|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 237 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-24-15 | | Big Pawn: <Guide a horse with a whip, a donkey with a bridle, and a fool with a rod to his back!> proverbs 26:3 When dealing with fools, take a rod to their backs because that's the only language they understand. I don't have a rod. I use a fly swatter.
They say, "big pawn, you're not nice. You're a bully". The rod doesn't feel good. Fools take truth like swallowing glass. I love to feed fools the truth. It's good for them and it's good for me. |
|
| Jun-24-15 | | Big Pawn: This guy's comment made me laugh out loud until my face hurt. <hv.U.grwnup: <Abdel Irada: <Big Pawn: <hv.U.grwnup> Yes, let's discuss the moral argument here or on my forum.> The insults I can deal with (laugh off, really, considering that they're based on zero knowledge), but this is too much. If you propose to engage <h.U.g> in argument in this forum, I will put you on ignore, and this will be permanent. >wow!
hahaha :)
comedy gold :)
translation of what <abdel> saying : <"<big pawn>, most people here have no respect for you and rightly so and therefore they have you on ignore but i (<abdel irada> ) and others few don't have you on ignore even though we too don't have respect for you but still we choosing to be nice to you and doing this favor to you. and i may revoke that favor and punish you and there won't be any redemption from my punishment ever" >> |
|
| Jun-24-15 | | Big Pawn: Exploring worldviews today, I came across some interesting statements. <GSM> was an honest and consistent atheist when he said the unspeakable below. Ohio was also just as honest in his reply and I agreed with him so I left his comment in. It spoke for me as well. But this is ONE of the great prices you pay for atheism: <OhioChessFan: <GSM> <I don't think torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong, just distasteful.>I had another look at that and can't believe how utterly disgusting it is.> |
|
| Jun-25-15 | | Big Pawn: Laymen atheist: "Only those things that can be scientifically verified are true" Commonsense: "Your statement isn't falsifiable"
Laymen atheist: *crickets* |
|
| Jun-26-15 | | playground player: <Only those things that can be scientifically verified are true.>
Did Lysenko say that? |
|
| Jun-26-15 | | Big Pawn: Actually, a lot of people used to say this and some still do. It comes from the era of logical positivism and verificationism. This was very popular during Russells time. |
|
| Jun-27-15 | | playground player: <Big Pawn> Of course, Lysenko's "settled science" caused millions of people to die in the Ukraine in a man-made famine. Settled Science and Big Government--they always get results! |
|
| Jun-29-15 | | cormier: ◄ Psalm 2:9 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
You will break them with a rod of iron; you will dash them to pieces like pottery." |
|
| Jun-29-15 | | cormier: http://biblefellowshipunion.co.uk/2... |
|
| Jul-05-15 | | hv.U.grwnup: <big pawn> , i liked your conversations with <gregor samsa mendel>, <kellmano> , <pawn to qb4> .
i agree with what you said . your position is : god is timeless, spaceless and immaterial. i use formless in place of 'immaterial' (god is beyond time and space and is formless) but i guess we mean the same thing . and yes , like you i too have said so to <al wazir> many times but he completely ignores this and keeps on bashing the idea of a god with human like form and super human abilities. well, apart from that there are many areas in this discussion where i may disagree with you , it seems . so we will see , sir ji :) |
|
| Jul-06-15 | | cormier: Yes' love is water that quenches fully : one that really gives his heart to the love of God , does not seek nor desire nothing. In God there is all goods. God flourishes him and happy , he goes repeating : << My God and my all! My God, you are everything to me! >> The infinite good and the source of all joy. |
|
| Jul-06-15 | | Big Pawn: <hv.U.grwnup> Glad you dropped by. Please feel free to see where we disagree and agree. It's okay if you take your time between posts, even a few weeks. It doesn't matter as long as we don't lose track of our conversation. My recent debate with <GSM> is a great example of the price of atheism. He actually told me that <torturing a baby for fun isn't objectively bad at all - it's just distateful> and that's exactly what he is forced to say, if one first accepts atheism. <hv.U.grwnup>, I don't know why the nerds on the rogoff page don't like you. I think you have interesting things to say and a good way of saying them. Don't let the trolls like <perfidious>, <abdel irada>,<al wazir> and <mark finan> scare you away. Don't let them bully you. I encourage you not to waste your time here, but if you have something to say, say it and don't be bullied into silence the way they want. <your position is : god is timeless, spaceless and immaterial.> That's what I can deduce from the cosmological argument, but my main position is this: It is more rational to believe theism is true than to believe that atheism is true. The cosmological argument is just one argument for that thesis, but, it doesn't point to a timeless, spaceless, immaterial and very powerful being. I say immaterial and you say formless. I can't really disagree with the word formless but I intentionally say "immaterial" for one reason. In the cosmological argument we learn that time, space and material (matter - all forms) came into being at the moment of the big bang. Therefore, obviously, the cause of the big bang was necessarily timeless, spaceless and immaterial, meaning, that God is not made of matter. I hope you have a good day <hv.U.grwnup> and I look forward to a very interesting discussion. |
|
