Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedTheism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 139140141142143 174>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 03:54
^ Let's simply worship the universe. Smile
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 04:51
Interesting new book out  by Geoffrey Robertson called The Case Of The Pope: Vatican Accountability For Human Rights Abuses. It's not about the validity of the Catholic faith itself but an examination of the history of child abuse and whether the pope should be put on trial for it. Excellently written and very well put together, Robertson's basic thrust is this:
 
i) Ratzinger (the pope) KNEW that there was rampant child abuse in his church
ii) Ratzinger took no action to curtail it
iii) He should be stripped of his position and put on trial
iv) It won't happen because the world's most powerful people will worry that they'll be next, though there is actually no special power protecting Ratzinger as he claims. (He claims to be a head of state but as Robertson shows the Vatican is not a state.)
 
Of course this is the barest skeleton and the actual book is 240 pgs but I think it illustrates pretty clearly that if the playing field were level, Ratzinger would be looking at a lengthy jail sentence. Perhaps he could share a cell with that rock musician in Peru.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 06:04
Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

Interesting new book out  by Geoffrey Robertson called The Case Of The Pope: Vatican Accountability For Human Rights Abuses. It's not about the validity of the Catholic faith itself but an examination of the history of child abuse and whether the pope should be put on trial for it. Excellently written and very well put together, Robertson's basic thrust is this:
 
i) Ratzinger (the pope) KNEW that there was rampant child abuse in his church
ii) Ratzinger took no action to curtail it
iii) He should be stripped of his position and put on trial
iv) It won't happen because the world's most powerful people will worry that they'll be next, though there is actually no special power protecting Ratzinger as he claims. (He claims to be a head of state but as Robertson shows the Vatican is not a state.)
 
Of course this is the barest skeleton and the actual book is 240 pgs but I think it illustrates pretty clearly that if the playing field were level, Ratzinger would be looking at a lengthy jail sentence. Perhaps he could share a cell with that rock musician in Peru.


Clap Brilliant, spot on!
Back to Top
Trademark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 08:59
Right Mike, a software engineer makes a stupid glaring mistake using a dirt-simple internet message board that fundamentally changes the meaning of the material posted in his "favor".

What a baby. You just got caught doing what you always do.  

Man up and admit it.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 09:12
Quote
We believe God may have decided when the moment came to provide the evolved man of a soul:
 

On the creation of the soul, the Church has a very strong teaching. The human soul was deliberately created in the likeness and image of God.

  • The human soul is not simply a byproduct of the human body.
  • The human soul has the power to know abstract concepts, to know God (intellect)
  • The human soul has the power to choose and to love (will)
  • The human soul has unique dignity above the rest of visible creation.

The human being is a combination of human body and human soul. Regardless of any speculative ideas of evolutionary processes that God may or may not have used in the design of the human body, Adam and Eve became human beings when God infused their bodies with human souls. The creation of the human soul was created immediately. The "image and likeness of God" that we read about in Scripture may be referring to our soul.

:
So the instantaneous creation by God of human soul is the center of our believe


vs.

Quote
We believe God may have decided when the moment came to provide the evolved man of a soul:
Quote

On the creation of the soul, the Church has a very strong teaching. The human soul was deliberately created in the likeness and image of God.

  • The human soul is not simply a byproduct of the human body.
  • The human soul has the power to know abstract concepts, to know God (intellect)
  • The human soul has the power to choose and to love (will)
  • The human soul has unique dignity above the rest of visible creation.

The human being is a combination of human body and human soul. Regardless of any speculative ideas of evolutionary processes that God may or may not have used in the design of the human body, Adam and Eve became human beings when God infused their bodies with human souls. The creation of the human soul was created immediately. The "image and likeness of God" that we read about in Scripture may be referring to our soul.

:

So the instantaneous creation by God of human soul is the center of our believe



Does this really fundamentally change the meaning in my "favor" (whatever you mean by putting the word in quotes)?

And I already explained what happened - but by then Iván had already called me a liar. Feel free to chime in - I didn't expect anything else from you.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 09:46
Again trying to cheat Mike?

There's a difference between what you said you quoted (Really altered)

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 
We believe God may have decided when the moment came to provide the evolved man of a soul:
 

On the creation of the soul, the Church has a very strong teaching. The human soul was deliberately created in the likeness and image of God.

  • The human soul is not simply a byproduct of the human body.
  • The human soul has the power to know abstract concepts, to know God (intellect)
  • The human soul has the power to choose and to love (will)
  • The human soul has unique dignity above the rest of visible creation.

