mikey

Can you be more specific? Look at human psychology alone. Half the time if not more than half the time the things we do are not even for the reasons we do them for. "do not look at the outward appearance, for when men judge they look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart". This is what it said in the book dealing with David's anointing as King of Israel. David was not even in the line up to be anointed, but his strapping older brothers were. He was a scrawny runt tending sheep. God sees the heart. Like Jesus said He "knew what was in man". When Peter said something about stopping Jesus from being crucified Jesus said, "get behind me Satan for your thoughts are that of the way of men" (paraphrased) As for human beings, it isn't just the matter of our heart, our true motives, the ones we ourselves don't know we have but God does, but it's also the problems of bias, and the errors humans make. Formal fallacies, informal fallacies, memory-bias, post-hoc reasoning, confirmation bias, observer bias, recency bias, primacy bias, faulty reasoning, conclusion-jumping, circular reasoning, rhetorical devices, pareidolia, emotionalism, ignorance, low IQ, lack of wisdom and understanding, recklessness, failure to be prudent, a low knowledge-base and being uninformed. Our incapabilities also, such as seeing beyond the present moment or seeing all ends. What are we missing? Everything God is not missing. This is the tip of the iceburg. We can barely track one billiard balls trajectory, but if God is omniscient He knows as we speak, the location of every atom at every moment since the dawn of time and could write in a book their position, each one of them. We are talking about an understanding that is COMPLETE. TOTAL. Even if you added up all of human knowledge, it still wouldn't compete with God's abilities. It is utterly preposterous, and as gemini said, "absurd" to even try to apply human understanding to God's level of understanding. Bye for now. (I really have to go now for a few days).

This is a fallacy of exclusion, Goku. Because with any study you can't take part of the bible as a study of God's character and leave out what it actually says about His character and His omniscience, (and usually with you, it's some piece of law or strictness from the OT) and cherry pick it and then say, "there, that is God." There are several possibilities, technically in terms of intellectual evaluation. 1. God really isn't there, doesn't exist, so the Hebrews just attributed these commands to Him to use for their own ends. 2. The parts of the bible that say there is no darkness in God and His knowledge is inscrutable, means that His actions can't really be evil even if the physical outcome doesn't seem desirable or moral from our limited perspective. 3. The bible isn't as "inerrant" as we think it is, and they twisted what God said, or they misremembered what He actually commanded, and God just let that fallibility into the bible because ultimately it is a spiritual book that still feeds us spiritually because of being inspired by His spirit albeit without a strict inerrancy, and He wasn't going for some 100% perfection with every verse like we as creationists tend to think, after all. (I'm turning into GPT!!!) But in terms of your request about how I would see a similar instance today if a muslim made a similar request? You must beware this error; Gemini said to judge God morally based on human judgement and limitations, is absurd because it is inescapable anthropomorphism, and it clearly states the atheist motives. If you still struggle to get it here it is; An inference God is evil is not possible without committing anthropomorphism. That means any conclusion God is evil is predicated on a limited human understanding of morality. That's all that matters. Would the left? They barely did for October the 7th! I have answered this in the past. Do you have memory problems, Goku? I have said I could only accept such a command being from God if I heard God's voice say it, and saw all of the things the children of Israel saw as confirmation, such as the parting of the red sea, the split rock at Horeb, the voice on the mountain, the fire on the mountain, the pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night, the manna in the desert, etc... But if God said, "do" what you have just said do, and I heard God say it, then it follows it cannot be dark even if it appears so, because it would not be a special pleading fallacy to say that when God kills it is not genocide. It would be an ABSURDITY of anthropomorphism again, to presume that God would have human motives when He kills. (however I could only see it as not evil if I saw those accompanying miracles, if it was just His voice, I would probably go with schizophrenia for such a request) God is the creator of all life, it only exists because God created it. To uncreate is obviously then on a scale that only applies to God. The obviousness of this should go without saying, and the failure to acknowledge it should be deemed logically preposterous. By analogy it is like saying, "the judge should be in contempt of course, he spoke out of turn." Does God have the motives of a human being? Absurd! The A.I. is correct; the atheist motives here are all too clear. Sorry Goku, but I accept objective confirmation, especially since gemini can compute correct deductions as part of it's programming. What did you think I would say, "okay, I will accept your rhetoric instead Goku, because you pooh-poohed it, and we will just forget about correct deduction." Yes but A.I is a sophisticated tool that draws from many sources to obtain correct data. I have not been using GPT, I used google gemini. It's not perfect but it is way more capable than the average debater online I find, and it basically is giving me summary answers I had already figured out myself but thinks I don't know. I am only really asking it things I already know the answers to, to see if it confirms them. It can actually provide correctly formed syllogisms, and has great computing power. Attempting to confirm something you know independently is a good thing, and I don't see the harm in it. Is it a bad sign if someone wants to check they are correct, or do you prefer the dunning-kruger way instead, where someone is just super confident they are right without any studying at all? I can't really see how anything it said was inaccurate if an atheist pooh-poohs it. I think I will go instead with it's suggestions; to see that atheists have certain motives in debate, and certain tactics and will not accept logical findings if it gets in the way of their goals. You have such bias even if you would never admit to it. It is a fascinating thing because clearly they grow in sophistication. They make minor errors now and then but I haven't really seen anything that would count as a major one as of yet. Just as an example I am reading "The Witches, 1692" a history by Schiff, and I asked it some questions and it summarised many of the informations I also read in the book, and gave accurate statements about puritans for example. It even confirmed my question, when I asked if the witches were a god-of-the-gaps-fallacy, since what I read in the book as an argument from one puritan was that, "it must be witches because there isn't any other explanation." It knows and can figure out the fallacy you mean, and it can apply the deductions too. These things are by no means perfect but they are improving them constantly and they will only grow to become more impressive. I also dicked with it, and it told us we are all likely erudite because of the nature of the forum we attend and the knowledge it likely requires to take part, so I wouldn't worry about your IQ, it has our backs on that.

