origin of life...

[falcon9]

Doubtless you are continuing to argue a moot point of contention.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

I agree that it is moot, but you are the one that brought it up and put up the challenge so deal with it.

You misunderstand; the point is now moot because you've demonstrated an inability to comprehend that your own posted words contradict themselves by denying that they do, (and prevaricating in that regard), after being challenged on that point.  It was dealt with down-thread.

results of virus scan upon the image:  https://www.virustotal.com/file/b0faa7cfa248643409006c943b8ef1f9828869c1e6bcedb2b258b53258c4eb9a/analysis/1339005773/

If what you want to write cannot be posted here, the link remains suspicious.

[Abrupt]

Doubtless you are continuing to argue a moot point of contention.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

I agree that it is moot, but you are the one that brought it up and put up the challenge so deal with it.

You misunderstand; the point is now moot because you've demonstrated an inability to comprehend that your own posted words contradict themselves by denying that they do, (and prevaricating in that regard), after being challenged on that point.  It was dealt with down-thread.

results of virus scan upon the image:  https://www.virustotal.com/file/b0faa7cfa248643409006c943b8ef1f9828869c1e6bcedb2b258b53258c4eb9a/analysis/1339005773/

If what you want to write cannot be posted here, the link remains suspicious.

The point was moot when you made the original charge.  I demonstrated that your charge was also incorrect and you appeared to be confused about that so I drew you a 'map'.  You don't want to view the map that would clearly show you your error then you cannot also claim victory -- especially since you were already given written proof that you ignored.

As I said, I already showed written proof which for some reason you cannot grasp the sequence of the post so I drew you the map since to repost exactly what I just posted to you previously seems that it would result in the same confusion on your part.

[falcon9]

Doubtless you are continuing to argue a moot point of contention.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

I agree that it is moot, but you are the one that brought it up and put up the challenge so deal with it.

You misunderstand; the point is now moot because you've demonstrated an inability to comprehend that your own posted words contradict themselves by denying that they do, (and prevaricating in that regard), after being challenged on that point.  It was dealt with down-thread.

results of virus scan upon the image:  https://www.virustotal.com/file/b0faa7cfa248643409006c943b8ef1f9828869c1e6bcedb2b258b53258c4eb9a/analysis/1339005773/

If what you want to write cannot be posted here, the link remains suspicious.
[/quote]

The point was moot when you made the original charge.  I demonstrated that your charge was also incorrect and you appeared to be confused about that so I drew you a 'map'.

Your false characterization of the actual, archived exchange contributes to my contention that the point is moot, (and not that my point was moot).  On the contrary, claiming to demonstrate that my "charge", (reasoning supporting the contention that your mutually-contradictory assertions were/are inconsistant), was "incorrect" is itself an inaccurate claim.  There is no "confusion" on my part and this would be a specious and prevaricating "charge" of yours in lieu of providing attributible evidence to support it.

As I said, I already showed written proof ...

No, you proceeded to deny your own posted contradictory/inconsistant words, which does not constitute "written proof" of anything except your prevarications in that regard, (unless you now wish to claim that a dexterous spider monkey typed those posts instead of you?).

... which for some reason you cannot grasp the sequence of the post ...

Since I've not demonstrated any such inability to "grasp the sequence" of posted remarks, (whereas, oddly enough, you seem to), your insinuations are without evidence or merit.  Try 'grasping' this concept; denial and self-deceptions on your part.

[duroz]

           

[JediJohnnie]

[falcon9]

[...]

[queenofnines]

If a belief comforts someone, whether it is true or false, is that bad, especially, as you seem to suggest, that our existence is but a fleeting dream?  Every belief can be harmful.

If most people believe they don't actually die when they die, where is the motivation for developing the scientific technology to try and extend our natural lifespans?  If this life is just the doormat where we wipe our feet until we get to the "real life" in eternity, why bother trying to contribute anything of significance to better humanity?

Any belief that isn't true is inherently harmful.  You can put yourself and others around you through some pretty nasty stuff clinging to the "comfort" of your beliefs.  There are tons of examples of this, from germaphobes to doomsday worriers to wacky diet enthusiasts.

