Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: jerrygg38 on 26/04/2020 23:11:09
-
Naked 4.26.2020 7pm
What is the value of life?
I live on 3 acres of land in the Sand hills NC among the pine trees. My older daughter insisted that we have some chickens. They live and run around the land. At night they fly and jump up into the trees. They have children but at various times some predator eats some of them. A week ago UI had a rooster and two chickens. Then one chicken was gone. Today I found a pile of feathers. She was eaten.
The chickens are like pets. I feed them and they hide their eggs. My dog gets along with them. My inner yard is only about one quarter acre and they are pretty safe. Yet they go into the larger yard which is also fenced but not as good.
We are like the chickens. When we are young someone takes care of us. Later we take care of others. What is the value of our life? We eat and are eaten. The virus is killing so many of us. This causes many to wonder the meaning of their lives. Who benefits from our existence? We do not. People imagine that somehow lowly we will have eternal life just by believing in a religious path. Some will go to hell and others to paradise. Some benefit so that others suffer. What a cruel God would do such things.
So the philosophers ponder a creator God who would do such horrible things. The poor chicken is killed and no longer suffers. The monster God cares more for the chicken than man. Fortunately we do not have a monster God. Our God is innocent of the creation. The only thing that our God is guilty of is perfecting us. Since our God is just a higher level of ourselves, we are guilty of producing our God.
Man has a desire to live. Man wants to continue to live as long as possible. Each of us is one little link on the chain of life of man. We live and die and the self is gone. Some of us are erased and some of us are absorbed by our Gods. God eats us spiritually.
The chicken is eaten and man is eaten. We have value to our fellow man and value to our Gods. Some of us hope for individual salvation. They hope to continue to exist. There is no value in this One life is quite enough. The only possible reward is being part of the collective life upon a future Earth of higher man. Hopefully we will be vegetarians and the chicken will not be eaten as well.
-
One of Steinbeck's memorable quotes is from Lee Chong, the grocer in Cannery Row
"When a man celebrates, a chicken dies."
Or as my aunt Dorothy said during a celebration
"If it wasn't for Jewish weddings, the country would be overrun with chickens"
Apparently the domestic chicken is now the most populous warmblooded creature on the planet. Though it isn't quite the dominant species: more people dedicate more time and effort to the welfare of grasses than of any other living thing. And when the virus has killed us all, the grass will still be there, with free range chickens eating whatever lives between the blades.
-
To Alancalverd
GG: Nice thoughts. We eat about 6 chickens per week or over 300 per years. So I take care of a few and try to give them a good life. The chicken hawks circle over head but they do not attack. I guess they only eat baby chickens. Probably more mice. My chickens do eat many bugs and hopefully some ticks. The rooster is constantly grabbing the chicken for sex. She is always running away from him but he often grabs her. Anyway he is a happy rooster.
-
4.Keep it science
Except for the chat section, this forum is for the discussion of science.
A permanent rules give us permission not to discuss science on "Chat" if I understand it.
Does anyone believe that love exists and if so, how would you prove it using science?
I don't know how to start a new thread or I would have asked this question in that fashion.
Asking about the meaning of life as the OP has, I believe love is the answer. But, how can love be proven to exist, scientifically, if indeed there is such a thing as love? I believe most of us wouldn't hesitate to say most emphatically that love is real, it exists, for sure! But, what does science have to say about it? Can science observe it, measure it, predict it, value it, define it?
-
Naked 4.26.2020 7pm
What is the value of life?
I live on 3 acres of land in the Sand hills NC among the pine trees. My older daughter insisted that we have some chickens. They live and run around the land. At night they fly and jump up into the trees.
It is practically impossible to wake up chickens at night when they are asleep.
Provide them with secure shelter for the nighttime where they cannot be attacked by predators. When they are young, they can be trained very easily to use it for sleeping. They will automatically enter it as it darkens outside. You will lose far fewer this way.
-
Interesting thought. Domestic chickens aren't all that different, intellectually at least, from their forest-dwelling ancestors, which is why they roost on a perch. AFAIK God doesn't provide enclosed coops for wild birds, so roosting in trees is what they evolved to do.
