[Syclone538]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I'm thinking we are in agreement in the validity of that claim. People get stuff wrong. But even though the bible is flawed, is it still possible the christian god exists, but has been poorly described by man?

Yes.



.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

Yes.



.

Before anyone extrapolates too far on that, even if the bible was absolutely correct, no misspellings, and historical references were corroborated by unrelated disinterested third party texts, no contradictions, that doesn't prove that a christian god exists either. It's a choice people make to learn about and believe what they want. Choice is generally a good thing.

[G26S239]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

More accurately, finding even quite a few innacuracies in a text that was compiled by many men doesn't even prove the Christian god does not exist, let alone rule out theism.

And just because two blokes in the UK have shown how they made crop circles it doesn't mean that Romulans from the Alpha Centauri sector have not made some of the crop circles.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Let's not get hung up on this, but "disbelief" is a conscious act, while lacking belief is not.

If you don't want to get hung up on quibbling over that why bring it up? You have done a great job of getting the resident leftards to chase their tails over that one.

Back to the point. Have you noticed how often people use analogies, metaphors and stories (real, hypothetical and fictional) to get a point across or to teach a lesson. I've never looked at any old texts and expected them to be completely accurate. Not to mention that word of mouth generational story telling and translation issues were bound to change things over time. Even people that speak the same language from the same area have miscommunication. Add a little distance and it can even get funny. If a British lady asks you to come by her hotel room in the morning to knock her up, it might not mean what you first might think.

I read Charlotte's Web when I was 7 or 8. Even though I enjoyed reading the book it did not convince me that pigs and spiders talk to each other or that a spider is capable of mastering the alphabet to the point of deliberately making a web that spells out SOME PIG.

Tales of strange ladies lying in ponds distributing swords is not a valid basis for government IMO. YMMV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0

[G26S239]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I'm thinking we are in agreement in the validity of that claim. People get stuff wrong. But even though the bible is flawed, is it still possible the christian god exists, but has been poorly described by man?

Yes. It is also possible that Romulans from the Alpha Centauri Sector have been on earth making crop circles.

[Syclone538]

Even that peasant knew about the violence inherent in the system.

[Woofie]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I'm thinking we are in agreement in the validity of that claim. People get stuff wrong. But even though the bible is flawed, is it still possible the christian god exists, but has been poorly described by man?

At the risk of getting sucked into this argument I don't really care about . . . If the only extant "contemporary" text of the christian god is demonstrably in error, why should we continue to prop it up over other religious texts or a natural explanation?

[G26S239]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

Even that peasant knew about the violence inherent in the system.

That scene is classic.

[Woofie]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

You gave away the ending. Not sure it matters though, he either missed post 211, or just stopped responding when he seen where it was going.

Sorry. I made the mistake of replying to this thread about sixty-two pages back and am getting tired of seeing it show up in my reply list. I am eager to see it reach a conclusion where everyone shakes hand hands and says "Yep, that's the answer."

[Syclone538]

Originally Posted by Woofie

Sorry. I made the mistake of replying to this thread about sixty-two pages back and am getting tired of seeing it show up in my reply list. I am eager to see it reach a conclusion where everyone shakes hand hands and says "Yep, that's the answer."

I'm sure it's right around the corner. Just give us a couple more days and we will all agree on everything.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

I do, but that is completely unrelated to what I'm trying to show you.

So you're an anarchist? No rules... do what you want... buyer beware?

What if they practice medicine out of their house for cash only. They display the license that you have revoked, because they still have the piece of paper. They pay all taxes owed, but are extremely careful not to pay any extra so you can't get the money that way. They withdrew all their money before you froze their accounts, have cash on hand and do not need to borrow any. What do you do next?

Those kinds of people get caught often. You read about Plastic Surgeons operating out of apartments. There are laws that deal with that. I would imagine it involves jail time. Once identified and dealt with accordingly in our justice system, any remaining property could be seized to satisfy the debt.

[Syclone538]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

So you're an anarchist? No rules... do what you want... buyer beware?
...

No, I'm libertarian. There should be laws against murder, theft, rape, fraud, stuff like that.

Do not initiate force against someone else.

If you want to do something that doesn't hurt anyone else you should be free to do it.

Someone providing a good or service is voluntary, customers are free to do business with them, or not. Why bring the force of government into it?