[falcon9]

If a belief comforts someone, whether it is true or false, is that bad, especially, as you seem to suggest, that our existence is but a fleeting dream?  Every belief can be harmful.

If most people believe they don't actually die when they die, where is the motivation for developing the scientific technology to try and extend our natural lifespans?  If this life is just the doormat where we wipe our feet until we get to the "real life" in eternity, why bother trying to contribute anything of significance to better humanity?

Any belief that isn't true is inherently harmful.  You can put yourself and others around you through some pretty nasty stuff clinging to the "comfort" of your beliefs.  There are tons of examples of this, from germaphobes to doomsday worriers to wacky diet enthusiasts.

Although it can be anticipated that some will claim that there are/may be such extant "beliefs" which arent' inherently harmful, (generally, those being "beliefs" which remain within the skulls of such 'believers' and doesn't leave those environs ... once it does leave, however ...).

[@QoN] - 'message in a bottle'

[duroz]

 

WTF?? If
1) THERE IS NO GOD
thennn........
2) HOW THE x@#x IS IT POSSIBLE TO HATE him??

  - -(ouch)- -

 

[Abrupt]

Doubtless you are continuing to argue a moot point of contention.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

I agree that it is moot, but you are the one that brought it up and put up the challenge so deal with it.

You misunderstand; the point is now moot because you've demonstrated an inability to comprehend that your own posted words contradict themselves by denying that they do, (and prevaricating in that regard), after being challenged on that point.  It was dealt with down-thread.

results of virus scan upon the image:  https://www.virustotal.com/file/b0faa7cfa248643409006c943b8ef1f9828869c1e6bcedb2b258b53258c4eb9a/analysis/1339005773/

If what you want to write cannot be posted here, the link remains suspicious.

The point was moot when you made the original charge.  I demonstrated that your charge was also incorrect and you appeared to be confused about that so I drew you a 'map'.

Your false characterization of the actual, archived exchange contributes to my contention that the point is moot, (and not that my point was moot).  On the contrary, claiming to demonstrate that my "charge", (reasoning supporting the contention that your mutually-contradictory assertions were/are inconsistant), was "incorrect" is itself an inaccurate claim.  There is no "confusion" on my part and this would be a specious and prevaricating "charge" of yours in lieu of providing attributible evidence to support it.

As I said, I already showed written proof ...

No, you proceeded to deny your own posted contradictory/inconsistant words, which does not constitute "written proof" of anything except your prevarications in that regard, (unless you now wish to claim that a dexterous spider monkey typed those posts instead of you?).

... which for some reason you cannot grasp the sequence of the post ...

Since I've not demonstrated any such inability to "grasp the sequence" of posted remarks, (whereas, oddly enough, you seem to), your insinuations are without evidence or merit.  Try 'grasping' this concept; denial and self-deceptions on your part.

[/quote]

What game is this you are playing here?  I know you must know you are incorrect (since you actually even posted my statements out of order) and that you cannot actually be trying to convince me of something.  It doesn't make sense that you would be trying to persuade the other readers as your error is so glaringly obvious and I highlight it so visibly that you couldn't be trying to do that -- no that doesn't make sense as even you are not that vain or egocentric.  I don't think you are toying with me as you know very well that I am just as doggedly stubborn as you (either of us would fight over the scrap of an argument to a degree that most would consider insane) and so you clearly couldn't choose the wine in front of me.  I am left to conclude that either you honestly believe you are correct or that you are gaming with me.  It doesn't make sense that you would believe you were correct as I am sure you would have looked back at least once and your error is so obvious that you would have picked up on it.  If you are gaming with me then I will play as I am curious to see where this goes.

[falcon9]

 

WTF?? If
1) THERE IS NO GOD
thennn........
2) HOW THE x@#x IS IT POSSIBLE TO HATE him??

  - -(ouch)- -

 

Apparently, the OP is still laboring under the self-delusion that if it's possible to "love" a hypothetically supernatural entity whose existence is dubious at best, then it's possible to "hate" it as well.  Sure, it's illogical but, that has not prevented the OP from engaging in it so far.

[Abrupt]

If a belief comforts someone, whether it is true or false, is that bad, especially, as you seem to suggest, that our existence is but a fleeting dream?  Every belief can be harmful.

