Z10s God argument

Discussion in 'Politics' started by nitro, Apr 13, 2006.

  1. nitro


    I am just wondering what people think about this statement and how it relates to God:

    "ZZZzzzzzzz (Apr 13, 2006 1:54:05 PM)
    my argument is that human nature has not changed in thousands, and thousands of years, despite all the advancement in science, which shows that science doesn't touch the inner side of human life

    ZZZzzzzzzz (Apr 13, 2006 1:54:31 PM)
    my overall point is to reduce to the absurdity of the atheists

    ZZZzzzzzzz (Apr 13, 2006 1:54:45 PM)
    they have their faith, i have mine

    ZZZzzzzzzz (Apr 13, 2006 1:54:58 PM)
    but they think they don't practice faith

  2. maxpi


    Human nature, on the good side, is the same everywhere, people take care of their children, help their neighbors, work hard. It is the negative side that varies so much and has to be the main concern of governments and psychologists, for example.

    I believe in God and an adversary, the devil, who gets people to believe lies so well that he is called the "god of this world". I doubt if the Devil has changed much in thousands of years, so probably, human nature has not changed much in that same time span. God never changes over time, he lives outside of time in fact. God is too cool BTW, he has a book out, it's the all time best seller. It is so good that people get to know it instead of Him sometimes.
  3. I think that the better question is: what do you think of Z's statements, and why do you put them at issue?

    Seems like an invitation to a flame war to me.
  4. You are correct, that was nitro's intention....

    nitro (Apr 13, 2006 1:58:11 PM)
    new thread

    nitro (Apr 13, 2006 1:58:17 PM)

    resinate (Apr 13, 2006 1:58:41 PM)
    I may delete that nitro

    nitro (Apr 13, 2006 1:58:45 PM)

    resinate (Apr 13, 2006 1:58:49 PM)
    trolling clearly

    resinate (Apr 13, 2006 1:58:51 PM)

    Banjo (Apr 13, 2006 1:58:54 PM)

    nitro (Apr 13, 2006 1:58:54 PM)
    leave it res

    nitro (Apr 13, 2006 1:58:58 PM)

    ZZZzzzzzzz (Apr 13, 2006 2:02:31 PM)

    nitro (Apr 13, 2006 2:02:38 PM)

    ZZZzzzzzzz (Apr 13, 2006 2:02:40 PM)
    your post is not a God argument

    nitro (Apr 13, 2006 2:02:52 PM)
    you mean the thread?

    ZZZzzzzzzz (Apr 13, 2006 2:02:54 PM)

    ZZZzzzzzzz (Apr 13, 2006 2:03:03 PM)
    you misrepresented

  5. You only need to review Z's long Darwinism threads to understand that his positions are informed by faith. It is pointless to attempt any sort of dialectic with a religious mystic.

    Take the statement above. The key to the statement is the phrase 'which shows'. If you read this carefully, it is clear that there is no logical reason to relate the material which precedes this phrase with what follows it. Let us say that we could confirm that there has been no change in something called 'human nature' in many thousands of years. Let us further assume that there is some way of defining 'the inner side of human life'. How on earth would our evaluation of certain as-yet unchanged aspects of 'human nature' be proof that science can't ever change 'inner life'. In the first place, the scientific revolution may as well have started yesterday, in epochal terms. There is no way for us, today, to evaluate the effect of science on 'the inner side of human life'. Get back to me in 10,000 or 20,000 years and let's see what effect science has had on 'the inner side of human life'.

    Z argued in one of his threads that since the lifespan of humans had not changed since the emergence of homo sapiens, Darwinism was disproved (biblical lifespans somehow set aside). It was suggested that human lifespans may indeed change in the long term, over many tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Z gave no response. It's clear that Z's faith delimits the potential effects of social and physical evolution. This seems to be confirmed by his latest statement. Statements like this make it impossible for us to engage Z in meaningful debate about science, religion, or anything else.

    The most interesting thing, however, is this. In more general terms, notice how Z characterizes this as an 'argument'. Z uses terminology that is academic in nature; ironically, although he derides science at every turn, he wants his arguments to be received in the same way as a purely empirical argument. But in the statement above, there is nothing but the purest form of assertion. What exactly is 'the inner side of human life'? Only Z's definitions need apply - the whole system of thought is self-contained.

    Remember, this is the same guy who said that the earth is exactly 1,945,867,549 years old. It was suggested that it might be 1,845,867,548 years old, but this idea was rejected by Z. He also said that the origin of human life on earth was when 'magistrates were materialized out of pure potentiality'. When pressed to explain this seemingly bizarre statement, he later recanted.
  6. Every man is born, goes through biological changes to some degree, and dies.

    All breathe the same basic air, consume the same basic stuff, all their shit all stinks, they are never eternally satisfied, etc.

    What is common to all, has not changed even one bit.

    Take a man and subject him to the exact same stresses and environment of thousands of years ago, same nutrition, same health care, etc., and he lives about the same lifespan. Nothing internally has changed. No new organs, still a brain much bigger than is actually used.

    And then we get to the internal size of life.....greed, envy, fear, lust, sloth, jealousy, pride and anger.....they are exactly the same.

    p.s. I am going to have to ask you to provide a thread to prove your claims of where I said what you are attributing to me, exactly as you describe, and in full context.

    Remember, if you can't quote me exactly, and in proper context....then you are not a good proof reader.


    Now be a good little boy, and get to work searching ET...

  7. 1 question, how lonely are you, please be honest.
  8. It doesn't relate to God.

    It relates to Zzz.

    Anything Zzzz writes is not about the supposed topic, but about Zzzzz.

    Zzzzz is the subject.

    Zzzzz claims to have a close relationship with God, but his behavior, as noted by many, is not that of someone with a close relationship with God.

    Zzzz is a troubled soul; a deep relationship with God would be beneficial to him, but it is highly unlikely that he will ever attain such a relationship until he learns that self-loathing is impeding his spiritual growth.
  9. nitro


    You know, am I the only one that sees the changes in Z10? Are you all blind? You still attack, where no attack is warranted?

    While I agree with you that Z10 was a slithering snake in the way he presented his thoughts in the past, where no one could really understand what he was saying, I no longer feel that is the case, at least not in his description given above of science being a kind of faith.

    What further fascinates me is that, while you guys don't think you have had an effect on his thinking, I think you have!!!!! I think many of the debates with the many good thinkers on ET affects us all - mostly for the better.

    BTW, there is no question in my mind that what he is saying now is correct and is at the core of modern philosophy.

  10. nitro


    We are all born lonely and long to belong.

    #10     Apr 13, 2006