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

...
Those kinds of people get caught often. You read about Plastic Surgeons operating out of apartments. There are laws that deal with that. I would imagine it involves jail time. Once identified and dealt with accordingly in our justice system, any remaining property could be seized to satisfy the debt.

And when he does not surrender to the cop you send to his house?

You really have to see where I'm going now, especially if you are reading comments from others on this exercise.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

No, I'm libertarian. There should be laws against murder, theft, rape, fraud, stuff like that.

Practicing medicine without a license IS fraud.

Do not initiate force against someone else.

And what if the person that commits fraud refuses to stop and refuses to submit to the justice system? You just tell them "Shame on you" and let'em go?

If you want to do something that doesn't hurt anyone else you should be free to do it.

Practicing medicine without a license can most certainly harm someone. It can kill them.

Someone providing a good or service is voluntary, customers are free to do business with them, or not. Why bring the force of government into it?

And if a person trusts a fraudulent medical practitioner because they talk a good game but really have no clue what they're doing? Then what? What happens when a person trusts an unlicensed medical practitioner and winds up with AIDS from unclean equipment? Or perhaps just loses a leg from gangrene from a botched surgical procedure? A mother takes her kid there because she can't afford the real hospital and the child dies from a misdiagnosis or improper treatment? You're way won't work my friend. People will take advantage of the lack or regulation and innocent people will get hurt or killed.

And when he does not surrender to the cop you send to his house?

You really have to see where I'm going now, especially if you are reading comments from others on this exercise.

Of course I do but what you are advocating is bordering on anarchy. It can't work. People are the problem. "As long as it isn't hurting anyone." That's shaky ground. What about a child molester and the kid willingly participates and isn't hurt? The kid even says "I wanted it and agreed." That ok in your "As long as nobody gets hurt" society? I'm not suggesting that's your position. I'm asking. If NO... why? No one got hurt.

If you respond and I don't get back to you soon don't think I'm ignoring you. I just have a lot going on on the weekends. I'll get back to it if you reply.

[Cavalry Doc]

[Woofie]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

Practicing medicine without a license IS fraud.



And what if the person that commits fraud refuses to stop and refuses to submit to the justice system? You just tell them "Shame on you" and let'em go?



Practicing medicine without a license can most certainly harm someone. It can kill them.



And if a person trusts a fraudulent medical practitioner because they talk a good game but really have no clue what they're doing? Then what? What happens when a person trusts an unlicensed medical practitioner and winds up with AIDS from unclean equipment? Or perhaps just loses a leg from gangrene from a botched surgical procedure? A mother takes her kid there because she can't afford the real hospital and the child dies from a misdiagnosis or improper treatment? You're way won't work my friend. People will take advantage of the lack or regulation and innocent people will get hurt or killed.




Of course I do but what you are advocating is bordering on anarchy. It can't work. People are the problem. "As long as it isn't hurting anyone." That's shaky ground. What about a child molester and the kid willingly participates and isn't hurt? The kid even says "I wanted it and agreed." That ok in your "As long as nobody gets hurt" society? I'm not suggesting that's your position. I'm asking. If NO... why? No one got hurt.

If you respond and I don't get back to you soon don't think I'm ignoring you. I just have a lot going on on the weekends. I'll get back to it if you reply.

Syclone was headed to Paris, France with this discussion, but you drove to Paris, Texas. Totally missing his point.

[hooligan74]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

If we can do it, couldn't someone else have done it on earth, in the beginning, on purpose? Still no magic needed.

Yep, that's why I consider myself an agnostic atheist. It's possible, but I have yet to see any evidence that it is MORE probable than the scenario that it happened through undesigned/unintended natural processes.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by hooligan74

Yep, that's why I consider myself an agnostic atheist. It's possible, but I have yet to see any evidence that it is MORE probable than the scenario that it happened through undesigned/unintended natural processes.

Slightly different labels, only a change in the noun and adjective, same words, and we would be in almost total agreement.

Close enough for all practical purposes.

[Syclone538]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

Practicing medicine without a license IS fraud.
...

You are right, my mistake. Lets say they display their license, with a sign next to it explaining that it has been revoked and why.

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

...
And what if the person that commits fraud refuses to stop and refuses to submit to the justice system? You just tell them "Shame on you" and let'em go?
...

I will answer this question, but only after you answer the question I've been trying to get you to answer.

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

...
Practicing medicine without a license can most certainly harm someone. It can kill them.
...

But it is a voluntary exchange. I said fraud should be illegal. If a patient wants to take a chance on medical care by someone less qualified, that is their choice.