The question is whether they would be safer dispersed in a tree or huddled together in a coop. We know that if a fox or other carnivorous mammal gets into a henhouse it will slaughter everything in sight, but foxes can't climb trees and even a cat would be unlikely to catch more than one chicken if it did so.
My guess is that if the tree is near the middle of a sufficiently large property, it's the best solution. We're just about to acquire some chooks but although their pen will be under the trees, they are all on the boundary line so half the chickens will probably end up in the road!
-
Naked 5.1.2020 5 pm
duffyD asks: Does anyone believe that love exists and if so, how would you prove it using science?
I don't know how to start a new thread or I would have asked this question in that fashion.
Asking about the meaning of life as the OP has, I believe love is the answer. But, how can love be proven to exist, scientifically, if indeed there is such a thing as love? I believe most of us wouldn't hesitate to say most emphatically that love is real, it exists, for sure! But, what does science have to say about it? Can science observe it, measure it, predict it, value it, define it?
GG: Love is spiritual. We have both a physical mind and a spiritual mind. A boy meets a girl and they are physically attracted to each other. They embrace and there is a spiritual connection. This causes a feedback effect. The boy is physically attracted to the girl physically. At the same time the spiritual connection develops. They go crazy after each other. They are in love. It is a helpless feeling. All you want to do is be with the other person.
Often the intense spiritual attraction fades in time. Then the physical person wonders why he or she is involved with the other person.
The best love is a loving friendship. The physical person is somewhat attracted to the other person. Spiritually they are not that passionate toward each other. Over time a spiritual friendship develops. They marry and have children and stay together for life. You can divorce a lover when the love fades but a friend is a friend forever. I married my friend and we are still together after 55 years.
-
To Alancalverd;
When the chickens were young they went into the little hen house at night. It was a struggle getting them in. They they got big and went up the trees. They are happy there. There is danger for sure but for the most part they are killed in the daytime. The fish in the seas do not want to be in a fish tank. The lions do not want to be in a zoo. I provide wooden bars to help the chickens up their favorite tree. I tried to build a tree house for them. They hated it. They get along with my dog and he protects them some of the time.
-
GG: "Love is spiritual. We have both a physical mind and a spiritual mind. A boy meets a girl and they are physically attracted to each other. They embrace and there is a spiritual connection. This causes a feedback effect. The boy is physically attracted to the girl physically. At the same time the spiritual connection develops. They go crazy after each other. They are in love. It is a helpless feeling. All you want to do is be with the other person.
Often the intense spiritual attraction fades in time. Then the physical person wonders why he or she is involved with the other person.
The best love is a loving friendship. The physical person is somewhat attracted to the other person. Spiritually they are not that passionate toward each other. Over time a spiritual friendship develops. They marry and have children and stay together for life. You can divorce a lover when the love fades but a friend is a friend forever. I married my friend and we are still together after 55 years."
I hear you. IOW, there are different kinds of love. At least I think that's what you are saying and I agree with you.
But, how can science prove love exists? Which tools does science bring to the table proving that what you've described is love?
-
Duffyd asks
I hear you. IOW, there are different kinds of love. At least I think that's what you are saying and I agree with you.
But, how can science prove love exists? Which tools does science bring to the table proving that what you've described is love?
GG: This is for future science. Our particles spend most of the time in the light speed Co dimension. they spend some of the time in the Cs dimension.As they speed up to light speed Co, they spend more additional time in the Cs dimension. As we advance we will produce Cs detectors. This will enable us to looking into our spiritual minds. Then we will detect the effects when people fall in love. In we will be able to detect if someone is innocent or guilty of a crime.
-
Duffyd asks
I hear you. IOW, there are different kinds of love. At least I think that's what you are saying and I agree with you.
But, how can science prove love exists? Which tools does science bring to the table proving that what you've described is love?
GG: This is for future science. Our particles spend most of the time in the light speed Co dimension. they spend some of the time in the Cs dimension.As they speed up to light speed Co, they spend more additional time in the Cs dimension. As we advance we will produce Cs detectors. This will enable us to looking into our spiritual minds. Then we will detect the effects when people fall in love. In we will be able to detect if someone is innocent or guilty of a crime.
Fascinating. Science has no way of proving love exists, even though you know it does because you have experienced it.
Thanks
Anyone else?
