The Black Vault

greeney2 wrote:glibble greep glarfsnaffle flerble derble bribblebab gdork gnork nerble blorp gineef rasplaggadagga felfsnordle

There's no fool like an old fool.

frrostedman wrote:

at1with0 wrote:Good to know that genocide is sometimes warranted.

Taking it all in, God had very good reason to do what He did.

Read the Book of Enoch and tell me if you would prefer the kind of world it describes, which only would have gotten progressively worse, if given thousand of years to develop up to modern times.

If the Book of Enoch is to be believed, and I do, then pick your poison. Either the Nephalim were 450 feet tall, or, it's a mistranslation and they were 45 feet tall instead. No "giant" (modern day translation) could be 4.5 feet tall, that's a midget. So pick one. 450 feet or 45 feet. Either way, I'd say it was a good decision to kill them and their minions off, and start with a clean slate.

Yet God did more than kill off Nephalim and their minions. God killed over 99% of the land-based life on earth, including humans. Sentient creatures.

I get that humans were deserving. A lot like how a woman in a miniskirt deserves to be raped for encouraging sexual ideation.

I hope that some day God takes care of naughty people again and with as much authority as before. There is a lot of suffering going unaddressed.

Strawman arguments or debate points

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2
by humphreys » Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:03 am

Why does it matter if science makes us better people or not?

Let's say I agree with you, science does not make us better people.

So what? What is your point? What are the implications of that?

I have seen you make that statement over and over again, orangetom, but it isn't as enlightening, controversial, or relevant as you seem to think it is.

You seem to think the role of science is to make us better people, but science means "knowledge" not "self-improvement"."

Here..misdirection ...false guilt..good guy/ bad guy....good cop/bad cop..or what is called politics..guilt manipulation.....which is a religion very much used and misused by the body politic today.

by humphreys » Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:30 am

Technology is so useless and yet here you all are, using it.

You don't have to use the internet, or computers, any of you, and yet you spend a lot of time here, taking advantage of what science has allowed you to do. I wonder why you so clearly embrace what you believe to be a bad thing.

And if it's not a bad thing, then I fail to see what your point is. It all seems a bit hypocritical to me. I wouldn't sit there moaning about fast food while eating a Big Mac, but that's what you all seem be intent on doing.

Meh.

The implication here is that because someone is using technology that they owe some kind of debt of gratitude to science for this. To my limited knowledge these computers are private property sold to people for their individual use. If the computers did not exist...by science and the scientific field of marketing...than people would find another way to communicate without computers. People do not fall over dead in the road because they do not have a computer..or air conditioning or an automobile...etc. This is a false paradigm and designed to deceive people as to the status quo of what is happening out here.

You people pay for your computers and the service here as well. You owe no debt of gratitude to science for this...or any other invention. What is hypocritical is that someone would try to use this as an example of progress and try to use/misuse it as leverage in a position...which is false. Nothing will happen with a computer or any other technology if someone does not pay for it. You owe no one anything when you pay for it. It is your private property do use or as you decide. You either pay for it or do without ..but it is your choice..not your guilt. If this is the peak of evolutionary thinking something is very amiss.

It matters if science is moral or not because history shows that over time...people begin to serve the science ...or the politics using and misusing the science. When people become so far de evolved that they no longer know or can even tell if the science is serving us or we are serving the science...than there is a serious moral problem with both...the people and the science.

However..to be fair to science I am aware that there are scientists, thinkers and philosophers who are attempting to tackle this very problem. The morality of science. They know there is a problem. But as long as you have government or politics financing science ..this is going to be a problem.

Once again...nations with heavy leanings and dependence on science have been guilty of huge quantities of moral lapses....using and misusing these very sciences...by men of logic and reason.

Once again I refer to Democide...particularly in nations without Godly principles working in them. I refer particularly to Communist nations and their track record Nations of logic and reason..and science. ...though there have been other nations following this template as well.
Islamic nations too are heavily involved in science.

Democide...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

And all this in times of reason and logic...Enlightenment...sciences.

This is what makes me believe that science and its logic and reason are not all they are cracked up to be.



By the way...one very interesting facet of these nations...particularly the Communist nations as well as Islamic nations...most of the science/technology they depend on for sustinance...comes from the West...nations with Judeo Christian backgrounds and histories. Nations where the Religious liberty and liberty in every day life..were able to flourish. Where their economies were able to produce the fruits of this religious liberty.

A concept and understanding seldom taught in television, movies, or in public schools.



Now if science is knowledge and not self improvement...why is this debate taking place on a Religion and Spirituality forum??? Why is science even being pushed and promoted against peoples religious and moral beliefs as the paradigm to follow..the preferred method of communication among people??

You do not need to be a genius to see it.

