit of doubt, let's just say the Saint had a bad day when he wrote those words. He really didn't think mathematicians are evil, he just said that. Want me to cite more outrageous Christian leaders? It's really embarrassing for y'all -- but I will!

Actually. This is all off topic and to get into a pissing contest with a self proclaimed, trained bigot who professes to listen to no theist. It would be useless. Rave on, I choose not to relate to the foolish errors of this diatribe and the others.

Tisk, tisk, you're both off topic and fallacious.

Christians have the largest private medical establishments in the world. They started the modern hospital system historically.

The "largest private medical establishments in the world" is kinda subjective and vague. But some of the "largest" health providers in the US are the NIH, Johns Hopkins, Mayo, Mass Gen, Cleveland Clinic... And while some of these institutions have had Christian philanthropists and kindly benefactors, they're still institutions of science and medicine. When you get sick, you'll go see a doctor trained in medicine. When you get sick, you won't go see a priest untrained in medicine. Clerical emotional support is a wonderful service, and I support it 100%. But these are typically set up for people of ALL faiths and NO faith, not just for Christians.

[Christians] have the largest charitable organizations in the world.

If you mean charitable *foundations*, then the "largest" (if you mean "wealthiest" or most charitable?) is the IKEA guy, who's a billionaire. Is he Christian? Is IKEA a place to buy crucifixes and bibles? And I think the second is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and he's not all Jesus-ey, izzie? The Wellcome Trust, Howard Hughs Medical Trust, Ford Foundation, J. Paul Getty Trust, Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation -- are any of these Christian? Li Ka Shing Foundation?

They have the largest private educational system in the world. They started most of our top universities and have schools everywhere.

Even if true (it isn't) private schools, are not legally bound to provide equality in admitting or retaining students. Nor are there legal remedies for the wide financial disparity that distinguishes high- and low-spending private schools from each other. Not only do PUBLIC schools enroll all students, but they are more likely than their private counterparts to provide services designed to meet the special needs of particular students. Indeed, it is only the public schools that have the legal obligation to accept many students with special needs. Under federal civil rights laws, public schools must provide educational and related services to meet the needs of children with disabilities. Likewise, they must meet the educational needs of students who do not speak English or whose proficiency in English is limited.

See, eg: http://www.centerfor...blic-education-

What public education in America means: a tuition-free education for all students; the promise of equal educational opportunities no matter race, religion or ability; a commitment to high standards and high expectations for all students;
a system of governance that ensures public accountability; a benefit to society by teaching democratic principles and common values.

Christians have had massive orphanages all over the world.

They should have "massive orphanages all over the world" since they'd like to outlaw a woman's right to choose abortion and contraceptive access everywhere. If women are forced to have children, who assumes responsibility for the unwanted? I think we'll agree that the government is the leader here. DFCS (Department of Family and Children's Services) is the more relevant, reliable player despite the neo-con's tiring attempt to kill it.

Christians have produced much of the worlds great art and literature and philosophy.

And so have many other people from non-Christian backgrounds. Are you arguing (seriously) that Christianity is a leader in the world of art, literature, and philosophy? Wowsa! You should spend some time here in ... Oh never mind, have you thought about going back to school and filling in some knowledge gaps? Education is great for longevity!

And, yes many of the worlds greatest scientists have been theists.

Sure, in like olden days when they were threatened with death if they weren't Jesus frothing. Are there many Christian scientists today who cogently reconcile science with bible verses? Incidentally, there’s just no plausible way anyone can take "The Bible" seriously after spending an hour or so on this site: http://bibviz.com/. Go check it out, it's great. It cross references 63,779 bible inconsistencies and makes a colorful, fun graph!

I haven’t even started. I could easily document all this but why, you would not listen. OK, it happens.

Ah Excellent, please do start! And I will listen -- you should practice the grace, kindness and love that your religion espouses and stop saying rude, ugly things at people who are DIFFERENT than you. It'll be good for your blood pressure, too!

No thanks: Not interested

[sthira]

I teach logic and will add this to my notes. Off topic so I will not respond.

Wait. You teach logic? Whaaa... Like, what kind of logic do you teach, and to whom?

[shadowhawk]

I teach logic and will add this to my notes. Off topic so I will not respond.

Wait. You teach logic? Whaaa... Like, what kind of logic do you teach, and to whom?

The subject is Christians and Longevity. What part of that is confusing?

[N.T.M.]

For example, without example, you accuse me of a non sequitur.

You ignore everything I say, so I might as well isolate a point so I can prove mine more briefly.

Let's go over some vocabulary first. A non sequitur is a Latin term meaning, "Does not follow." In other words, it's the act of asserting something as a logical consequence of something else when no such connection exists. Now let's look at one of your examples:

You said, "How does it relate to 3? It doesn’t and that makes 3) false."

And then I said, "That in itself is a contradiction. For example, if a given condition of A dictates B, then B is contingent upon A. If you're looking for a mathematical parallel you might consider the relationship between dependent and independent variables. Anyway, you can't say that A doesn't relate to B--meaning it's independent (Is this the third or fourth time I've said this?)--and then assert a conclusion based on a contingency."

Of course this may be confusing if you don't know what independent means, so lets examine that, too. For this one I'll go to the dictionary.

Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent: a decision independent of the outcome of the study.

Should I spell out the contradiction for you (again)? The premises are independent, yet you falsify one through a contingency.

This is logic at its simplest level. What about it do you not understand?

I teach logic and will add this to my notes. Off topic so I will not respond.

The topic of this thread is polemical, so attacking the robustness of one party's logic is definitely not off-topic. In a debate, logic is all you have. What could be more relevant?

[sthira]

For example, without example, you accuse me of a non sequitur.

You ignore everything I say, so I might as well isolate a point so I can prove mine more briefly.

Let's go over some vocabulary first. A non sequitur is a Latin term meaning, "Does not follow." In other words, it's the act of asserting something as a logical consequence of something else when no such connection exists. Now let's look at one of your examples:

You said, "How does it relate to 3? It doesn’t and that makes 3) false."

And then I said, "That in itself is a contradiction. For example, if a given condition of A dictates B, then B is contingent upon A. If you're looking for a mathematical parallel you might consider the relationship between dependent and independent variables. Anyway, you can't say that A doesn't relate to B--meaning it's independent (Is this the third or fourth time I've said this?)--and then assert a conclusion based on a contingency."

Of course this may be confusing if you don't know what independent means, so lets examine that, too. For this one I'll go to the dictionary.

Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent: a decision independent of the outcome of the study.

Should I spell out the contradiction for you (again)? The premises are independent, yet you falsify one through a contingency.

This is logic at its simplest level. What about it do you not understand?

I teach logic and will add this to my notes. Off topic so I will not respond.

The topic of this thread is polemical, so attacking the robustness of one party's logic is definitely not off-topic. In a debate, logic is all you have. What could be more relevant?

What of the assertion that g-d is beyond logic?

[shadowhawk]

I teach logic and will add this to my notes. Off topic so I will not respond.

Wait. You teach logic? Whaaa... Like, what kind of logic do you teach, and to whom?

Yes I have taught at 3 colleges and universities. I have a California college teaching credential. If you need help (and it appears you do) with logic or informal fallacies, I suggest you search for Brokenportal’s topic “Logical Fallacies” here on Longecity. It was done a couple of years ago. You can also try a Goggle search, there is much good help on line. I have almost 100 sites in my “Fallacies,” bookmarks alone. Good luck.

Below is a partial list of your interactions with me in the Longecity forums. You started off with these words. sthira: “Most of us (scientists, academicians, thinkers, artists) are trained to ignore Jesus people. As best as we can we try to ignore you..” You finished by announcing your campaign to attack me, and this because I am a Christian. “Your history is a bloodbath. You've exiled, tortured, or killed those who won't adhere to your faith. You've done it before, you'll probably do it again. You'll exile, torture or kill we who don't find you pleasant or nice. History repeats itself, and as sure as the sun rises your violent history will attempt to repeat. Until then: go in peace, and we'll work to stop you from committing more violence.” You claim to be a scientist, academician, thinker and artist. NO EVIDENCE.

With over 12 full years of university and graduate study and years of informal study and teaching, I have never meet someone who would create a sieve of bigotry like this. I have meet some New Atheists like this. You are talking about me and my fellow Theists.

So you announced you are going to ignore anything I say or do and start your ciber bulling campaign below attacking and assaulting me because I am a Christian. You obviously fancy yourself a bully and think you can intimidate religious people by spewing out an endless bigoted list of fallacies and personal attacks. The proof is below.

You have chosen the wrong guy for these tactics and in the interest of civil dialogue, I am asking you to stop. Not interested.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry618180

http://www.longecity..._30#entry618399

http://www.longecity..._30#entry618407

http://www.longecity..._30#entry618570

http://www.longecity..._30#entry618586

http://www.longecity..._30#entry618603

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M. The topic of this thread is polemical, so attacking the robustness of one party's logic is definitely not off-topic. In a debate, logic is all you have. What could be more relevant?

Yes, as I have done with yours, but it has all been said and the readers can now decide.

[sthira]

You finished by announcing your campaign to attack me, and this because I am a Christian.

Oh drama collapses into bathos, and here's why we ignore noisy Jesus people: they (you) believe in fairy tales. When they (you) are called to explain, they (you) cannot: you babble, you repeat, you lose. Then they (you) switch tactics and morph into martyrs fending off imaginary "attacks" and phony persecutions. Twisted, they (you) are best off ignored (or mocked) which is what secular society does to fundamentalist Christians: we ignore you, we use you as comic material, jokes, we picket against your political rises, we applaud your political falls, and the universe spins on indifferently.

[N.T.M.]

N.T.M. The topic of this thread is polemical, so attacking the robustness of one party's logic is definitely not off-topic. In a debate, logic is all you have. What could be more relevant?

Yes, as I have done with yours, but it has all been said and the readers can now decide.

Respectfully, I haven't seen one such example.

What of the assertion that g-d is beyond logic?

If God lies outside of logic, then faith would have to take a non-evidential definition, which--like so many other things--contradicts the classical Christian view. I find it ironic when Christians invoke this in attempt to escape contradictions when the obvious consequence is, yet again, a contradiction. What dazzling circularity.