Oh I forgot, if anyone wants to see why God can't be evil as proven deductively by A.I confirmation, here is more of that talk I had; (my last post in this thread) Bye for now. (no trolling please, my Kirkulations are irrefutable.) Accept it. Like I did when I accepted Jambob's retort. If you can't do that like I did, then you're not there yet. Notice I folded because of his logic. You want to be a clear thinker? You have to sacrifice subjective thinking and become hyper-aware of it. It's hard to do, because it DEPENDS/IS PREDICATED ON, swallowing pride. Most people can't do that. Just look at Indy, he would still be stating disproven factoids until kingdom come.

I love this part the best, by the A.I. showing it comprehended my thinking better than atheists can; ""Imagine trying to understand a super-computer calculating every trajectory of every particle in the universe, while we can barely track a single billiard ball". But don't believe me, instead believe what they found in the trilobyte's eye; CONCLUSION OF THREAD; Only irrational people believe God could be evil and do so because of their own bias, as confirmed objectively by A.I's correct knowledge of deduction.

Sorry I can't get back to everyone, it's a lot of effort and I now must do things in the real world for a while. I leave you with this thought; "I'M LAUGHING at the superior liberal intellect!"

I have to disagree 100% on this though, because the holocaust was just that; an annihilation of them. In this example the evidence is definitive, and would not be shared like on that diagram I shown. (The diagram with the three areas of evidence) As for the history the GPT gave, it would be a most interesting assessment to listen to what hardline muslims thought of allah's performance during these battles; ANd; It reads like any other of the biblical stories where they were outnumbered but won anyway. On the other hand it appears allah doesn't exist. Is it not the same today? Everyone comes against this small country but they seem to come out on top. All I am saying is that it would have been a wonderful reductio-ad-absurdum if atheists could have said, "look! All that baloney about Israel and how it will have importance in the future world and the prophecies, yet God just let it get obliterated." And add that to the holocaust and Hitler. At that time we had, what? A destruction of Jewish people that would surely lead to a total loss? Imagine that as a prediction; "here look, Jews are being exterminated and Hitler is powerful, therefore my prediction is Hitler will be killed the nazis defeated and Israel will be back in their land and not be wiped out." That would have been the most ABSURD statement ever. CONCLUSION; All of this is consistent with the Lord being God, and allah not existing. THAT is why atheists hate Jewish and Christian people; because they know that the lord God.....................IS GOD. "His God.........................IS GOD!" - Yul Brenner (pharaoh), from "The Ten Commandments".

