TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
illumin@ti wrote:Ah bounce up a babble thumper this evening....... he was talking, and talking, and talking, and talking bout the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints..... dude looked like he was trippin on E...
and im thinking, oh the irony... a black Mormon tryin to convert me?!?!?! to what ?
wasnt the Mormon faith against the salvation of minorities? can someone with the relevant subject matter expertise contribute?
what research did you do to validate that this book is very very well researched and written ? http://blog.beliefnet.com/markdroberts/god-is-not-great-by-christopher-hitchens-a-response.htmlRazkal wrote:i read a good book recently, by unedited journalist Christopher Hitchens entitled: God is not great, how religion poisons everything.
very very well researched and written, i recommend it for all...the historical info may fail to surprise only d'spike...but then again he was a wealth of his own...
anyway, good reading people...got the book locally at Nigel R Khan.
civic minded wrote:You know this thing has gone on long enough
When you die - nothing happens after - you just ceased to exist - your brain and your body die - there is no such thing as God,or the devil or the soul or anything of that sort -
I know it is scary enough to shiet your pants - but thats the truth!!
Humans are so scared of death and the truth that they make up stuff like the afterlife - FACE THE TRUTH COWARDS !!
Just look at ghost hunters on Syfy - they always hearing noises and felt stuff but never any concrete proof that ghost exist.
megadoc1 wrote:what research did you do to validate that this book is very very well researched and written ? http://blog.beliefnet.com/markdroberts/god-is-not-great-by-christopher-hitchens-a-response.htmlRazkal wrote:i read a good book recently, by unedited journalist Christopher Hitchens entitled: God is not great, how religion poisons everything.
very very well researched and written, i recommend it for all...the historical info may fail to surprise only d'spike...but then again he was a wealth of his own...
anyway, good reading people...got the book locally at Nigel R Khan.
I saw research saying the new testament is 99.5 percent textual pure http://www.carm.org/manuscript-evidence ,can that book refute this claim? or any other made on that site?
MG Man wrote:yup
I posted that book elsewhere in an xmas ched
I tell people it's my Good Book
Razkal wrote:megadoc1 wrote:what research did you do to validate that this book is very very well researched and written ? http://blog.beliefnet.com/markdroberts/god-is-not-great-by-christopher-hitchens-a-response.htmlRazkal wrote:i read a good book recently, by unedited journalist Christopher Hitchens entitled: God is not great, how religion poisons everything.
very very well researched and written, i recommend it for all...the historical info may fail to surprise only d'spike...but then again he was a wealth of his own...
anyway, good reading people...got the book locally at Nigel R Khan.
I saw research saying the new testament is 99.5 percent textual pure http://www.carm.org/manuscript-evidence ,can that book refute this claim? or any other made on that site?
what (actual) research did you do to validate that bible's claims/stories/testaments?
non actually
you still didn't answer how do you know that C. Hitchens' book was well researched
where is your (actual) research? is this person wrong http://blog.beliefnet.com/markdroberts/god-is-not-great-by-christopher-hitchens-a-response.html if so show it
i've read the bible, the gita, the vedas; haven't gotten a copy of the koran yet (but since islam is a shoddy heaping of selected teachings of the abrahamic faiths i know it's not even worth my while...)...megadoc, why don't you read C. Hitchens' book and then try your insufferable nitpicking.
Razkal wrote:ent? i can't hold a discussion with a person that refuses to think rationally and critically...that's why i'll leave the "text" critiquing to spike and mg, they have alot more patience (and relevant recallable knowledge!) responding to the religious zealots and fanatics...i can't partake in religious debate without sounding like an intolerant muffler bearing, i'm much more intrigued by debate concerning the existence of a god or god type being; religion is laughable and flushes itself down the toilet without any help.
d spike wrote:bluefete wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:bluefete wrote:Much like Count Dracula on Sesame Street. Evil personified and sanitized to be sold to little children
His theories were absolutely discredited. The little pervert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The quote in blue is in reference to who?
The Count on Sesame Street? (Not Count Dracula, a figment of Bram Stoker's imagination, the muppet character's name is just "the Count", a play on the verb...) His theories are supposed to be somewhat mainstream, adding one repeatedly to a number...
Freud? sheit happens to you and this affects how you view situations afterward? Makes sense to me...
Bluefete? Well, many of his theories voiced here are really hypotheses, as they can't be proven... and some of them don't even make much sense... but I never thought he was a pervert!!!!
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:bluefete wrote:His theories were absolutely discredited. The little pervert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
discredited by whom? the same science and scientists you discredit by saying they are nut cases to dream up evolution?
illumin@ti wrote:** munches popcorn **
Dappa, seriously, i think he wont like this ants nest he walk into. He put science and the validity of scientific reason and logic on blast for so long during this thread, that i doubt he'll try to use the logic of science itself to, as spike highlighted earlier, dispute science...