The human being is a combination of human body and human soul. Regardless of any speculative ideas of evolutionary processes that God may or may not have used in the design of the human body, Adam and Eve became human beings when God infused their bodies with human souls. The creation of the human soul was created immediately. The "image and likeness of God" that we read about in Scripture may be referring to our soul.

:
So the instantaneous creation by God of human soul is the center of our believe

And what I really said


Originally posted by Iván_Melgar_M Iván_Melgar_M wrote:

 
You are right Dean, but  even more,  we don't believe in Intelligent Design or that God helped ALL along the process.
 
We believe God may have decided when the moment came to provide the evolved man of a soul:
 
Quote

On the creation of the soul, the Church has a very strong teaching. The human soul was deliberately created in the likeness and image of God.

  • The human soul is not simply a byproduct of the human body.
  • The human soul has the power to know abstract concepts, to know God (intellect)
  • The human soul has the power to choose and to love (will)
  • The human soul has unique dignity above the rest of visible creation.

The human being is a combination of human body and human soul. Regardless of any speculative ideas of evolutionary processes that God may or may not have used in the design of the human body, Adam and Eve became human beings when God infused their bodies with human souls. The creation of the human soul was created immediately. The "image and likeness of God" that we read about in Scripture may be referring to our soul.

:

So the instantaneous creation by God of human soul is the center of our believe
 

Iván

In the first one THAT YOU POSTED, is presented as Ivan_Melgar_M said

In the second one THE REAL ONE is clearly stated that IIvan_Melgar_M  quoted somebody else.

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:


Does this really fundamentally change the meaning in my "favor" (whatever you mean by putting the word in quotes)?

YES, because it's absolutely different to say something than quoting what other person said, using that quote to accuse me of saying something I never said.

Again I insist, you lie, and the worst thing is that you know, because you retired the quote codes and placed my name on another person's quote to make it seem as if I had said it, specially when there are lots of quotes when I clearly stated that I could never believe in Adam & Eve as a real couple, but as an allegory, quotes that you replied calling me a hypocrite because that's not what the Bible said.

Iván

BTW: Mike the quote you attribute to me is from  http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/catholic_creationism.htm you can read it there

Who is lying?


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 04 2010 at 10:08
            
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 09:50
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^^^ This was exactly what I quoted (EDIT: minus the box lines, I give you that - as explained below), so I'm not a liar, but you are an asshead for calling me one, and also a moron for thinking that you could get away with a stupid stunt like that.

EDIT: And yes, when I copied and pasted that passage the [quote] block was removed by the editor - it wasn't my intention to suggest that it was you who said that. Any sane person would see by reading the text that you were quoting something there - but if you say that it is the "center of our belief", it means that you strongly agree with it and it's just like if you said it yourself.

EDIT2: Anal retention reference removed.Wink

But I am wasting my time, talking to an ass who goes around calling people liars.

Minus one quote box?

You make me remember a friend who was fired from a job "for one fuc*ing word" (As he said), he wrote "sign the contract" instead of "Don't sign the contract"

Is it the same Ivan said it or Ivan quoted somebody else who say it?

You lie, and you cover your lies with insults, but everybody knows you.

Iván 


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 04 2010 at 10:00
            
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 10:05
Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:

Right Mike, a software engineer makes a stupid glaring mistake using a dirt-simple internet message board that fundamentally changes the meaning of the material posted in his "favor".

What a baby. You just got caught doing what you always do.  

Man up and admit it.

Thanks, it's obvious

He wants to make us believe that  the quote signs (In a middle of a post)  simply vanished by magi, to change the sense of a statement, to support a claim that he new is false.

In other words, he wants to make us believe that 

Originally posted by Iván_Melgar_M Iván_Melgar_M wrote:

 
You are right Dean, but  even more,  we don't believe in Intelligent Design or that God helped ALL along the process.
 
We believe God may have decided when the moment came to provide the evolved man of a soul:

[(quote)]

On the creation of the soul, the Church has a very strong teaching. The human soul was deliberately created in the likeness and image of God.

  • The human soul is not simply a byproduct of the human body.
  • The human soul has the power to know abstract concepts, to know God (intellect)
  • The human soul has the power to choose and to love (will)
  • The human soul has unique dignity above the rest of visible creation.

The human being is a combination of human body and human soul. Regardless of any speculative ideas of evolutionary processes that God may or may not have used in the design of the human body, Adam and Eve became human beings when God infused their bodies with human souls. The creation of the human soul was created immediately. The "image and likeness of God" that we read about in Scripture may be referring to our soul.[(/quote])

So the instantaneous creation by God of human soul is the center of our believe
 

Iván

The signs in red (Modified so they can show) are the only two words in the whole post  that mysteriously vanished, and leaving no trace, when quoting a post is just pressing a buton.