-
I'm a bit surprised. I was hoping that those who demand to see scientific evidence to establish GOD's reality would want to defend their faith.
What this proves is that "scientific evidence" as they define it means nothing to them. They rely upon "evidence" in order to reject GOD.
Batting 1,000! Still. Ty Cobb, Mickey, you boys better be scared
-
Duffyd asks
I hear you. IOW, there are different kinds of love. At least I think that's what you are saying and I agree with you.
But, how can science prove love exists? Which tools does science bring to the table proving that what you've described is love?
GG: This is for future science. Our particles spend most of the time in the light speed Co dimension. they spend some of the time in the Cs dimension.As they speed up to light speed Co, they spend more additional time in the Cs dimension. As we advance we will produce Cs detectors. This will enable us to looking into our spiritual minds. Then we will detect the effects when people fall in love. In we will be able to detect if someone is innocent or guilty of a crime.
That's what I think. My wife knows when I'm guilty before I commit the deed.
-
Love, a definition:
Love is patient,
love is kind.
It does not envy,
it does not boast,
it is not proud.
It does not dishonor others,
it is not self-seeking,
it is not easily angered,
it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are
tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
-
Always enjoyed this line from I Anderson in a piece he did about relationships:
"And it's only the giving that makes you what you are."
When our nation finds itself overcome with grief and sadness and we are perplexed and fearful, the media, I've noticed, suddenly features human interest stories that exalt the kindness Americans show one another. When we feel rich and strong, needing nothing, we are bombarded with accounts of the cruelty we show each other.
-
If you put any value on human life then it becomes a commodity to be used up. Human life is beyond any value you can put on it. This doesn't make it valueless. It makes it irreplaceable.
-
DuffyD said:One proof some use to deny GOD is goes like this: Ancient people believed that thunder was God expressing His anger. Since we discovered electricity, we know that isn't true. Therefore, when Christians claim that GOD created the universe, they do what the idiots back in the day did. They-the Christians- believe in nonsense, too. Someday, we are assured, science will explain creation.
GG: I never needed any proof of God. When I was a child God was always there for me. I would speak and God would answer me. As I grew older I met many people who said God spoke to them. I accepted that as true. Yet they did not argue with God. They merely accepted the encounters as proof of their religious beliefs. They did not ask God how God came to exist. They did not ask God to solve complex problems for them.
Thunder and lightning are interesting. Can God control lightning? Alternatively can God control our minds so that we think he controls lightning? Did Jesus really walk on water or did God make the Gospel writers believe that it happened?
So I ask my God for confirmation in lightning strikes. During a storm I point to a spot in the sky and demand lightning at that point. It happens. Over and over again I do the same thing and it works most of the time. I go faster and faster and I get some failures. Then my God said “The next one is on you”. So I run into the house and hide in a closet until the storm is over. Did God control the lightning or die God control my mind so that I believed that God controlled the lightning?
One night I was trying to solve the Rubik cube to no avail. In desperation I called upon my God for help. My mind went blank and my fingers moved. In about 5 seconds the cube was solved.
Anyway my God said “I evolved”. My God was created by the universe and not the other way around.
-
If you put any value on human life then it becomes a commodity to be used up. Human life is beyond any value you can put on it. This doesn't make it valueless. It makes it irreplaceable.
Go watch "Shadowlands". Right now. You'll be glad if you do.
-
So I ask my God for confirmation in lightning strikes. During a storm I point to a spot in the sky and demand lightning at that point. It happens. Over and over again I do the same thing and it works most of the time. I
Can I give you my wife's work address?
-
If you put any value on human life then it becomes a commodity to be used up. Human life is beyond any value you can put on it. This doesn't make it valueless. It makes it irreplaceable.
Go watch "Shadowlands". Right now. You'll be glad if you do.
Shadowlands is an excellent film, but Brian Sibley’s book is better. Worth reading his biography of Lewis.
However, you haven’t made a specific point regarding @jeffreyH post.
-
Duffyd asks
But, how can science prove love exists? Which tools does science bring to the table proving that what you've described is love?
GG: This is for future science. ....
Sorry jerry, you are way behind the times, as well as moving off topic.