| Jul-10-15 | | Big Pawn: The Kalam cosmological argument, as given by William Lane Craig, is a very good argument for theism. It goes like this: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Since the big bang gives us an absolutely beginning (and so does the Borde-Guth-Valienkin theorem discovered in 2003 which also applies to even a multiverse), we know that the cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. We know this because space, time and matter didn't exist until the moment of the big bang. Most people call this cause God. Further, we know that the cause is plausibly personal. This is because if the universe were the result of a set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the universe would have always existed as long as those conditions had existed. The universe would have had no choice so to speak, and wouldn't have come into being a finite time ago. But this wasn't the case. The universe began a finite time ago and that speaks to the Will of a personal agent; a person, that is, the personal aspect of God's nature, to decide while existing timelessly sans the universe, to create the universe. Is this a powerful argument? Now that a universe with a beginning can no longer be reasonably avoided, the last defense of atheism is to say, "so what?". Historically this has not been the case at all. For years atheists claimed that the universe was eternal, because a universe with a beginning posed very uncomfortable questions and loudly implied theism. It was to the atheists dismay that the big bang became accepted as main stream science. Fred Hoyle, a leading cosmologist in the early 1900's (lived until the 1980's I think) and an atheist activist, tried to make alternative universe theories work all of his life. He detested the theistic implications that came package in with the big bang. Hoyle was obviously unsuccessful, but that just goes to show what great lengths atheist scientists were will to go. A universe with a beginning was, indeed, a very uncomfortable thing to explain. The Kalam Cosmological Argument gives us a deductive argument for a universe with a beginning, a cause that is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, incredibly powerful and personal. It does not give us the Christian God or any other kind of God. It's merely an argument for theism, but it's a strong one. |
|
Aug-10-15
 | | offramp: I wonder what happened to Gregory Sansa Mendel? |
|
| Aug-10-15 | | Gregor Samsa Mendel: <offramp: I wonder what happened to Gregory Sansa Mendel?> He never existed. |
|
| Sep-05-15 | | Big Pawn: <offramp: I wonder what happened to Gregory Sansa Mendel?> He admitted that it wasn't really wrong to torture little children for fun, because he's an atheist. Don't blame me. Don't accuse me of hyperbole. It's all still there to read for yourself. |
|
| Sep-10-15 | | cormier: if a country drag's the cross ... it will destroy itself .... if a country hold-up the cross ..... the country will florish, live long & prosper \\ // / |
|
| Sep-24-15 | | Big Pawn: <GSM> Spoke for me and said that Big Pawn thinks some things are wrong all the time (like gay marriage). I asked <GSM> if he believed that. He said "no". A thing isn't wrong all the time so we need to go case by case. I applied his logic to bigotry and asked when bigotry was the moral choice (remember, we have to go case by case because sometimes bigotry is the moral choice). When confronted with this, he called me a bully and ran away. So I ask him now; <GSM>, when is bigotry the moral choice? Or, do you admit that bigotry is always wrong? If you choose the latter you have egg on your face.
I love winning. It's fun. |
|
| Sep-24-15 | | Big Pawn: <GSM: I think that <!!> believes that a) there *are* some things that are *always* wrong no matter what (e.g., same-sex marriage)> Kenneth Rogoff 1. He is speaking about me and for me. What a bully! I asked a polite question: <<GSM:I think that <!!> believes that a) there *are* some things that are *always* wrong no matter what>2. Is that what you believe?>
3. He answers "no": <I'd say that actions need to be judged on a case-by-case basis.> I replied by applying his logic to bigory:
4. <Got it. Nothing is ever always wrong so we have to make case by case judgments.Let's apply your thinking to bigotry.
You are saying that there are some cases where bigotry is moral (and therefore in this same case tolerance, an antonym of bigotry, is immoral). When is bigotry the moral choice? Can you give me some examples? You need to defend this because otherwise you'll have to say, "Big Pawn, bigotry is always immoral so there is no need to go case by case"> His final response:
5. <You always demand answers to the questions you ask me, yet you don't bother to answer the ones I ask you. Are you afraid to answer my questions?> Then
<<!!>--You're just a bully.> So we see clearly that I was conducting myself with dignity, just asking questions and applying his logic to bigotry. When confronted with this embarrassing rebuttal he called me a bully and ran away. He left his debate podium and never came back. Now, the liberals on the Rogoff page hate to see their ideas get absolutely clobbered like this. They accuse me of declaring victory when I shouldn't - but the <GSM> has fled the scene. He refused to answer HONESTLY about applying his logic to bigotry. NEXT!!! |
|
| Sep-24-15 | | Big Pawn: 18 million views. https://www.facebook.com/OfficialBr... Another tour around Luton.
To imagine, the British navy was once said to be built on "rum, sodomy and the lash". |
|
| Sep-24-15 | | playground player: "Bigotry is always wrong"... unless, of course, it's directed at Christians, Republicans, conservatives, small business owners, big business, medium business owners, white males, white women who aren't feminists, heterosexuals, anyone who has a dime more than the speaker (that makes that person one of "the rich," and thus a fit object for hatred), Climate Change deniers, anyone who points out that Global Warming politicians have carbon footprints the size of the Sydney Opera House, and anyone else the loving liberal happens to be mad at, at the moment. |
|
| Sep-24-15 | | Big Pawn: Bravo! Well put <playground player>. I think you're a well written, smart guy. I enjoy reading your posts at your forum, and here. |
|
| Sep-25-15 | | playground player: <Big Pawn> Thank you, the feeling's mutual. Sometime today (I hope) the cover for my new book is to be posted on my blog, http://leeduigon.com/ Keep an eye out for it. I've just seen it for the first time, and it's gorgeous. P.S.--Boehner's leaving. Hooray! Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Mr. White Flag Republican. |
|
| Sep-29-15 | | Big Pawn: Nice cover! And regarding Boner, I'm glad he's making room for a real conservative but who will it be? You know, a lot of people don't remember this but Boehner came to power as something of a firebrand conservative. Once they get to washington they turn into jello. |
|
Sep-30-15
 | | OhioChessFan: Boehner is a total traitor to conservatism. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 237 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
