What is.... [modified]
-
AndyKEnZ wrote:
I remember reading that Sagen quote quite a few months ago here on CP, it may even from you. It made me tingle then and it did it again just now.
Talk about your cheap thrills! Listen up, "Star-stuff!" You're going to be Worm-Shit long before that worm-shit gets to be star-stuff again.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
He was good people that Sagen chap.
He was a fool who couldn't face up to what he insisted was the truth about the nature of reality.
-
Taking the below three interpretations of conscience, just the first link of Google, but, I think, a nice sample, I generally view the conscience I seek to eradicate as the third one. # motivation deriving logically from ethical or moral principles that govern a person's thoughts and actions # conformity to one's own sense of right conduct; "a person of unflagging conscience" # a feeling of shame when you do something immoral; "he has no conscience about his cruelty"
-
Ilíon wrote:
You pretend 'atheists' are such pussies! If you *really* believed what you say you believe, you'd realize that you don't need to give a flying f*** "
You see, best beloved? Here is an example of Christianity at its finest. The embodiment of "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
You're such an ass. And we all know it. You have no standing at all to criticize anything. And you certainly have no standing to criticize how I choose to demonstrate the absurdity of your 'atheism.'
-
Thanks for contacting me. Please hold your breath until I get back to you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Thanks for contacting me. Please hold your breath until I get back to you.
Why don't you do this *first* and spare us all? Why don't you keep your stupid and pointless comments to yourself, in the first place? You're not interested in thinking critically about your false beliefs, and I'm not interested in pretending that you are.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
was designed and evolved
How dare you? Designed? Meh! X|
I personally believe in a design and a creator. I don't believe a lot of what come from the people who claimed the phrase Intelligent Design and made it dificult for anybody else to use 'design' without being mistaken for having their extreme views. So please don't associate me with them when I say design. But if it bothers you just that the word is used at all then I'll make a deal with you... I won't turn my nose up and ridicule you for your beliefs if you'll reciprocate.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Oakman wrote:
Thanks for contacting me. Please hold your breath until I get back to you.
Why don't you do this *first* and spare us all? Why don't you keep your stupid and pointless comments to yourself, in the first place? You're not interested in thinking critically about your false beliefs, and I'm not interested in pretending that you are.
-
I personally believe in a design and a creator. I don't believe a lot of what come from the people who claimed the phrase Intelligent Design and made it dificult for anybody else to use 'design' without being mistaken for having their extreme views. So please don't associate me with them when I say design. But if it bothers you just that the word is used at all then I'll make a deal with you... I won't turn my nose up and ridicule you for your beliefs if you'll reciprocate.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
Sorry, I didn't mean to ridicule. What I said was meant quite light-heartedly and I probably should have used a joke icon.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
To copy and paste your DNA.
Intentionally or not on your part, this response is an equivocation. When people ask "What is the purpose of life?" they are not asking "What is the purpose of biology?" Rather, they are asking "What is the purpose of existence (of anything, and especially of me)?" The response you gave is the "Darwinist" equivocation to the question actually being asked: it's a way to say "There *is* no purpose to your existence" without forthrightly saying that.
Ilíon wrote:
When people ask "What is the purpose of life?" they are not asking "What is the purpose of biology?" Rather, they are asking "What is the purpose of existence (of anything, and especially of me)?"
You mean when you ask the question that's what you mean, and that when you hear the question that's the only meaning you can take from it. Not nearly as many things are as black and white as you imagine. When someone asks, "What is the purpose of life?" You assume it's asking for a philosophical or spiritual answer, when there is nothing in that question that restricts it to that. The purpose of life in a physical sense has been demonstrated unequivocally trillions of times over to be 'to reproduce'. You are projecting limits on me that do not exist. I chose to answer from a physical perspective because it has an answer. The philosophical and spiritual answers get more complicated and controversial.
Ilíon wrote:
it's a way to say "There *is* no purpose to your existence" without forthrightly saying that
No it's not. You assume that 'to reproduce' has no significance and therefore as an answer equates to 'no purpose.' And if I believed that 'there is no purpose to your existence,' rest assured I would have just said that instead.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
But you still have not arrived: for ... or at least from appearances just now ... you still care that others have a correct/true understanding of you. If you still care at all about truth, than you haven't yet killed your conscience.
What do you imagine is the connection between 'care about truth' and 'conscience.' Neither concept has anything to do with the other. I'm guessing that you've horribly distorted the definition of conscience just because it has science in it.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Sorry, I didn't mean to ridicule. What I said was meant quite light-heartedly and I probably should have used a joke icon.
I took it that way, but wasn't completely sure. I tried to make that sound like a 'just in case you meant...' No harm no foul. And besides, ridicule doesn't hurt that much anyway, just wanted to make sure you weren't one of those people.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
AndyKEnZ wrote:
I remember reading that Sagen quote quite a few months ago here on CP, it may even from you. It made me tingle then and it did it again just now.
Talk about your cheap thrills! Listen up, "Star-stuff!" You're going to be Worm-Shit long before that worm-shit gets to be star-stuff again.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
He was good people that Sagen chap.
He was a fool who couldn't face up to what he insisted was the truth about the nature of reality.
Ilíon wrote:
He was a fool who couldn't face up to what he insisted was the truth about the nature of reality.
That describes you sooooooooooooooooo much better than it does him. Sagen was no fool.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Oakman wrote:
Thanks for contacting me. Please hold your breath until I get back to you.
Why don't you do this *first* and spare us all? Why don't you keep your stupid and pointless comments to yourself, in the first place? You're not interested in thinking critically about your false beliefs, and I'm not interested in pretending that you are.
Ilíon wrote:
spare us all
Ilíon wrote:
Why don't you keep your stupid and pointless comments to yourself
Ilíon wrote:
You're not interested in thinking critically about your false beliefs, and I'm not interested in pretending that you are.
If ever this applied... It's now.[^]
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Why would you inagine this is a Good Thing? When a person does something wrong, he *ought* to feel shame. At the very least.
No, what he ought to feel, is his duty to not do that wrong thing, before he does it.