Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Is Dr. Newton a Dodge Monkey?

Expand Messages
  • Mark
    ... Jesus of the bible portrays a man who is without morals. A man full of forgiveness to the sinners who murder. What message does this give to those
    Message 1 of 34 , Mar 16, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      -- "Mark" wrote:
      > --"Mark" wrote:
      > > --Dr. Newton Joseph wrote:
      > > >Mark wrote:

      > > >N10: ALL WHO ARE GUILTY ARE INNOCENT IN MY EYES New10 The
      Jesus of the bible portrays a man who is without morals. A man full of
      forgiveness to the sinners who murder. What message does this give to those
      survivors who lost a loved one by murder and mayhem? That he, Jesus
      will provide a safe heaven (Heaven) for all murderers.

      > > -M: Doc, forgiveness is to help the victims, not the guilty. It keeps a person
      > from burning in anger and hate.

      > > >N10: That he makes no distinction between the guilty and the innocent?
      > Jesus in a court of law will be the attorney defending the guilty, and the devil
      > will be the attorney prosecuting the innocent.[...]

      > > -M: I don't know of any Christian sects that consider your interpretation to
      be authoritative.(If you know otherwise, please tell me.) You could be making
      a STRAWMAN case here. If so, this could be showing your EAGERNESS to
      be making such a strawman case - to attack Christianity unfairly. Do you have
      issues?

      > -M: You also want to label me a 'Christian'. Am I the enemy who you see
      everywhere?

      -M: Points DODGED!

      > >-M: You appear to want to fight *something* - what is it?

      > -M: Is this something *faith*? If so, do you have *faith* in the methods that
      you use to identify *faith*?

      -M: Dodged!

      > >-M: If its Christianity that you want to fight, there are many diverse Christian
      > faiths to fight. Is there any faith in particular that offends you? And how does
      > one become EFFECTIVE in combating it? It would be silly to try to attack
      > religion in general, because any worldview used to stage such an attack is
      > itself a faith-based worldview, hence a religion.

      > -N10: You are too hung up on the word "faith".

      > -M: Faith= belief held with enough conviction to act upon. I have been using
      this word correctly. And YOUR worldview is a faith-based worldview as
      evidenced by the fact that you act on it.

      -M: This makes this makes you, and any actions that you do, based on
      formallized thought, *religious*.

      > -N10: What you are saying doesn't make sense.
      >
      > -M: It makes perfect sense.
      >
      > -N10: ...but I don't expect Christians to make sense New10
      >
      > -M: Doink! I already told you that I am not a Christian. I am a spiritual
      monotheist who reads primarily Indian scriptures. And I say 'shanti' at the end
      of my messages - this means 'peace' in Sanskrit(not Hebrew or Arameic).

      -M: Dodged!

      > >-M: This would create a religious attack on religion, a contradiction.

      > -M: Using a faith-based worldview to attack faith-based worldviews doesn't
      make sense.

      -M: Dodged!

      > >-M: Maybe you are offended by mythic/magical thought, and want to
      combat this. If so, one should realize that not all spiritual religions have this,
      and that all secular religions have this(though spiritual religions usually have
      more mythic/magical thought, but this just isn't always true.)

      >N10: What are you talking about secular religions. why don't you look up the
      word secular?

      -M: Points interspirsed:
      ------------------------------------
      Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary[...]
      Main Entry: 1sec·u·lar [...]
      1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns>
      [-M: Even the worldly can be faith based, hence *religious*.]

      b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music>
      [-M: They mean *spiritual religious*. Their narrow usage of *religious* I have
      debated against in earlier posts, and my arguments are sustained.]

      c : not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>2 : not
      bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy
      not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest>3 a :
      occurring once in an age or a century b : existing or continuing through ages
      or centuries c : of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration
      -------------------------------------------------------

      -M: faith= belief held with enough conviction to act upon.
      religion= a faith-based worldview.
      secular= relating to non-spiritual concerns.
      secular religion= a non-spiritual worldview that is acted upon.

      >N10: it is evident you don't know what the words mean New10

      -M: Contraire, it is evident that you have been a Dodge Monkey like others
      here.

      > -M: Secular worldviews usually claim that they aren't faith-based-
      they have FAITH in this claim. This is a contradicition that shows mythic/
      magical thought. Woo-woo.

      -M: Dodged!

      shanti
      Mark, Seattle
    • Mark
      ... -M: The ones that follow -M: ... -M: No, I don t do that. ... -M: No, this is real philosophy. Give it a try. :-) ... -M: Yes. People have yet to offer a
      Message 34 of 34 , Mar 28, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --john price wrote:

        >JP: Which points?

        -M: The ones that follow "-M:"

        >JP: Your lame appeal to the authority of moldy old scriptures...

        -M: No, I don't do that.

        >JP:...or the mental masturbation of your creative semantics?

        -M: No, this is real philosophy. Give it a try. :-)

        >JP: wussy-- a corruption "wimp" and "pussy".

        -M: Yes. People have yet to offer a better word.

        >JP: Is this not an example of the insults that you denied making?

        -M: I wasn't insulting. I was scolding for what appears to be
        wussified philosophical methods.

        >JP: No, I just agree with psikill4_001.

        -M: Yet you didn't elaborate on your agreement. Like a wussy?