My question is, how did he jump from the loose argument about the Count on sesame street being demonic, vis a vis his earlier assertion about the 'proliferation' of primetime televison with vampire themed shows to a rant about Sigmund Freud. Discredited is a harsh word to use. Yes the man was a wacko, a lil deviant, but.... BUT , his work LAID a lot of the GROUNDWORK upon which a lot of now current work and known fact rests. You cannot ignore his contribution to his field. Some of his theories were expanded upon and others discarded in favour of new ones. this may come as a shock to you Blue, but thought and common consensus also goes thru a process of evolution. its a key part of the process that keeps society together and moves it forward..
Fact remains that he was not, nor will he be the only great thinker that didnt have a perfect batting record. Do we evaluate the worth of one's contribution to humanity based on one set of theories or do we weigh the value as added up next to others and in so far as how they helped others in that field advance and add new thought to the pool. If all others were held to such scrutiny, then sociology/psychology texts today would be without the contributions of Cesare Lombroso and his contributions to criminology and sociology.
Lombroso, for those who would remember, ignored the thinking of the 'classical school' and formed his own thoughts about crime and deviance having links to physical features and defects. He refined it to form his theory about 'Atavism'. This made others classify his work as Anthropological Criminology- essentialy that criminality was inherited and that the possession of certain physical features made it possible to determine someone who might have a predisposition to commit criminal activity...
Ask any layman now about that, and they look at you and laugh, but really, Lombroso in his time was respected and contributed massively to the study of crime and deviance.... Doh mind that his theory about atavistic man was smelling a lot like discrimination and bigotry...
So then,,,compare that to Freud. Do we use the same yardstick to measure?
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:
d spike wrote:sMASH wrote:i remember some new jehovia witness and she daughter corner meh, and we discussed (more like me posing questions and them quoting stuff which not relevant to the questions) ...
Jehovah's Witnesses are only interested in disseminating their information. They will engage in discussion only to try and make you realize that you should perhaps acquire one of their tracts/magazines. They will not allow you to pin them in a discussion on one topic - you will notice their ability to evade questions and introduce another topic.
bluefete wrote:illumin@ti wrote:** munches popcorn **
Dappa, seriously, i think he wont like this ants nest he walk into. He put science and the validity of scientific reason and logic on blast for so long during this thread, that i doubt he'll try to use the logic of science itself to, as spike highlighted earlier, dispute science...
My question is, how did he jump from the loose argument about the Count on sesame street being demonic, vis a vis his earlier assertion about the 'proliferation' of primetime televison with vampire themed shows to a rant about Sigmund Freud. Discredited is a harsh word to use. Yes the man was a wacko, a lil deviant, but.... BUT , his work LAID a lot of the GROUNDWORK upon which a lot of now current work and known fact rests. You cannot ignore his contribution to his field. Some of his theories were expanded upon and others discarded in favour of new ones. this may come as a shock to you Blue, but thought and common consensus also goes thru a process of evolution. its a key part of the process that keeps society together and moves it forward..
Fact remains that he was not, nor will he be the only great thinker that didnt have a perfect batting record. Do we evaluate the worth of one's contribution to humanity based on one set of theories or do we weigh the value as added up next to others and in so far as how they helped others in that field advance and add new thought to the pool. If all others were held to such scrutiny, then sociology/psychology texts today would be without the contributions of Cesare Lombroso and his contributions to criminology and sociology.
Lombroso, for those who would remember, ignored the thinking of the 'classical school' and formed his own thoughts about crime and deviance having links to physical features and defects. He refined it to form his theory about 'Atavism'. This made others classify his work as Anthropological Criminology- essentialy that criminality was inherited and that the possession of certain physical features made it possible to determine someone who might have a predisposition to commit criminal activity...
Ask any layman now about that, and they look at you and laugh, but really, Lombroso in his time was respected and contributed massively to the study of crime and deviance.... Doh mind that his theory about atavistic man was smelling a lot like discrimination and bigotry...
So then,,,compare that to Freud. Do we use the same yardstick to measure?
No one can argue that Freud was a leader in psychoanalysis. However, much of his work centred on trying to make sexual and incestuous connections with thought processes and actions at various stages of a person's subconscious development.
The little pervert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
illumin@ti wrote:Ah bounce up a babble thumper this evening....... he was talking, and talking, and talking, and talking bout the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints..... dude looked like he was trippin on E...
and im thinking, oh the irony... a black Mormon tryin to convert me?!?!?! to what ?
wasnt the Mormon faith against the salvation of minorities? can someone with the relevant subject matter expertise contribute?