I didn't take the time to fully explain this point, because I didn't know if it would be necessary.

Choosing business A over business B does harm business B, but that is not what I'm talking about. I mean directly harm, in a non-voluntary situation.

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

...
And if a person trusts a fraudulent medical practitioner because they talk a good game but really have no clue what they're doing?
...

I said fraud should be illegal.

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

...
Then what? What happens when a person trusts an unlicensed medical practitioner and winds up with AIDS from unclean equipment? Or perhaps just loses a leg from gangrene from a botched surgical procedure? A mother takes her kid there because she can't afford the real hospital and the child dies from a misdiagnosis or improper treatment?
...

In a free market, business that make these serious mistakes would fail very quickly.

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

...
You're way won't work my friend.
...

I disagree.

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

...
People will take advantage of the lack or regulation and innocent people will get hurt or killed.
...

Are you under the impression that regulation doesn't kill anyone?

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

...
Of course I do but what you are advocating is bordering on anarchy.
...

I know. I've said many times both here and in GTPI that I'm libertarian almost to the point of being anarchist.

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

...
It can't work. People are the problem. "As long as it isn't hurting anyone." That's shaky ground. What about a child molester and the kid willingly participates and isn't hurt? The kid even says "I wanted it and agreed." That ok in your "As long as nobody gets hurt" society? I'm not suggesting that's your position. I'm asking. If NO... why? No one got hurt.

No. I do believe in laws on age of consent. Children many times do not understand the consequences of decisions that they make.

[Syclone538]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

...
If you respond and I don't get back to you soon don't think I'm ignoring you. I just have a lot going on on the weekends. I'll get back to it if you reply.

Hey no problem man, I misread one of your posts and was trying to figure out if you were calling me a troll.

I read "several troll posts" as "several trolls post" and got mixed up.

[hooligan74]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Who said it was magic?

You made my point exactly. Science doesn't have all the answers

What is another word for supernatural? I think magic fits, no? The idea of "God" certainly seems supernatural to me. An omnipotent, omnipresent being that created everything around us. Sounds pretty magical to me.

Science couldn't explain why we got sick if we didn't wash our hands after we pooped, once upon a time. It didn't mean that "God" was mad at us for something.

So, we're right back to my original point - just because science can't explain something *yet* doesn't mean that "God" did it.

[Woofie]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

You really have to see where I'm going now, especially if you are reading comments from others on this exercise.

Leave me out of this, jackhole. I can't be held responsible for my own action of posting in this thread yet again.

[Syclone538]

Originally Posted by Woofie

Leave me out of this, jackhole. I can't be held responsible for my own action of posting in this thread yet again.

Man I love GTRI.

Maybe as much as they like hockey in Canada.

[Woofie]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

I'm sure it's right around the corner. Just give us a couple more days and we will all agree on everything.

YouTube (Short URL)

YouTube (Short URL)

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by hooligan74

What is another word for supernatural? I think magic fits, no? The idea of "God" certainly seems supernatural to me. An omnipotent, omnipresent being that created everything around us. Sounds pretty magical to me.

Science couldn't explain why we got sick if we didn't wash our hands after we pooped, once upon a time. It didn't mean that "God" was mad at us for something.

So, we're right back to my original point - just because science can't explain something *yet* doesn't mean that "God" did it.

Just something to think about. But if a deity did create life, the heavens and earth etc, wouldn't that have been the nature of reality, not really supernatural? Maybe beyond comprehension of the folks at the time, but not outside the boundaries of the rules of physics and the law of nature. I think a lot of people get stuck on the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient criteria.

Maybe a "creator" wasn't all powerful, but just really smart with cool toys, maybe even mortal.

[hooligan74]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Slightly different labels, only a change in the noun and adjective, same words, and we would be in almost total agreement.

Close enough for all practical purposes.

As you said earlier, disbelief is active, lack of belief is passive. To me, agnostic atheism means a lack of belief. Gnostic atheism would be active disbelief. A subtle difference, but as you said, an important one.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by hooligan74

As you said earlier, disbelief is active, lack of belief is passive. To me, agnostic atheism means a lack of belief. Gnostic atheism would be active disbelief. A subtle difference, but as you said, an important one.

An agnostic atheist and an atheistic agnostic are different, but about as close as we are likely to get. Just different ways of looking at it. No graphical representation is likely to fit every combination of belief and personal surety of that belief.