The science of love has been studied and includes not just hormone measurements but MRI, bodily reactions etc
There is a summary on the Harvard site http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/love-actually-science-behind-lust-attraction-companionship/
-
Love, a definition:
Love is patient,
love is kind.
It does not envy,
it does not boast,
it is not proud.
It does not dishonor others,
it is not self-seeking,
it is not easily angered,
it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are
tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
Love might be all that, but science can't even prove it exists.
-
Why would anyone believe in love if science can't prove that it even exists, let alone place a value on it? Out of 7 billion people I would bet almost everyone who is old enough to have an opinion would argue emphatically that they know without a doubt that love is real. I would go further and expect almost all 7 billion would say love is extremely important.
-
Good point
-
Why would anyone believe in love if science can't prove that it even exists,
So you have decided to ignore the Harvard site? Because it does not support your idea?
The research shows that when people say they are in love, there are measurable physical changes in the brain and body which show they are not making it up. Those emotions are real.
Are you denying that those physical changes take place?
Good point
No, rubbish point
-
Why would anyone believe in love if science can't prove that it even exists,
So you have decided to ignore the Harvard site? Because it does not support your idea?
The research shows that when people say they are in love, there are measurable physical changes in the brain and body which show they are not making it up. Those emotions are real.
Are you denying that those physical changes take place?
Good point
No, rubbish point
Thanks for sharing that information. Born from above Christians have exactly the same physical responses.
-
, but science can't even prove it exists.
Liar.
You were just told (by Colin) that science can show that love exists.
Why would anyone believe in love if science can't prove that it even exists
Doubly wrong.
Science can show that love exists.
You were already told that.
But that's not really relevant for two reasons.
People believed things before "science" was a thing.
And, people know that love exists because (unlike God) they have personally experienced it.
I's not so much that it isn't a "good" point.
It's not actually a point at all.
-
...Christians have exactly the same physical responses.
Nobody is denying the experience.
People fall in love with soap opera characters.
Something does not need to be real to be loved.
-
I was aware of the studies that show an increase in the flow of neurotransmitters in the brains of those who are in love.
It doesn't prove that GOD is. It proves Christians are experiencing real emotions. There are many proofs that GOD is.
-
DuffyD asks: Can I give you my wife's work address?
GG: For what purpose? Do you want an autographed copy of my book? Are you in the USA?
-
DuffyD asks: Can I give you my wife's work address?
GG: For what purpose? Do you want an autographed copy of my book? Are you in the USA?
You said you were getting pretty darn good at controlling lightning strikes. I thought if you weren't too busy, you might pop by her place of employment and work a little magic and zap her building and its contents into 24 trillions bits. Just kidding.
-
DuffyD said:You said you were getting pretty darn good at controlling lightning strikes. I thought if you weren't too busy, you might pop by her place of employment and work a little magic and zap her building and its contents into 24 trillions bits. Just kidding.
GG: That was in 1981. I have no ability on my own. God has the ability to control my mind and I suspect that my lightning experiment was more mind control than reality.I tried to get the spirit to lift a chair in my basement. It would not. Thus God could not readily lift a chair however excessive spiritual energy would destroy an object. The body of Jesus was most likely destroyed by spiritual radiation which also move the rock.
As a child I always demanded small miracles as verification of the words and dreams. In the country for vacation I saw an interesting rabbit one day. I asked to see the same rabbit the next day at the same location. This happened for sure but the rabbit was dead. God killed it. Why? It seems that God did not want to always confirm his message in small miracles.
-
DuffyD said:You said you were getting pretty darn good at controlling lightning strikes. I thought if you weren't too busy, you might pop by her place of employment and work a little magic and zap her building and its contents into 24 trillions bits. Just kidding.
GG: That was in 1981. I have no ability on my own. God has the ability to control my mind and I suspect that my lightning experiment was more mind control than reality.I tried to get the spirit to lift a chair in my basement. It would not. Thus God could not readily lift a chair however excessive spiritual energy would destroy an object. The body of Jesus was most likely destroyed by spiritual radiation which also move the rock.
As a child I always demanded small miracles as verification of the words and dreams. In the country for vacation I saw an interesting rabbit one day. I asked to see the same rabbit the next day at the same location. This happened for sure but the rabbit was dead. God killed it. Why? It seems that God did not want to always confirm his message in small miracles.
