Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Freak, to avoid a dozen pages of endless discussion on human waste, I am going to ignore your latest challenge about excrement, to cheers of all no doubt. Also, as I said, I am not persuaded by your comments on the modesty issue. For one, I think that your dislike of me is so severe that you are heavily biased against any statement I make. I have asked others with firsthand knowledge; and so far, the mission's director disagreed with your point. And many of your own observations have given me additional information that confirms my observation. (I've pasted them into my own records on the subject.) Further, my observation was not an *absolute* (won't that make Zakath happy). So: no! I'm not retracting unless I find information from my other sources that I overstated the case. It seems to me that there is much less nudity today after Christian influence, percentage wise, than there was before; even you admit that the villages under Christian influence, and such individuals, have become more modest. If you read "Extraordinary Popular Delusions" written in 1841 by Charles MacKay (?, I read it 20 years ago), which has nothing to do with this subject, there is a chapter on how extraordinarily difficult it is to change cultural habits even by the force of law (for example, hair styles). So, to change to a significant degree such an ancient custom of immodesty without the force of law, is a significant accomplishment. If nudity has been expunged from hundreds of villages, and mostly kept out of cities as they have developed, that alone makes my point. So, while I fear it may ruin your life, I am done responding to you on the matter. -Bob
Freak
New member
You're the one who brought it up in the public debate. Not me. I was merely pointing out the fallacies.
I think the facts speak for themselves.
I do not dislike you. That is simply untrue. I'm pointing out the obvious errors you have made and you're angry.
What areas did he visit? This will help reveal if he's been in the same areas where these problems continue. I'm starting to believe he didn't visit the same nations that I have. That is why he disagrees with me (because he hasn't witnessed the same things I have).
So your statements were not entirely true?
I'm sorry to hear that.
But there is still nudity in cities. So....
You have believed a lie then.
How's that?
Jesus loves you Bob and He expects you to be accurate. Humble yourself my friend. We all need it.
attention
New member
Nudity and early human primitive society
Nudity and early human primitive society
Apart from the quarel between Bob E and Freak, who disagree on the issue of public nudity and modesty, the subject on hand is of course an interesting one.
What is interesting of course is that our current perceptions of what is moral and modesty, have not always been there, but have been formed through our societal and cultural development.
We know however that humans have come from the wilderniss, and were derived from ancestors who were primates, and that part of human history has developed in which humans were not dressed, and in which marriage as a stable bond between the two sexes also did not exist.
Initially mankind lived like the animals, depending totally on the products of nature. We did not protect our skin against the influence of the climate, but instead we had still our skin covered with enough hair to keep the cold out.
It is assumed that initially mankind had it's habitat in warmer climates, and only gradually inhabited the colder climate zones, in which covering the body with animal skins were necessary for survival. The genes that control the growing of hair on our body have changed in the course of time, and caused that most of our skin is no longer covered with thick hair (althoug all of our skin, except for the hand palms, feet and areas like lips, are still covered with small hairs) to protect against the climate. Current day humans only have hair on certain parts of the body, which are foremost the head, the genital zone and the armpit (and for males the bear and moustache).
There are some people who happened to have those genes turned back on, and which have hair growing on other places as well, like all of the face (and not just the beard or moustache zone), which indicates that we have come from a species that used to have their total skin covered with hair.
It is arguable that humans were dressing themselves, not out of 'modesty' or shame for their nudity, but for practical purposes, which were to cover and protect the vital body parts, and to protect for weather conditions, when the human skin became less hairy.
The genital parts were presumably the first and foremost parts that were covered, and which supposedly was caused because those skin parts are the most sensitive, and could be hurt during the activities of hunting and gathering.
Nudity and early human primitive society
Apart from the quarel between Bob E and Freak, who disagree on the issue of public nudity and modesty, the subject on hand is of course an interesting one.
What is interesting of course is that our current perceptions of what is moral and modesty, have not always been there, but have been formed through our societal and cultural development.