I can believe the first or the last quote signs may be accidentally cut, but two in the middle?

This is intentional.

He criticize us for believing in God, but we must admit he believes in magic.

Iván




Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 04 2010 at 10:23
            
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 10:31
Okay that's quite enough.
 
 
 
If you look at the HTML source code for the post you will see that the formatting of the text encloses the "quote" in an html table with the tag td ="BBquote"

 

In Mike's post that table and tag are intact - which is evidence enough for me that he did not deliberately remove the quote code, but the editor somehow did
What?
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 10:38
^ It's very simple: When you copy and paste content from a post (not from the editor, but from the post, mind you), you don't get the [ quote ] tags, but the html code that generates the quote borders ... and that is not visible later in the post, although it may depend on which browser you're using (IE, Firefox etc.).
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 10:39
Incidentally: Why should I try to deliberately change a post like that? Everyone can go back to the page (121 I think it was) and see for themselves, it would be kind of pointless.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 10:50
 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Okay that's quite enough.
 
 
 
If you look at the HTML source code for the post you will see that the formatting of the text encloses the "quote" in an html table with the tag td ="BBquote"

 

In Mike's post that table and tag are intact - which is evidence enough for me that he did not deliberately remove the quote code, but the editor somehow did



Dean, you are a logical person, please answer me WHY DID HE QUOTED A POST THAT SUPPORTED MY POSITION AGAINST HIS? 

Because when he read it was obvious that i was quoting another source Confused
  1. Mike reads that I didn't said something
  2. He claims that I said it 
  3. He quotes the post that proves I never said what he claims (claiming I said it)
  4. By an editor mistake the post changes, and by act of magic, the post that proved that i didn't say something shows in ProgArchives as if had said it. Confused

Please Dean....Don't take positions that defy logic

Sorry, I don't believe him

Iván

BTW: Where where you when he insulted me?






Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 04 2010 at 10:53
            
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 10:55
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Incidentally: Why should I try to deliberately change a post like that? Everyone can go back to the page (121 I think it was) and see for themselves, it would be kind of pointless.

Mike...For what purpose did you quoted a post that you knew destroyed your claim and used to support your claim?

Please Mike, I was born in the night, but I wasn't born last night.

Iván
            
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 10:59
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ It's very simple: When you copy and paste content from a post (not from the editor, but from the post, mind you), you don't get the [ quote ] tags, but the html code that generates the quote borders ... and that is not visible later in the post, although it may depend on which browser you're using (IE, Firefox etc.).

Yes Mike, but this doesn't answer the question...

Why did you support your position with a post that rejected your position?

BTW: Ir wasn't as simple as turning the page, it took me 1/2 hour to find the quote that was back in page 121, because there are like 10 posts per page and we are in page 140 or 139 in that moment.

Your excuses show that you lie.

Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 04 2010 at 11:00
            
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 11:07
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Please Dean....Don't take positions that defy logic

Sorry, I don't believe him

Iván

BTW: Where where you when he insulted me?




What are you accusing me of?
 
 
What?
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 11:14
I'm only saying that your position defies logic, maybe you didn't noticed what happened

I'm accusing you of nothing.

Probably you didn't noticed that it was illogic for Mike to support his position with a quote that rejected his position, the quote codes "may" have vanished, but he read the original post when it's evident that I was quoting another source...And still used that same post to claim that I said it...Isn't this illogic?

And more illogic that by an error of the system..The post turns into what he wanted. LOL

Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 04 2010 at 11:16
            
Back to Top
Trademark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 11:14
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Incidentally: Why should I try to deliberately change a post like that? Everyone can go back to the page (121 I think it was) and see for themselves, it would be kind of pointless.

Incidentally, a lot of what you do is kind of pointless, but since it is obvious that you did this you'll have to answer the "why" question yourself.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 11:17
He will never answer Trademark

He will insult, attack invent to change the subject.

But again the question ..Why would I support my position with a post that goes against my position?.

Will never be answered, 

Iván
            
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 11:21
Originally posted by God in Heaven God in Heaven wrote:


You children Shut the hell up you're making my ears bleed!! 
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 11:25
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by God in Heaven God in Heaven wrote:


You children Shut the hell up you're making my ears bleed!! 




What would you say if your words were changed and your posts modified by magic?

I can be harsh, rude or whatever, but I always quoted the posts word by word, nrever changed them.

Iván
            
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 139140141142143 174>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.289 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.