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
-
DuffyD says:Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
GG: Unfortunately many religions treat God as an idol. You speak of a God that is an idol. The Jews such as myself speak of God as a partnership. We do something for God and God does something for us. We fight with God. You want to be obedient to the spirit of God. What will that do for you? All you will get is five minutes our time as you are absorbed by the light of your son of God. Then you are gone forever. The Father God will judge all the sons of God and cleanse them. Most faithful Christians will be cleansed and take no part in the world to come. Some will but those who achieve the new Earth of Isaiah will only be a little part of everyone else.
The Muslims get their share. So do the Hindus and the Chinese. The Hopi Indians will have a big share as compared to their small numbers. God asks a lot and gives very little to the individual. Yet that is best.
-
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
I don't believe in religion. Do you know who said what I quoted above? The God I speak of is an idol? How so?
-
Duffyd asks
But, how can science prove love exists? Which tools does science bring to the table proving that what you've described is love?
GG: This is for future science. ....
Sorry jerry, you are way behind the times, as well as moving off topic.
The science of love has been studied and includes not just hormone measurements but MRI, bodily reactions etc
There is a summary on the Harvard site http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/love-actually-science-behind-lust-attraction-companionship/
Then, Colin asks me if I'm ignoring the Harvard site. "So you have decided to ignore the Harvard site? Because it does not support your idea?"
Colin didn't mention the Harvard site to me. He mentioned it to GG.
-
Then, Colin asks me if I'm ignoring the Harvard site. "So you have decided to ignore the Harvard site? Because it does not support your idea?"
Colin didn't mention the Harvard site to me. He mentioned it to GG.
The reply was published in a public thread you were following.
However, the question is still valid as you also said
I was aware of the studies that show an increase in the flow of neurotransmitters in the brains of those who are in love.
So your earlier statements were deliberately misleading as suggested by BC
, but science can't even prove it exists.
Liar.
You were just told (by Colin) that science can show that love exists.
Why would anyone believe in love if science can't prove that it even exists
Doubly wrong.
Science can show that love exists.
You were already told that.
Why do you deliberately mislead people. You are denying Christ when you do that; Peter did it 3 times, how many times will you do it?
-
Then, Colin asks me if I'm ignoring the Harvard site. "So you have decided to ignore the Harvard site? Because it does not support your idea?"
Colin didn't mention the Harvard site to me. He mentioned it to GG.
The reply was published in a public thread you were following.
However, the question is still valid as you also said
I was aware of the studies that show an increase in the flow of neurotransmitters in the brains of those who are in love.
So your earlier statements were deliberately misleading as suggested by BC
, but science can't even prove it exists.
Liar.
You were just told (by Colin) that science can show that love exists.
Why would anyone believe in love if science can't prove that it even exists
Doubly wrong.
Science can show that love exists.
You were already told that.
Why do you deliberately mislead people. You are denying Christ when you do that; Peter did it 3 times, how many times will you do it?
Get your story straight. Troll someone else. Don't call me a liar again or I will report you to the powers that be. Don't expect replies in the future.
-
I don't respond to trolls and baiters. I will report them to the authorities from now on.
-
Don't call me a liar again or I will report you to the powers that be. Don't expect replies in the future.
I will call you what you are and you consistently misrepresent the truth. I haven’t called you a liar because, like Alan, I am not certain you have the reasoning ability to understand how you are misrepresenting the truth.
I have never expected any intelligent replies from you, based on your previous posts. They lack an understanding of logic snd verbal reasoning.
PS I will repeat my previous warning not to evangelise in your posts, it’s against the rules.
-
Don't call me a liar again or I will report you to the powers that be. Don't expect replies in the future.
I will call you what you are and you consistently misrepresent the truth. I haven’t called you a liar because, like Alan, I am not certain you have the reasoning ability to understand how you are misrepresenting the truth.
I have never expected any intelligent replies from you, based on your previous posts. They lack an understanding of logic snd verbal reasoning.
PS I will repeat my previous warning not to evangelise in your posts, it’s against the rules.
This and your other disrespectful comments are going straight to the top. I warned you.
Off topic. Shall I call you what you are? That would be off topic.