We know however that humans have come from the wilderniss, and were derived from ancestors who were primates, and that part of human history has developed in which humans were not dressed, and in which marriage as a stable bond between the two sexes also did not exist.
Initially mankind lived like the animals, depending totally on the products of nature. We did not protect our skin against the influence of the climate, but instead we had still our skin covered with enough hair to keep the cold out.
It is assumed that initially mankind had it's habitat in warmer climates, and only gradually inhabited the colder climate zones, in which covering the body with animal skins were necessary for survival. The genes that control the growing of hair on our body have changed in the course of time, and caused that most of our skin is no longer covered with thick hair (althoug all of our skin, except for the hand palms, feet and areas like lips, are still covered with small hairs) to protect against the climate. Current day humans only have hair on certain parts of the body, which are foremost the head, the genital zone and the armpit (and for males the bear and moustache).
There are some people who happened to have those genes turned back on, and which have hair growing on other places as well, like all of the face (and not just the beard or moustache zone), which indicates that we have come from a species that used to have their total skin covered with hair.
It is arguable that humans were dressing themselves, not out of 'modesty' or shame for their nudity, but for practical purposes, which were to cover and protect the vital body parts, and to protect for weather conditions, when the human skin became less hairy.
The genital parts were presumably the first and foremost parts that were covered, and which supposedly was caused because those skin parts are the most sensitive, and could be hurt during the activities of hunting and gathering.
attention
New member
Re: And there's more....
Re: And there's more....
The public nudity of nudists is something very far remote from public sexual behaviour. Nudists don't show sexual behaviour in the openness, and don't relate in any way between their showing themselves naked (although they will usually don't do that outside of their own group, and will live by the rule that outside of their private camps and beaches, they will not go naked) and any form of sexuality.
Further: for seeing open and shameless sex, one does not need to drive to Jamaice, since it happens to be the case that in every video store nearby, you can rent videotaped performances of any possible sexual variation you can imagine, including the most explicit details.
It happens to be the case that most of that performances and performers happen to occur and live in a country that on the outside is the most puritan countries of all, the USA.
Which is just another example of the purely hypocritic way of morality that exists in the USA.
Re: And there's more....
The public nudity of nudists is something very far remote from public sexual behaviour. Nudists don't show sexual behaviour in the openness, and don't relate in any way between their showing themselves naked (although they will usually don't do that outside of their own group, and will live by the rule that outside of their private camps and beaches, they will not go naked) and any form of sexuality.
Further: for seeing open and shameless sex, one does not need to drive to Jamaice, since it happens to be the case that in every video store nearby, you can rent videotaped performances of any possible sexual variation you can imagine, including the most explicit details.
It happens to be the case that most of that performances and performers happen to occur and live in a country that on the outside is the most puritan countries of all, the USA.
Which is just another example of the purely hypocritic way of morality that exists in the USA.
One Eyed Jack
New member
It'll never happen, which just goes to prove my point. See, unlike you, I actually had one.
attention
New member
Probability (again)
Probability (again)
Bob's argument from probability is ridiculous.
Firstly, he admitted that there is no known mechanism that could produce the first proteins, necessary for life. The only mechanism known is DNA itself, but the point is of course, how got the first DNA molecule produced?
He then comes with a total random mechanism, in which from random occuring interactions between atoms, the first proteins necessary for life were created. He actually goes that far that he states that he could calculate the probability based on that random mechanism.
Since the calculation of that probability also includes the number of atoms that exist, the first question is then: how does Bob know the number of atoms that exist? He can only have taken that approx. from the number of atoms that exist in the observable universe.
But how much universe can there be outside of what we can observe? And does he know how large that could be?
What he comes up with then is a flawed mechanism based on a flawed calculation, which shows that that is not the way it could have occured.