Razkal wrote:i read a good book recently, by unedited journalist Christopher Hitchens entitled: God is not great, how religion poisons everything.
very very well researched and written, i recommend it for all...the historical info may fail to surprise only d'spike...but then again he was a wealth of his own...
anyway, good reading people...got the book locally at Nigel R Khan.
bluefete wrote:Razkal wrote:i read a good book recently, by unedited journalist Christopher Hitchens entitled: God is not great, how religion poisons everything.
very very well researched and written, i recommend it for all...the historical info may fail to surprise only d'spike...but then again he was a wealth of his own...
anyway, good reading people...got the book locally at Nigel R Khan.
Hitchens got it slightly wrong. It should be 'How religion uses God to poison everything."
bluefete wrote:Razkal wrote:i read a good book recently, by unedited journalist Christopher Hitchens entitled: God is not great, how religion poisons everything.
very very well researched and written, i recommend it for all...the historical info may fail to surprise only d'spike...but then again he was a wealth of his own...
anyway, good reading people...got the book locally at Nigel R Khan.
Hitchens got it slightly wrong. It should be 'How religion uses the threat of 'God' to fool and control the weakminded and poison everything."
civic minded wrote:You know this thing has gone on long enough
When you die - nothing happens after - you just ceased to exist - your brain and your body die - there is no such thing as God,or the devil or the soul or anything of that sort -
I know it is scary enough to shiet your pants - but thats the truth!!
Humans are so scared of death and the truth that they make up stuff like the afterlife - FACE THE TRUTH COWARDS !!
Just look at ghost hunters on Syfy - they always hearing noises and felt stuff but never any concrete proof that ghost exist.
illumin@ti wrote:bluefete wrote:illumin@ti wrote:** munches popcorn **
Dappa, seriously, i think he wont like this ants nest he walk into. He put science and the validity of scientific reason and logic on blast for so long during this thread, that i doubt he'll try to use the logic of science itself to, as spike highlighted earlier, dispute science...
My question is, how did he jump from the loose argument about the Count on sesame street being demonic, vis a vis his earlier assertion about the 'proliferation' of primetime televison with vampire themed shows to a rant about Sigmund Freud. Discredited is a harsh word to use. Yes the man was a wacko, a lil deviant, but.... BUT , his work LAID a lot of the GROUNDWORK upon which a lot of now current work and known fact rests. You cannot ignore his contribution to his field. Some of his theories were expanded upon and others discarded in favour of new ones. this may come as a shock to you Blue, but thought and common consensus also goes thru a process of evolution. its a key part of the process that keeps society together and moves it forward..
Fact remains that he was not, nor will he be the only great thinker that didnt have a perfect batting record. Do we evaluate the worth of one's contribution to humanity based on one set of theories or do we weigh the value as added up next to others and in so far as how they helped others in that field advance and add new thought to the pool. If all others were held to such scrutiny, then sociology/psychology texts today would be without the contributions of Cesare Lombroso and his contributions to criminology and sociology.
Lombroso, for those who would remember, ignored the thinking of the 'classical school' and formed his own thoughts about crime and deviance having links to physical features and defects. He refined it to form his theory about 'Atavism'. This made others classify his work as Anthropological Criminology- essentialy that criminality was inherited and that the possession of certain physical features made it possible to determine someone who might have a predisposition to commit criminal activity...
Ask any layman now about that, and they look at you and laugh, but really, Lombroso in his time was respected and contributed massively to the study of crime and deviance.... Doh mind that his theory about atavistic man was smelling a lot like discrimination and bigotry...
So then,,,compare that to Freud. Do we use the same yardstick to measure?
No one can argue that Freud was a leader in psychoanalysis. However, much of his work centred on trying to make sexual and incestuous connections with thought processes and actions at various stages of a person's subconscious development.
The little pervert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
das u dey blue, sounding like yuh using words and terms that belong to scientific study?
Seriously, i will say that freud was a perv, we all know that.. so was John Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and a host of other great men in public life. So, was not Freud human first and subject to everything else that mankind is? Or are you going to try to tell me that he was gay and didnt have jesus in his life, and that the cure for his condition is Jesus.
first things first, to err is human eh, we are not perfect.
MG Man wrote:bluefete wrote:Razkal wrote:i read a good book recently, by unedited journalist Christopher Hitchens entitled: God is not great, how religion poisons everything.
very very well researched and written, i recommend it for all...the historical info may fail to surprise only d'spike...but then again he was a wealth of his own...
anyway, good reading people...got the book locally at Nigel R Khan.
Hitchens got it slightly wrong. It should be 'How religion uses God to poison everything."
so you admitting he mostly right?
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: pugboy and 68 guests