        >JP: I am a retired master sergeant. I can think up epithets that
        are a hell of a lot more insulting than wussy.

        -M: The goal isn't to be insulting, it is to be accurate and to be
        philosophicly rigorous. Well? Are you going to go back and answer
        my points, or are you going to keep DODGING like a WUSSY?

        shanti
        Mark, Seattle

        >Mark wrote:
        >
        > >
        > > -M: John,
        > >
        > > I noticed that you DODGED ALL of my points.
        > >
        > > Are you a wussy who is agreeing with a wussy, like a wussy?
        > >
        > > shanti
        > > Mark, Seattle
        > >
        > > --john price wrote:
        > >
        > > >JP: 10-4 ;roger wilco
        > >
        > > >psikill4_001 wrote:
        > > >
        > > > > This "Mark" person is going to jerk everyone here
        around.  Pin
        > > him into a corner with logic and he will ignore those points by
        > > re-creating the issue to his liking.  In essence you are
        wasting
        > > your time dicking around with him.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >  --"Mark" wrote:
        > > > >  > --john price wrote:
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > >JP: Gee, I don't think so. Objective--That which is
        external
        > > to the mind; unbiased.
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > -M: Objective= of the *object*
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > And the *object* is percieved and known by the
        *subject*,
        > > hence the subjective basis of knowledge.
        > >
        > > > >  > And is it your bias to be unbiased?
        > >  
        > > > >  > >JP: Subjective--Existing in the mind; arising from the
        > > senses; relating to, or reflecting, thoughts and feelings of a
        > > person.
        > >
        > > > >  > -M: OK. And *objectivity* goes through these subjective
        > > filters.
        > >  
        > > > >  > >JP: Evidence--That which makes evident; information in
        a law
        > > case; a witness; sign; indication; ground for belief; testimony;
        > > proof; attestation; corroboration.
        > >  
        > > > >  > >JP: I have not debated these, merely copied them from
        > > Webster's Dictionary which represents the usage employed by an
        > > educated person. Testimony in a court of law is notoriously
        > > unreliable because it is subjective in nature.  It has value
        only
        > > if it is corroborated by physical evidence (objective).
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > -M: And physical evidence is known subjectively as
        well. And
        > > the *value* of physical evidence is known subjectively as well.
        And
        > > its *value* is also known intersubjectively by testimony.
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > So *testimony* is the basis of ALL intersubjective
        evidence.
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > >JP: If I understand your posts correctly, you assert
        that
        > > > >  > your "leap of faith" and/or private revelatory
        experiences,
        > > > >  > are "evidence" of the existence of an an entity
        called "god"
        > > or some other undisclosed name.
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > -M: Lets call it (educated) faith, and not 'leap of
        faith'.
        > >  
        > > > >  > >JP:[...] Since proving a negative is a logical
        > > impossibility, I doubt many atheists would assert that there is
        no
        > > god. There is no way to prove that assertion. Stating that
        atheists
        > > must prove the nonexistence of a god IS a strawman fallacy. 
        I
        > > realize that you have not made that claim.  Skepticism is the
        > > default position.
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > -M: OK.
        > >  
        > > > >  > >JP: If you are putting forth your personal
        experience 
        > > and "leap of faith" to convince others of the validity of your
        > > belief, then your evidence is insufficient.
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > -M: Since you are a newcomer, I will inform you that my
        goal
        > > is not to *prove the existence of God*. I have, and will
        continue to
        > > make a case for the *testability* of the *means* for which
        people
        > > can prove the existence of God to themselves, and for the
        > > *testability* of intersubjective methods that can render
        credibility
        > > to those issuing 'testimony of a spiritual nature'.
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > >JP: The burden of proof is yours as the one making the
        claim.
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > -M: I have no burden of proof nor do you. If you choose
        not
        > > seek God through spiritual practice, this will be your problem,
        not
        > > mine.
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > >JP: Assertion without corroborating evidence which is
        > > verifiable, falsifiable or demonstrable has no cognitive value.
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > -M: Spirituality is verifiable through spiritual
        practice,
        > > and by credible verbal testimony. Please ditch this Logical
        > > Positivist silliness.
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > >JP: Personal conviction is immaterial.
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > -M: Its material when verifiable.
        > >
        > > > >  > >JP I have not engaged you in an Ad Hominem
        argument. 
        > > Please keep your insults to yourself.
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > -M: Are you being insulting by accusing me of insulting?
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > > > >JP: If your belief has no cognitive value (no
        basis in
        > > > >  > objective evidence)...
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > > >  -M: What is *objective*? Isn't this known by the
        > > *subject*, hence giving all knowledge a *subjective* basis? And
        I
        > > did say that I already attacked the idea of material evidence
        being
        > > the only form of evidence. I hope that you don't think that
        material
        > > evidence can prove the validity of material evidence. Wouldn't
        the
        > > only way to break out of this circle be non-material evidence?
        DOINK!
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > -M: Well? Did you DODGE this?
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > > >  >JP:...it doesn't matter how much conviction
        you have.
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > > >  -M: Are you implying that I implied that
        conviction
        > > alone is a basis for truth? I don't recall doing this.
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > > >  Are you using a STRAWMAN as a DODGE?
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > -M: This was a QUESTION, not an 'insult'.
        > > > >  >
        > > > >  > Well, are you using a STRAWMAN as a DODGE? Yes/No?
        > >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.