The only thing he then shows is that the mechanism, which he earlier acknowledged, is not something we know, can not be his mechanism which he proposed. But that knowledge we already have, so what is the argument then?
Bob's mechanism has been shown to not be able to account for how the first proteins got here. Therefore we have to belief Bob's absurd Deity to exist, because the mechanism he propose, is also absurd.
Who wants another sandwich? Anyone?
Probability (again)
Bob's argument from probability is ridiculous.
Firstly, he admitted that there is no known mechanism that could produce the first proteins, necessary for life. The only mechanism known is DNA itself, but the point is of course, how got the first DNA molecule produced?
He then comes with a total random mechanism, in which from random occuring interactions between atoms, the first proteins necessary for life were created. He actually goes that far that he states that he could calculate the probability based on that random mechanism.
Since the calculation of that probability also includes the number of atoms that exist, the first question is then: how does Bob know the number of atoms that exist? He can only have taken that approx. from the number of atoms that exist in the observable universe.
But how much universe can there be outside of what we can observe? And does he know how large that could be?
What he comes up with then is a flawed mechanism based on a flawed calculation, which shows that that is not the way it could have occured.
The only thing he then shows is that the mechanism, which he earlier acknowledged, is not something we know, can not be his mechanism which he proposed. But that knowledge we already have, so what is the argument then?
Bob's mechanism has been shown to not be able to account for how the first proteins got here. Therefore we have to belief Bob's absurd Deity to exist, because the mechanism he propose, is also absurd.
Who wants another sandwich? Anyone?
The Berean
Well-known member
Is Pastor Bob getting paid by the number of words? His posts are becoming increasingly lengthy and convoluted. Can we add some limit to the length of posts in the future? I am a fairly intelligent person but when I have to take five or six breaks just so I can read the entire post, then the post has become way too long.
The Berean
Well-known member
Pastor's Bob "process" of proving God exists seems to be an inductive method. Again, I do not believe that it is possible to prove that God exists using naturalistic evidence only. Pastor Bob is using using biology, human consciuosness, psycology and inferring God's existence from these areas, There is a problem, though. Trying to infer God's existence from science, morality, consciousness, etc, works only if one ASSUMES God already exists. Let me explain. If a child was rasied in isolation and was never exposed to the concept of "God". When this child grew into adulthood could he/she study, science, observe human morality and human consciousness and deductively conclude that God exists? I would say no. What say you "Peanut Gallery"?
mighty_duck
New member
Another possible counter argument to Bob's "not enough time" statement, is the big bang- gnab gib theory. There have been an infinte number of Big Bangs in the past, and therefore matter has had an infinte amount of time to interract, making any probability, however small, very possible.
Does that make "father time" my god? In some ways, I suppose it does. But I have far more evidence for "father time" than Bob's god, so I'll stick with that for the time being.
Does that make "father time" my god? In some ways, I suppose it does. But I have far more evidence for "father time" than Bob's god, so I'll stick with that for the time being.
attention
New member
WHAT?????
Are you just stating here that you cannot conceive of a BEGINNING OF TIME, just all matter, time and space emerging from nothing just like that. Is that so difficult even IMAGINING how that happened???
You state here that you actually require there is no begin of time????
You are so SHAMEFULLl and SO unscientific, even Stephen Hawking states in his popular book ( the current day Bible ) "Brief History of Time" that time must have had a beginning, so that makes it enough of a science theory to account for...AND EXPLAINS YOU ARE UNSCIENTIFIC!
Of course, you must not read that book TOO WELL, cause at the same page on which he actually explains the "begin of time" concept, he also explains that orthogonally to "real" time, there is "imaginary" time (and which is not the illusion the word "imaginary" would indicate), and that time does not have a beginning, and that "imaginairy" time is even more real as "real" time.
But to read science is of course just reading the parts you like, and at the same time throwing away the other part of the same idea, you don't like. You need to read science with CREATIVITY, else you might be inclined to think your beliefs are false.
Last edited:
- Status