"I have never expected any intelligent replies from you, based on your previous posts. They lack an understanding of logic snd verbal reasoning." colin
Then why ask me to respond? Why direct comments to me? Troll. Liar.
-
The Naked ScientistsToggle navigation
What is the value of life?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Go Down
What is the value of life?
40 Replies537 Views 0 Tags
duffyd and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
Online duffyd
Re: What is the value of life?
« Reply #40 on: Today at 12:09:42 »
Quote from: Colin2B on Today at 10:47:32
Quote from: duffyd on Today at 09:51:43
Don't call me a liar again or I will report you to the powers that be. Don't expect replies in the future.
I will call you what you are and you consistently misrepresent the truth. I haven’t called you a liar because, like Alan, I am not certain you have the reasoning ability to understand how you are misrepresenting the truth.
I have never expected any intelligent replies from you, based on your previous posts. They lack an understanding of logic snd verbal reasoning.
PS I will repeat my previous warning not to evangelise in your posts, it’s against the rules.
This and your other disrespectful comments are going straight to the top. I warned you.
Off topic. Shall I call you what you are? That would be off topic.
"I have never expected any intelligent replies from you, based on your previous posts. They lack an understanding of logic snd verbal reasoning." colin
Then why ask me to respond? Why direct comments to me? Troll. Liar.
Modify message
« Last Edit: Today at 12:13:15 by duffyd »
Report to moderator 67.214.29.86
Pages: 1 2 [3] Go Up
« previous next »
Tags: Be the first to tag this topic!
Jump to:
+ Quick Reply
SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
SMFAds for Free Forums
Naked Science Forum ©
Page created in 0.05 seconds with 32 queries.
Podcasts
Articles
Get Naked
About
Contact us
Advertise
Privacy Policy
Subscribe to newsletter
We love feedback
Follow us
©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.
I have copied entire pages in which you and others have disrespected me.
Straight to Chris.
-
Why do you deliberately mislead people.
Why do you deliberately mislead people. colin
guess what they call that?
you didn't call me a liar? Liar.
Chris will see that you are a confirmed liar.
-
Duffyd asks
But, how can science prove love exists? Which tools does science bring to the table proving that what you've described is love?
GG: This is for future science. ....
Sorry jerry, you are way behind the times, as well as moving off topic.
The science of love has been studied and includes not just hormone measurements but MRI, bodily reactions etc
There is a summary on the Harvard site http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/love-actually-science-behind-lust-attraction-companionship/
Would you care to see all the pages? Bored is guilty of the same lies, harassments, trolling, disrespect, off topic comments, mocking, insulting, just as others are. Got it in black and white.
Deliberate lies and distortions about religions aren't allowed either.
I am emailing the whole batch to Chris. You and your fellow trolls must be banned according to the rules
-
Why do you deliberately mislead people.
Why do you deliberately mislead people. colin
guess what they call that?
you didn't call me a liar? Liar.
Chris will see that you are a confirmed liar.
Reported
-
Why do you deliberately mislead people. colin
I don’t, that seems to be a role you have taken upon yourself.
Chris will see that you are a confirmed liar.
That sounds a bit like “please Miss, Colin is pointing out where I was economical with the truth (again)”
-
Why do you deliberately mislead people. colin
I don’t, that seems to be a role you have taken upon yourself.
Chris will see that you are a confirmed liar.
That sounds a bit like “please Miss, Colin is pointing out where I was economical with the truth (again)”
He asked to see more. I will send this to him right now, too.
In fact, he asked for urls. Sent
-
You and your fellow trolls must be banned according to the rules
I don’t think you understand what trolls are. It certainly is not a group people questioning your so called facts.
-
You and your fellow trolls must be banned according to the rules
I don’t think you understand what trolls are. It certainly is not a group people questioning your so called facts.
I am sending this example of your off-topic trolling to Chris. I will send him each and every subsequent comment of yours that meets the definition of disrespectful. I will not respond to you again. I don't respond to disrespectful trolls who accuse me of lying. I told bored the same thing some time ago and I haven't responded to him since then, which was many comments ago. I told Chris about this, too. I told him that you said I deliberately mislead people and that you also said you never called me a liar. You are on notice.
