| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 129795 | 2013-03-13 21:03:00 | Shape-Shifting Jesus Described in Ancient Egyptian Text | zqwerty (97) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1332585 | 2013-03-14 06:21:00 | You should really include your sources when you copy and paste from the internet... Excuse me? It is copied and pasted from a document I created.... In 2010 when I found out I was going to be a father I decided to research the subject of religion/gods. I did not want to lead him down the wrong path in life so I did my research. I spent literally months reading whatever books I could get my hands on. That is what I wrote/compiled And as above, sources available if requested - just cuts down about a page and a half... I suggest you provide proof and evidence before making such accusations. |
Disco_Dan (16576) | ||
| 1332586 | 2013-03-14 06:31:00 | Excuse me? It is copied and pasted from a document I created.... In 2010 when I found out I was going to be a father I decided to research the subject of religion/gods. I did not want to lead him down the wrong path in life so I did my research. I spent literally months reading whatever books I could get my hands on. That is what I wrote. And as above, sources available if requested - just cuts down about a page and a half... I suggest you provide proof and evidence before making such accusations.Just one of the several paragraphs I googled and found on the internet. Changing one or two words in the bulk of the text does not make it original. 2) Flawed That god could get some sort of universe going but it would be so untrustworthy that any sentient life that appeared in it – god would have to tamper with it to try to get it to work right. Such a universe would need regular tampering with, a creator fiddling with the very thing that he/she created, having to resort to dictating holy books, answering prayers, miracles and all manner of other sordid transcendental acts. Just so that such a god was not continually riddled with guilt for creating beings that were aware of just how egregious his/her work was. God would be like a kid with an ant farm, a monstrous abomination, chasing people he didn’t like around with a god-like magnifying glass. In a horse race of god’s, such a god would be an ‘also-ran’, not worthy of any positive note. The second type of God is Flawed. That God could get some sort of universe going but it would be so untrustworthy that any sentient life that appeared in it (he/she/it/unknowable {HSIU}) would have to tamper with it, to try to get it to work right. Such a universe would need regular tampering with, a creator fiddling with the very thing that HSIU created - the god equivalent of a paedophile - having to resort to dictating holy books, answering prayers, committing miracles and all manner of other sordid, transcendental acts, just so that such a god was not continually riddled with guilt for creating beings that were aware of just how egregious HSIU's work was. HSIU would be like a kid with an ant farm, a monstrous abomination, chasing people he didn't like around with a god-like magnifying glass. In a horse race of Gods, such a god would be an 'also-ran', not worthy of any positive note; and, Omnipotence, omniscience is mutually incompatible. If god is omniscient he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can’t change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent! A reader asks for my response to this passage from Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion: Incidentally, it has not escaped the notice of logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can’t change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent. (pp. 77-78) |
Jen (38) | ||
| 1332587 | 2013-03-14 06:39:00 | Just one of the several paragraphs I googled and found on the internet. Changing one or two words in the bulk of the text does not make it original. As I have already mentioned... I wrote this as my conclusion to my research on the subject. References are available. If I posted the full version with references marked off it would be MUCH longer. It was already too long really for a forum post. The full version was actually published... not that you probably care. Why not take the time to read it and see for yourself the ridiculousness of religion? |
Disco_Dan (16576) | ||
| 1332588 | 2013-03-14 06:46:00 | As I have already mentioned... I wrote this as my conclusion to my research on the subject. References are available. If I posted the full version with references marked off it would be MUCH longer. It was already too long really for a forum post. The full version was actually published... not that you probably care.I am surprised you didn't have the pants sued off you for plagiarism if you published that. You can directly quote short portions of work only as part of essays/research etc and if make it clear where you got your content from. You will need the original authors permission if you are copying larger blocks of text. For example: As written by Dawkins [insert reference], "If god is omniscient he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can’t change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent!" Why not take the time to read it and see for yourself the ridiculousness of religion?Does not interest me. |
Jen (38) | ||
| 1332589 | 2013-03-14 06:51:00 | I am surprised you didn't have the pants sued off you for plagiarism if you published that. You can directly quote short portions of work only as part of essays/research etc and if make it clear where you got your content from. For example: As written by Dawkins [insert reference], "If god is omniscient he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can’t change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent!" Does not interest me. As I mentioned before the full version includes all the references... I took it all out plus a couple of other pages to shorten it. Crikey... if I wanted to have a pointless circular argument that detracts from the actual point I would talk to a christian... |
Disco_Dan (16576) | ||
| 1332590 | 2013-03-14 07:18:00 | Finally had time to come back and read to the end, I'm pretty much in agreement with what Disco posted from my own observations, however SWMBO would disagree. It's the one subject we never discuss at home | gary67 (56) | ||
| 1332591 | 2013-03-15 00:56:00 | You should really include your sources when you copy and paste from the internet . . . @ Disco_Dan - Apply cold water to burned area! |
lordnoddy (3645) | ||
| 1332592 | 2013-03-15 01:15:00 | tl;dr I read what Jen wrote though :D |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1332593 | 2013-03-15 01:19:00 | May have mentioned it before but any lingering doubts of a god were dispelled when I was about 20 years old at a traffic accident about midway from Bulls to Wanganui. I came flying around a corner in my Norton Commando and came across a car accident. One dead and one dying nun. It sort of dawned on me if someone gave up their whole life to serve me for nothing and I had supernatural powers and could stop this accident why didnt they? Then the answer came to me there never was any god and there never will be any god its a ******* fairy story. |
prefect (6291) | ||
| 1332594 | 2013-03-15 01:40:00 | So I thought "Why not humor him and read some of it". Skimmed through bits of it, most of it's pretty damn extremist stuff both from you and from the religious sources. Take Dinosaurs for example, I see no reason why Job in Job Chapters 40 / 41 (Can't recall exactly) basically describes Job looking up at a Diplodocus or Brachiosaurus! It sure as hell ain't a Crocodile, Hippo or an Elephant as some suggest.... Yeah you'll always get extremists that float one way or another, potentially yourself included, but again just because certain Catholic priests engage in paedophilia doesn't mean all Catholics are rapists / kiddie fiddlers. No, skimming through what I read, you basically seem hell bent (Haha see what I did there!) on dis-proving any type of God. Now play Devils Advocate (Haha, blimey I'm on a roll!) and try and *prove* there is a Christian God, see what happens. It's a very enlightening stance to hypothetically take, one supporting that which you disprove. I personally find I learn a lot, when I do it. |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||