T.O. isn't the only place infested with trolls. Aron Ra posted a
recent Youtube video where he answers the challenge questions of one particularly aggressive troll. IMO discussing these questions would
be a refreshing change of pace:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYngbZ28LL4>
I acknowledge that some of the following questions have been discussed
in T.O., some several times; many of the following questions are
variations of what R.Dean posted, both recently and in the past. My impression is repetition has never bothered anybody on T.O.
Note: There are discrepancies between the transcript, the displayed
text, and standard punctuation. I used the displayed text as the
final arbiter, presuming that to be the most accurate rendition
available of the troll's original text.
Science Questions:
@6:23
1. Since Einstein proved his theory of relativity that the Universe
had a beginning. How did everything (Universe) material come from
nothing? Give me real science not your blind Faith.
@8:21
2. How did all life come from non-life material? Has that ever been duplicated and observed by science? Again I want science not faith in assumptions.
@14:56
3. Since we know have life. Outside of science fiction, there could
only be two possible explanations: Supernatural creation from God or
natural spontaneous generation. Since the atheist has vehemently
ruled out Supernatural creation they're left with only spontaneous generation. Has spontaneous generation ever been proved? Has it ever
been duplicated and observed? I'll take science on this too, not just
faith.
@17:03
4. Since macro-evolution (not microevolution) is touted as the only explanation for our existence. Has there ever been one kind of animal evolved into another kind of animal? Has one transitional fossil ever
been discovered?
@19:37
5. This question proves that 99% percent of atheists are only
non-logical believers not because the evidence, but because of morals
or rather immorals. Science and biology have nothing to do with what
they believe. So as an atheist that only believes in materialism and
nothing exists outside of what we see. No God, no soul, no spirit
no supernatural. With that being sa[i]id one question must be asked. Question: Is it biologically possible to be a woman trapped in a man's
body? In other words, is it biologically possible for a person's
gender to not correspond with his/hers birth sex?
Moral Questions:
@22:20
1. Since the atheist believes that morality is subjective and only a
social construct. Was being gay 150 years ago immoral since society
deemed it sinful and wrong. If tomorrow as a society they deem it
immoral again, will it be?
@24:17
2. If the atheist believes that there is NO eternal fixed moral
standard, literally saying there is nothing intrinsically evil or
wrong. How can any one say that Hitler was evil. Not if one believes according to their opinion, he was evil. Because it was their social construct to exterminate what they called the weaker races following a textbook example the survival of the fittest. Are we not dealing with
only opinion since nothing is inherently morally wrong.
@25:52
3. If one is not intelligent enough to understand that without a fixed eternal standard, nothing is inherently right or wrong, and says I'm
an atheist but I disagree. If an atheist makes the claim that they
believe morality is not subjective but rather objective. Which
would be a total contradiction of reality and logic. It's called the
Law of non-contradiction. It's a law that governs logic. But if one
being very confused, insists that as an atheist they do believe in a
fixed moral standard (distorting logic and thus distorting reality)
and as an atheist they believe some actions are inherently evil. So if
that is the case, please explain WHAT the eternal fixed moral standard
is? Outside of morality being a social construct not IF but WHY is
anything evil?
On 1/29/2023 9:45 PM, jillery wrote:
T.O. isn't the only place infested with trolls. Aron Ra posted a
recent Youtube video where he answers the challenge questions of one
particularly aggressive troll. IMO discussing these questions would
be a refreshing change of pace:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYngbZ28LL4>
I acknowledge that some of the following questions have been discussed
in T.O., some several times; many of the following questions are
variations of what R.Dean posted, both recently and in the past. My
impression is repetition has never bothered anybody on T.O.
Note: There are discrepancies between the transcript, the displayed
text, and standard punctuation. I used the displayed text as the
final arbiter, presuming that to be the most accurate rendition
available of the troll's original text.
Science Questions:
@6:23
1. Since Einstein proved his theory of relativity that the Universe
had a beginning. How did everything (Universe) material come from
nothing? Give me real science not your blind Faith.
@8:21
2. How did all life come from non-life material? Has that ever been
duplicated and observed by science? Again I want science not faith in
assumptions.
@14:56
3. Since we know have life. Outside of science fiction, there could
only be two possible explanations: Supernatural creation from God or
natural spontaneous generation. Since the atheist has vehemently
ruled out Supernatural creation they're left with only spontaneous
generation. Has spontaneous generation ever been proved? Has it ever
been duplicated and observed? I'll take science on this too, not just
faith.
@17:03
4. Since macro-evolution (not microevolution) is touted as the only
explanation for our existence. Has there ever been one kind of animal
evolved into another kind of animal? Has one transitional fossil ever
been discovered?