If most people believe they don't actually die when they die, where is the motivation for developing the scientific technology to try and extend our natural lifespans?  If this life is just the doormat where we wipe our feet until we get to the "real life" in eternity, why bother trying to contribute anything of significance to better humanity?

Any belief that isn't true is inherently harmful.  You can put yourself and others around you through some pretty nasty stuff clinging to the "comfort" of your beliefs.  There are tons of examples of this, from germaphobes to doomsday worriers to wacky diet enthusiasts.

I see it quite the opposite.  If we are as fleeting as you indicate then why prolong the agony.  Why extend life 100 years or 1000 years when ultimately each of those years is just another reminder of your coming demise -- what a wicked self inflicted wound that would be.  The contribution to humanity would be for the same reason the larvae eats while in that stage -- and that is because it is a development stage to what comes after.

I agree that suffrage can be shared with those around you, but so can the strength and courage and steadiness and absolution that can come from belief.  It all comes down to the person it seems to me.  There are externally beneficial and externally harmful people in virtually every single area that exists.

[falcon9]

If a belief comforts someone, whether it is true or false, is that bad, especially, as you seem to suggest, that our existence is but a fleeting dream?  Every belief can be harmful.

If most people believe they don't actually die when they die, where is the motivation for developing the scientific technology to try and extend our natural lifespans?  If this life is just the doormat where we wipe our feet until we get to the "real life" in eternity, why bother trying to contribute anything of significance to better humanity?

Any belief that isn't true is inherently harmful.  You can put yourself and others around you through some pretty nasty stuff clinging to the "comfort" of your beliefs.  There are tons of examples of this, from germaphobes to doomsday worriers to wacky diet enthusiasts.

I see it quite the opposite.

Of course you do; having taken the position of a religious adherent/'true believer' means a certain obligation to defend such a position, (even when at a tactical and strategic disadvantage). 

If we are as fleeting as you indicate then why prolong the agony.  Why extend life 100 years or 1000 years when ultimately each of those years is just another reminder of your coming demise -- what a wicked self inflicted wound that would be.  The contribution to humanity would be for the same reason the larvae eats while in that stage -- and that is because it is a development stage to what comes after.

Non sequitur.  This is contextually-equivalent to asking, "why live for even a moment?"  The questions aren't rhetorical since the main objective of being alive is to first to live; all else would follow that prerequisite.

I agree that suffrage can be shared with those around you, but so can the strength and courage and steadiness and absolution that can come from belief.  It all comes down to the person it seems to me.  There are externally beneficial and externally harmful people in virtually every single area that exists.

There are, however, significant differences between shared sufferings/shared pragmatic assistances and emcouraging/proselytizing spurious "beliefs/faith" which has no basis in reason/evidence.  The former is demonstrably more beneficial than the latter's harmful offer of ephemeral/"virtual", (as opposed to practical), "help".

[Falconer02]

WTF?? If
1) THERE IS NO GOD
thennn........
2) HOW THE x@#x IS IT POSSIBLE TO HATE him??

In the same sense of how we hate Agent Smith, Lord Vader, Skeletor, Mumra, Bowser...

Being more realistic though- when you can both easily argue the point that this god (much like the other countless ones) is fake and that even if it did exist and it's jumbled texts were truthful, this deity would not be deserving of worship for anyone who has an ounce of morality within themselves. When one can easily compare a god to Hitler's horrific atrocities, one must either facepalm or chuckle at the absurdity.

[falcon9]

WTF?? If
1) THERE IS NO GOD
thennn........
2) HOW THE x@#x IS IT POSSIBLE TO HATE him??

In the same sense of how we hate Agent Smith, Lord Vader, Skeletor, Mumra, Bowser...

Being more realistic though- when you can both easily argue the point that this god (much like the other countless ones) is fake and that even if it did exist and it's jumbled texts were truthful, this deity would not be deserving of worship for anyone who has an ounce of morality within themselves. When one can easily compare a god to Hitler's horrific atrocities, one must either facepalm or chuckle at the absurdity.

It remains unclear whether or not such a comparison invokes "godwin's law", (of usenet), or "g-dloses law", (of any 'net).