"Don't call me a liar again or I will report you to the powers that be."
"Why do you deliberately mislead people." colin
"I haven’t called you a liar" colin
-
You and your fellow trolls must be banned according to the rules
I don’t think you understand what trolls are. It certainly is not a group people questioning your so called facts.
I am sending this example of your off-topic trolling to Chris.
This is not off topic as you raised the topic of trolls, which I answered.
I am not aware of using the word ‘liar’, although you have used the word against me when I pointed out you were misquoting.
Consider the following:
If science was hip, it would offer evidence to back up its claim that GOD doesn't exist, I would think.
Science does not claim that any god doesn’t exist, just that there is no scientific evidence for it.
Why do you insist on misquoting all the time, that’s bad witness and denying Jesus.
Alan and BoredC have made their position clear, they do not see any evidence that a god exists.
You have made your position clear, that you believe there is a god, but you have failed to provide any scientific evidence.
Belief and emotional feelings do not provide proof of something’s existence.
I don't. You exaggerate and lie.
You stated very clearly that science claims God does not exist. This is not true and you misquoted science. Some individual scientists will claim there is no god just as some individual scientists will claim he does, but neither side ever offers proof, just personal convictions.
Consider also:
Observe the hatred that pours out of people for HIM.
OK, just show a sentence from anyone here that shows hatred of either version of "Him".
This is something you have failed to do.
It is possible you misunderstand Alan’s comments about religion. It is not Jesus he hates, it is all the examples of where religion and the name of Jesus are misused to control, kill and despise others who have a different (often slightly different) interpretation of scripture. No one here has said they hate Jesus.
Misquoting and making false accusations are examples of bearing false witness and thus denying Christ. You might not like it being pointed out to you and you may wish to hide you head in the sand and ignore it, but it remain here on record.
-
Colin: I see little point in arguing with this hysterical apologist. There being no bounds to irrationality, he is bound to think he has won, whatever the outcome.
If you ever wrestle a pig in mud, you will realise after an hour or so that pigs enjoy it.
-
This, too, is being reported straight to Chris. He asked for urls, and he will receive this one and individual comments as well.
-
Colin: I see little point in arguing with this hysterical apologist. There being no bounds to irrationality, he is bound to think he has won, whatever the outcome.
If you ever wrestle a pig in mud, you will realise after an hour or so that pigs enjoy it.
Straight to Chris.
-
Moderators, are you aware of these disrespectful comments? I send them straight to Chris.
-
If you ever wrestle a pig in mud, you will realise after an hour or so that pigs enjoy it.
I must say, you have some really odd hobbies!
Point taken however.
-
I started with the chickens and the topic changed into conflicts. Yesterday my last hen by the name of Dorothy was eaten. Only a pile of feathers was left. Tom the rooster has been crying for her. I feel so sad for him. His mate is gone and now he is alone.
75,000 have died of the coronavirus so far. It most likely will go to 200,000 before medicines are developed. Yet they are only numbers. I worry about my family and loved ones but I do not suffer any pain for all those who have suffered such a great loss. Yesterday I saw a Mexican woman begging for money at Walmart. I wanted to give her $20 but my daughter objected so I walked up to her and gave her $10. My daughter said she did not feel any pain for the woman and small child. Yet I did and so did some others.
So you see a person in need and feel for them but 75,000 dead doesn't cause pain. Yet Tom is sad and I feel sad for him. He is a pet but you cannot pet him. He runs away. The president doesn't care about the 75,000 he only cares about the stock market. It is just numbers. Yet he loves the money numbers and not the people dead numbers.
-
If you ever wrestle a pig in mud, you will realise after an hour or so that pigs enjoy it.
I must say, you have some really odd hobbies!
Point taken however.
Isn't this lovely?
-
I started with the chickens and the topic changed into conflicts. Yesterday my last hen by the name of Dorothy was eaten. Only a pile of feathers was left. Tom the rooster has been crying for her. I feel so sad for him. His mate is gone and now he is alone.
75,000 have died of the coronavirus so far. It most likely will go to 200,000 before medicines are developed. Yet they are only numbers. I worry about my family and loved ones but I do not suffer any pain for all those who have suffered such a great loss. Yesterday I saw a Mexican woman begging for money at Walmart. I wanted to give her $20 but my daughter objected so I walked up to her and gave her $10. My daughter said she did not feel any pain for the woman and small child. Yet I did and so did some others.