Thanks,
Orangetom

orangetom1999 wrote:The implication here is that because someone is using technology that they owe some kind of debt of gratitude to science for this. To my limited knowledge these computers are private property sold to people for their individual use. If the computers did not exist...by science and the scientific field of marketing...than people would find another way to communicate without computers. People do not fall over dead in the road because they do not have a computer..or air conditioning or an automobile...etc. This is a false paradigm and designed to deceive people as to the status quo of what is happening out here.

I did not say computers were necessary, but you for one, have a choice. You choose to use computers, and the internet, and of course you have science to thank for that opportunity.

No science means no computers.

orangetom1999 wrote:It matters if science is moral or not because history shows that over time...people begin to serve the science ...or the politics using and misusing the science. When people become so far de evolved that they no longer know or can even tell if the science is serving us or we are serving the science...than there is a serious moral problem with both...the people and the science.

Science cannot be moral or immoral. Only people can.

Your implication that science is immoral is obviously ridiculous. It's like calling an apple or bicycle immoral.

orangetom1999 wrote:Now if science is knowledge and not self improvement...why is this debate taking place on a Religion and Spirituality forum???

Religion and spirituality involve knowledge, too, of course.

I notice that amongst all that drivel, there was not a single attempt to justify your own whacky beliefs, just more (irrational) science bashing.

I cannot say I am surprised. How do you possibly justify the absurd?

Oh well, if you could score points for word count alone I suppose you made a great contribution there. Next time try adding some substance

humphreys wrote:It wasn't a rebuttal. Racism may not be gone, or even close to gone, but it's a lot less severe than it was in the past. Same with women's rights.

Who is in Fantasyland now! Illegal Immigration is one of the biggest racial situations we have right now. Gang related problems are all racially motivated. Tagging is all racially motivated, gangs claiming territory. You can not find anyplace without tagging in our society. Cyberbullying never existed in my generation, yours made that up all by yourselves.


"A lot less severe" you say, Maybe you should think before you shoot your mouth off and make stupid statements, when you read about all the gang related crimes and shootings, everyday of the week. Or like taking a cheap shot at my generation, while your own is no better, You probably have not clue to your own religous bigotry. Sorry Humphrey, but you and your pals can include yourself in the same pile of bigots, who are intolerant of others. You are no better than anti-semetic counterparts, who hate Jews, your targets are Christians for what they believe, so maybe you can explain how that is any different. Your brand of intolerance, is just as dispicable as racial hate, Ethnic hate, its all one form of bigotry or another.

DIss0n80r wrote:

greeney2 wrote:glibble greep glarfsnaffle flerble derble bribblebab gdork gnork nerble blorp gineef rasplaggadagga felfsnordle

There's no fool like an old fool.

There's no fool like a banned trolling fool!

Can't defend or deny your own generations racism either, just like Humphreys couldn't.

greeney2 wrote:

humphreys wrote:It wasn't a rebuttal. Racism may not be gone, or even close to gone, but it's a lot less severe than it was in the past. Same with women's rights.

Who is in Fantasyland now! Illegal Immigration is one of the biggest racial situations we have right now. Gang related problems are all racially motivated. Tagging is all racially motivated, gangs claiming territory. You can not find anyplace without tagging in our society. Cyberbullying never existed in my generation, yours made that up all by yourselves.

"A lot less severe" you say, Maybe you should think before you shoot your mouth off and make stupid statements, when you read about all the gang related crimes and shootings, everyday of the week. Or like taking a cheap shot at my generation, while your own is no better, You probably have not clue to your own religous bigotry. Sorry Humphrey, but you and your pals can include yourself in the same pile of bigots, who are intolerant of others. You are no better than anti-semetic counterparts, who hate Jews, your targets are Christians for what they believe, so maybe you can explain how that is any different. Your brand of intolerance, is just as dispicable as racial hate, Ethnic hate, its all one form of bigotry or another.

Gang related crimes are more often than not black on black, and have little to do with racism for the most part. And black people don't generally have to use seperate toilets and sit in particular seats on the bus as they used to. It's also rare to see "no coloreds" signs outside your average restaurant. But sure, we haven't made any progress

Cyberbullying is not primarily a racial issue either. I don't hate Christians, but ignorant idiots, bigots, hypocrites and trolls annoy me, so as you can imagine I'm not a big fan of yours.

greeney2 wrote:

DIss0n80r wrote:

greeney2 wrote:glibble greep glarfsnaffle flerble derble bribblebab gdork gnork nerble blorp gineef rasplaggadagga felfsnordle

There's no fool like an old fool.

There's no fool like a banned trolling fool!

Can't defend or deny your own generations racism either, just like Humphreys couldn't.

When are you going to ban yourself you troll?

Every post you make is trolling. This is f*cking ridiculous.

Worst.

Moderator.