the_classicist

Joined

• started 62 topics
• posted 2,005 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by the_classicist

• 
  10

  Uh, kenneson, god's prophet, a question about earthquakes

  by Satanus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  you claimed that the next area god was going to attack was north west canada - http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/98878/1.ashx did god miss??

  or, did you miss???

  it seems that your god attacked pakistan, instead - http://english.aljazeera.net/nr/exeres/6d5759ac-ab0f-4e44-874e-3c342a530ca4.htm.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  What does God have against the Yukon? Or does he mean Southwest British Columbia?... Of course, an earthquake here is a given.
• 
  369

  Why naturalism is irrational

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  irrational naturalism (#201) .

  by henry morris, ph.d. .

  abstract .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  Depends on your interpretation. I've heard devout Muslims insist the Qu'ran doesn't allow for the type of Jihad terrorism we've seen in the past 20 years or so. They insist the Qu'ran is a book of peace.

  Just like the Bible, eh?
• 
  32

  For all you bad spellers out there.

  by stevenyc in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  get google toolbar!

  it comes with a spellcheck.

  type out anything on the web, hit the button, and hey presto!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  Srry. I'n going to go 2 the stoor for a dickshonary.
• 
  14

  Women sperm

  by peacefulpete in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  it was believed by many ancients that women had sperm emissions at orgasm.

  (alcmaeon (about 500 b.c.

  ) believed the sex of a child was determined by whose semen was most abundant.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  It's technically not sperm, as the woman has no... sperm, but it is very similar in composition to sperm-less ejaculatory fluid. (What do you know, sex education pays off).
• 
  26

  MYTHICAL CREATURES IN ANCIENT TIMES

  by Mary in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  did dragons and the phoenix really exist or were they just mythical creatures?

  the dragon is of course, mentioned in revelation and is symbolic, but it's mentioned so often in other old writings, that i'm not sure if they just went extinct or what.

  i was reading 1 clements earlier (written around 95 ce) and it specifically mentions the phoenix as living in arabia (below)

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  Tacitus, in Annals 6.28:

  "During the consulship of Paulus Fabius and Lucius Vitellius, the bird called the phoenix, after a long succession of ages, appeared in Egypt and furnished the most learned men of that country and of Greece with abundant matter for the discussion of the marvellous phenomenon. It is my wish to make known all on which they agree with several things, questionable enough indeed, but not too absurd to be noticed.
  
  That it is a creature sacred to the sun, differing from all other birds in its beak and in the tints of its plumage, is held unanimously by those who have described its nature. As to the number of years it lives, there are various accounts. The general tradition says five hundred years. Some maintain that it is seen at intervals of fourteen hundred and sixty-one years, and that the former birds flew into the city called Heliopolis successively in the reigns of Sesostris, Amasis, and Ptolemy, the third king of the Macedonian dynasty, with a multitude of companion birds marvelling at the novelty of the appearance. But all antiquity is of course obscure. From Ptolemy to Tiberius was a period of less than five hundred years. Consequently some have supposed that this was a spurious phoenix, not from the regions of Arabia, and with none of the instincts which ancient tradition has attributed to the bird. For when the number of years is completed and death is near, the phoenix, it is said, builds a nest in the land of its birth and infuses into it a germ of life from which an offspring arises, whose first care, when fledged, is to bury its father. This is not rashly done, but taking up a load of myrrh and having tried its strength by a long flight, as soon as it is equal to the burden and to the journey, it carries its father's body, bears it to the altar of the Sun, and leaves it to the flames. All this is full of doubt and legendary exaggeration. Still, there is no question that the bird is occasionally seen in Egypt."
• 
  369

  Why naturalism is irrational

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  irrational naturalism (#201) .

  by henry morris, ph.d. .

  abstract .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  the_classicist:

  You apparently haven't been following the whole thread. Where have I written anything that would make you think I believe God cannot impact physical reality?

  I don't remember writing anything to that effect. Did I? If so, I apologize. Or were you adressing me as though you know my beliefs already? I am not "religion in general" nor am I "most people." I am an individual. If you're going to try to argue against my beliefs, you could at least do me the courtesy of arguing against my beliefs.

  But, if you'd rather just have a conversation with yourself that reinforces your stereotypical and prejudicial view of believers, knock yourself out. Sheez! You guys don't even see how pompous and egocentric you come across! You tell me you can't falsify my belief, but then you presume to tell me that my belief is meaningless? You don't see a sharp disconnect there?

  Really, you aren't understanding the metaphysical complexity of my argument. I said that the existence of God is meaningless for humans because humans perceive external existence by sensation, which is the only means to do so (unlesss you can think of another, which you can't). Now since God is totally unsensible, his existence or non-existence is completely meaningless as it is impossible to determine it to be so.

  The fact that you may think that God can impact physical reality is also meaningless; logically, how can a supposedly transcendent mental agent have anything to do with the physical world.
• 
  369

  Why naturalism is irrational

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  irrational naturalism (#201) .

  by henry morris, ph.d. .

  abstract .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  E.g. your not having skinny-dipped in my grandmother's pond does not mean the experience has never been had by anyone. You have never seen my grandmother's pond, therefore you would be well within your rights to disagree that she has a pond, or even that I have a living grandmother. That doesn't make the experience I have had any less real.

  I really be expected to provide all the examples of experiences you haven't had, of course. As with any human, their number far outweighs the number of experiences you have had.

  Your conclusions stretch too far when you assert that your lack of sensational experiences automatically means no one has experienced what you have not experienced. You can speak to the lack of importance of God in your life. But you can't really expect to speak for everyone, it would seem presumptuous.

  Again, if God is a mental agent or a "pure spirit," it follows that man cannot ever know the existence of God since existence is only perceivable or knowable by sensation. It also follows that the existence of God is completely meanings, for man can never perceive the existence of an unsensible being.
• 
  369

  Why naturalism is irrational

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  irrational naturalism (#201) .

  by henry morris, ph.d. .

  abstract .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  Actually, per your post and adhering to Lockean logic it follows that you have no reason whatsoever to believe in God. You cross the line of Lockean logic when you impose your perspective arrived at by your individual experiences on anyone extant from yourself. Is "extant" too arcane now? Edit that to read, "on anyone outside or standing apart from yourself."

  
  

  
  (n.b., technically, it's called Lockean epistemology). First of all, unless you have perceived the existence of God through sensation, which is the ONLY way of knowing whether or not something exists you are not justified in your belief that God exists (unless you can think of any other way of perceiving existence which I cannot).

  You likewise have no reason whatsoever to believe someone who claim they HAVE had such an experience, since you haven't.

  What sort of experience?

  But I digress, since the only way of perceiving existence is by sensation and since God is held by most to be an unsensible mental agent, it follows that the existence of God is not unfalsifiable, but completely meaningless with respect to human beings.
• 
  369

  Why naturalism is irrational

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  irrational naturalism (#201) .

  by henry morris, ph.d. .

  abstract .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  I believe in the spirit realm. QED, your belief is that I am deluded. Let's not mince words, shall we? That is why I stressed what the word delusion means. Because if it is a fact that if you cannot falsify my belief, I am not deluded.

  From the Lockean sense of human knowledge, all knowledge comes in through either sensation (through the sense) or through advention; innate ideas do not exist.

  Since God has not directly shown himself in whatever form it may be to me, I must conclude that my idea of God is received through mine or someone else's advention. It follows that we have no reason whatsoever to believe in God.
• 
  17

  "We are here to make this earth a better place."

  by onacruse in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  why?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  The truly great are here to conquer and divide.