So you see a person in need and feel for them but 75,000 dead doesn't cause pain. Yet Tom is sad and I feel sad for him. He is a pet but you cannot pet him. He runs away. The president doesn't care about the 75,000 he only cares about the stock market. It is just numbers. Yet he loves the money numbers and not the people dead numbers.
That is Christianity in a word. Giving of yourself, your means, to help someone in need. Bless you
-
DuffyD says:That is Christianity in a word. Giving of yourself, your means, to help someone in need. Bless you
GG: Thanks. You feel for things. Feelings verses logic and reasoning are always in conflict. Two sides of us. To believe or not to believe. To see what others cannot see. The believer thinks Jesus is something. The non-believer thinks he is nothing. I look at all the religions of man and see that they all have truth in them. The spirit inside us seeks the spirit from which it came. I preach no particular religion. They all seek the Father God, the spirit of the Earth itself.
-
That is Christianity in a word.
It is 234 words.
"Christianity" is christianity in one word.
Incidentally, Tom the rooster isn't mourning, he is calling out for a replacement.
-
Bored Chemist says: Incidentally, Tom the rooster isn't mourning, he is calling out for a replacement.
GG: Are you well versed in chicken psychology? Sounds good to me hope you are right. I am looking for another mate but only small chickens are available and the chicken hawks will eat them rapidly unless I cage them until they are larger.
-
DuffyD says:That is Christianity in a word. Giving of yourself, your means, to help someone in need. Bless you
GG: Thanks. You feel for things. Feelings verses logic and reasoning are always in conflict. Two sides of us. To believe or not to believe. To see what others cannot see. The believer thinks Jesus is something. The non-believer thinks he is nothing. I look at all the religions of man and see that they all have truth in them. The spirit inside us seeks the spirit from which it came. I preach no particular religion. They all seek the Father God, the spirit of the Earth itself.
Not really. I feel and I think. They do war at times but they can work together. I don't abandon reason for emotion or emotion for reason.
-
"I will call you what you are and you consistently misrepresent the truth. I haven’t called you a liar because, like Alan, I am not certain you have the reasoning ability to understand how you are misrepresenting the truth." colin
Colin said,
"Why do you deliberately mislead people.?" colin
Colin said he never called me a liar.
Guess what they call, "deliberately misleading people"?
and colin didn't call me a liar?
No! I'm too retarded to be called a LIAR, remember? I merely "deliberately mislead people" because I'm too stupid to lie. Remember? I could grow to like that rationale. "Hey, you idiot. I didn't lie. I can't lie. I don't know how to lie. Duh, see, I ain't too bright. Judge he did it and I ain't lying. Too dumb to know how." "Let him go. Innocent on all counts." Garsh, thanks you onor."
Please remove your insults. I have asked you to remove them before. Your lack of cooperation points to insincerity. There are many others that should be removed, too, so please do get rid of them. You removed comments I made and threatened to ban me.
-
Colin, do you know what a figure of speech is? Do you know what personification is? Hyperbole? Apply them to my comment that science says there is no God. You see, science can't talk. I was personifying science, making it or attaching to it human characteristics. It is not human. I'm dumb, but not that dumb. Then, I had science making a generalized statement. When I made science say it doesn't believe in God, I didn't mean literally that science became a human being. I was saying that as a personified entity, its statement that "science doesn't believe in God" I wasn't implying or stating as fact that every scientist, every scientific discovery, every bit of science, all of science in every field, doesn't believe in God. It was hyperbole. Do you know what that is? That's right. It's an exaggeration to make or stress a point. Hyperbole isn't to be taken literally. So, instead of accusing me of and condemning me for misrepresenting what science says, keep in mind those commonly used literary tools.
-
Your lack of cooperation points to insincerity.
Not as strongly as your dishonesty points to insincerity.
If you don't want to get called a liar, it's quite simple. Don't say things that are not true.
do you know what a figure of speech is?
Yes.
This
If you ever wrestle a pig in mud, you will realise after an hour or so that pigs enjoy it.