@19:37
5. This question proves that 99% percent of atheists are only
non-logical believers not because the evidence, but because of morals
or rather immorals. Science and biology have nothing to do with what
they believe. So as an atheist that only believes in materialism and
nothing exists outside of what we see. No God, no soul, no spirit
no supernatural. With that being sa[i]id one question must be asked.
Question: Is it biologically possible to be a woman trapped in a man's
body? In other words, is it biologically possible for a person's
gender to not correspond with his/hers birth sex?
Moral Questions:
@22:20
1. Since the atheist believes that morality is subjective and only a
social construct. Was being gay 150 years ago immoral since society
deemed it sinful and wrong. If tomorrow as a society they deem it
immoral again, will it be?
#1 of the Top Six: The Big Bang. The question itself has the answer
that IDiot creationists do not want to accept. There are ways that we
have figured out that tell us that the Big Bang happened and when it >happened. Just because we don't have all the answers, doesn't mean that >creationism is true. The god that fills this gap isn't biblical enough
for most IDiots. It is an example of just what the creationists have
always heard when their junk fails in Federal court. Just because we
don't know something, that something doesn't have to support the
creationist alternative. Most of the ID perps are old earth
creationists, and don't have an issue with a universe that could be
billions of years old. They lied to the rubes about the "big tent" of >IDiocy that could cover all creationist alternatives, but #1 the Big
Bang has already been one of the science topics that the idiot type >creationists have wanted to remove from the public school science
standards, and they succeeded in Kansas in 1999. This type of denial
does not support YEC, and the YEC understand that enough to want to keep >their kids from understanding what the Big Bang actually is.
@24:17
2. If the atheist believes that there is NO eternal fixed moral
standard, literally saying there is nothing intrinsically evil or
wrong. How can any one say that Hitler was evil. Not if one believes
according to their opinion, he was evil. Because it was their social
construct to exterminate what they called the weaker races following a
textbook example the survival of the fittest. Are we not dealing with
only opinion since nothing is inherently morally wrong.
@25:52
3. If one is not intelligent enough to understand that without a fixed
eternal standard, nothing is inherently right or wrong, and says I'm
an atheist but I disagree. If an atheist makes the claim that they
believe morality is not subjective but rather objective. Which
would be a total contradiction of reality and logic. It's called the
Law of non-contradiction. It's a law that governs logic. But if one
being very confused, insists that as an atheist they do believe in a
fixed moral standard (distorting logic and thus distorting reality)
and as an atheist they believe some actions are inherently evil. So if
that is the case, please explain WHAT the eternal fixed moral standard
is? Outside of morality being a social construct not IF but WHY is
anything evil?
These last two are nonsense because science is just the study of nature,
and it can't tell you moral value answers like these. Science can make >observations that can be used to justify some moral standards like when
an embryo's heart starts beating, or when brain activity starts in a
fetus, but it can't answer moral questions like "is abortion moral >behavior". I just watched Frozen Planet II and they had a grizzly bear >attack a herd of musk ox that had newly born calves. The calves could
not run and were all left behind when the herd ran. Normally, for a
wolf pack the musk ox would form a circle with the young inside the
circle, but the grizzly was too big for that tactic. Not only were the >calves left behind, but they mistook the grizzly as a large brown member
of their herd and moved towards the grizzly instead of trying to escape,
so the grizzly easily killed half a dozen of them. It may be sad to
watch, but it is just what it is.
I should also add that if you need to get your morals out of a book,
that is an issue in itself for that person. Such people do exist, and
that is why we have mass shootings, and things like road rage, but it
has about squat to do with whether the moral values of the Bible are
valid or not. You just have to look at how the Bible has been misused >throughout history to know the limitations of that belief.
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 06:02:55 -0600, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 1/29/2023 9:45 PM, jillery wrote:
T.O. isn't the only place infested with trolls. Aron Ra posted a
recent Youtube video where he answers the challenge questions of one
particularly aggressive troll. IMO discussing these questions would
be a refreshing change of pace:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYngbZ28LL4>
I acknowledge that some of the following questions have been discussed
in T.O., some several times; many of the following questions are
variations of what R.Dean posted, both recently and in the past. My
impression is repetition has never bothered anybody on T.O.
Note: There are discrepancies between the transcript, the displayed
text, and standard punctuation. I used the displayed text as the
final arbiter, presuming that to be the most accurate rendition
available of the troll's original text.
Science Questions:
@6:23
1. Since Einstein proved his theory of relativity that the Universe
had a beginning. How did everything (Universe) material come from
nothing? Give me real science not your blind Faith.
@8:21
2. How did all life come from non-life material? Has that ever been
duplicated and observed by science? Again I want science not faith in
assumptions.
@14:56
3. Since we know have life. Outside of science fiction, there could
only be two possible explanations: Supernatural creation from God or
natural spontaneous generation. Since the atheist has vehemently
ruled out Supernatural creation they're left with only spontaneous
generation. Has spontaneous generation ever been proved? Has it ever
been duplicated and observed? I'll take science on this too, not just
faith.
@17:03
4. Since macro-evolution (not microevolution) is touted as the only
explanation for our existence. Has there ever been one kind of animal
evolved into another kind of animal? Has one transitional fossil ever
been discovered?
@19:37
5. This question proves that 99% percent of atheists are only
non-logical believers not because the evidence, but because of morals
or rather immorals. Science and biology have nothing to do with what
they believe. So as an atheist that only believes in materialism and
nothing exists outside of what we see. No God, no soul, no spirit
no supernatural. With that being sa[i]id one question must be asked.
Question: Is it biologically possible to be a woman trapped in a man's
body? In other words, is it biologically possible for a person's
gender to not correspond with his/hers birth sex?
Moral Questions:
@22:20
1. Since the atheist believes that morality is subjective and only a
social construct. Was being gay 150 years ago immoral since society
deemed it sinful and wrong. If tomorrow as a society they deem it
immoral again, will it be?
#1 of the Top Six: The Big Bang. The question itself has the answer
that IDiot creationists do not want to accept. There are ways that we
have figured out that tell us that the Big Bang happened and when it
happened. Just because we don't have all the answers, doesn't mean that
creationism is true. The god that fills this gap isn't biblical enough
for most IDiots. It is an example of just what the creationists have
always heard when their junk fails in Federal court. Just because we
don't know something, that something doesn't have to support the
creationist alternative. Most of the ID perps are old earth
creationists, and don't have an issue with a universe that could be
billions of years old. They lied to the rubes about the "big tent" of
IDiocy that could cover all creationist alternatives, but #1 the Big
Bang has already been one of the science topics that the idiot type
creationists have wanted to remove from the public school science
standards, and they succeeded in Kansas in 1999. This type of denial
does not support YEC, and the YEC understand that enough to want to keep
their kids from understanding what the Big Bang actually is.
@24:17
2. If the atheist believes that there is NO eternal fixed moral
standard, literally saying there is nothing intrinsically evil or
wrong. How can any one say that Hitler was evil. Not if one believes
according to their opinion, he was evil. Because it was their social
construct to exterminate what they called the weaker races following a
textbook example the survival of the fittest. Are we not dealing with
only opinion since nothing is inherently morally wrong.
@25:52
3. If one is not intelligent enough to understand that without a fixed
eternal standard, nothing is inherently right or wrong, and says I'm
an atheist but I disagree. If an atheist makes the claim that they
believe morality is not subjective but rather objective. Which
would be a total contradiction of reality and logic. It's called the
Law of non-contradiction. It's a law that governs logic. But if one
being very confused, insists that as an atheist they do believe in a
fixed moral standard (distorting logic and thus distorting reality)
and as an atheist they believe some actions are inherently evil. So if
that is the case, please explain WHAT the eternal fixed moral standard
is? Outside of morality being a social construct not IF but WHY is
anything evil?
These last two are nonsense because science is just the study of nature,
and it can't tell you moral value answers like these. Science can make
observations that can be used to justify some moral standards like when
an embryo's heart starts beating, or when brain activity starts in a
fetus, but it can't answer moral questions like "is abortion moral
behavior". I just watched Frozen Planet II and they had a grizzly bear
attack a herd of musk ox that had newly born calves. The calves could
not run and were all left behind when the herd ran. Normally, for a
wolf pack the musk ox would form a circle with the young inside the
circle, but the grizzly was too big for that tactic. Not only were the
calves left behind, but they mistook the grizzly as a large brown member
of their herd and moved towards the grizzly instead of trying to escape,
so the grizzly easily killed half a dozen of them. It may be sad to
watch, but it is just what it is.
True dat. Using nature as a moral standard conflates "is" with
"ought".
The larger problem with this troll's moral questions is they presume
belief in God provides a single eternal fixed moral standard, when
history and current events show it does not.
I should also add that if you need to get your morals out of a book,
that is an issue in itself for that person. Such people do exist, and
that is why we have mass shootings, and things like road rage, but it
has about squat to do with whether the moral values of the Bible are
valid or not. You just have to look at how the Bible has been misused
throughout history to know the limitations of that belief.
Ron Okimoto
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 376 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 53:04:42 |
| Calls: | 8,041 |
| Files: | 13,037 |
| Messages: | 5,832,016 |