Okay you win that one, provisionally. Although the cynical part of me still thinks the police/government may be creating a narrative of a "generally violent" person, and they may in fact still be holding back certain information, simply because they know how angry the public will get if there is that link. However even in all of the riots, no muslims were actually even injured, which to my mind is good evidence the leftwing gaslight the public with this "hate" stuff. (Note, I am not justifying the violence, specifically I am saying that the irrational fear and irrational defence of islam comes from an ideological motive, like when at protests the police stand FACING the British protesters. I have seen that every single time, but all I see with the British protests is union jacks and old grannies a lot of the time, but on the side the police are "protecting" from those grannies by having their backs to, that side usually have slanderous placards of antagonism. And now even though the police stood with their backs to them initially, "palestine action" is now considered a bad group and the police have had to turn around and arrest them. I even saw this on camera several times on live feeds, they were facing us (the British public) as though we were a violent hateful group (gaslighting), but on camera they had to turn around and arrest violence coming from the "protected" group. There have now been hundreds of arrests in the past few months, of palestine action. But well done you have done your duty Jambob. Your ideological duty of protecting people from invisible, non-existent threats. LOL You are also correct I did play whack-a-mole, (the term you were looking for) but I knew I was doing it and even wondered if you would spot it in my mischief. Ho, ho!! (dirty-mike may PLAY the "IndyDave" role, but at least I come clean afterward. I still say that on the whole if there is some kind of terrorist/mass killing event, probability-stats would dictate that it is reasonable to think what most people will think; that it will be a certain religion or outside involvement or both, rather than say, a prediction you will find peaceful teachings of Jesus and twenty years of Christian service, at their lodgings. LOL. And ultimately that is the point; I do see reality because why do you think my being wrong in this one example would change that depiction? That's a type of generalisation error. That's like arguing, "you don't see reality well because when you say it's unlikely I will win the lottery this weekend, look, you were wrong once and that person we argued over DID turn out to win a few thousand pounds!" That changes little jamBlob, because what I said is still going to be true; on the balance of probability if there is a terrorist event or something identical to one (a mass slaying), then on the whole it's going to be coming from you know who, from you know were. (Unless that is, you think radical muslims are baby sheep that need protecting, and like the BBC, you don't think hamas are a terrorist group) Indeed, the uptake in believing he was Christian, just goes to show how illogical the liberal faithless public are in understanding the difference. I remain realistic. And you better hope I don't get the A.I. out and start quoting it because it confirms my realism. It proved to me my argument that God is not evil because He is omniscient is correct and to my surprise it gave me the atheist syllogism of the argument-from-evil-against-God and even specifically shown me the premises I had disproven. That was amazing because I hadn't actually even mentioned the formal form of their argument) (I did not highlight the humble part, I am not sure why the A.I. did, these are screenshots) It would seem what atheists say and what reality shows when a neutral intelligence judges my sayings, are rather different to say the least. Disclaimer; that's not to say there aren't more reasonable atheists. On the whole I find Goku to be much less self-righteous than say, Popoi, which means in turn that Goku will hit the bullseye or come closer in his emotional intelligence, in reading what I am all about, than say Popoi/Fjuri, who will think I am secretly DARK in my motives because I am the "great unwashed". The truth is usually somewhere in the middle, I find.

Yes but that doesn't matter as a statement. (in terms of proof, not personally.) Most people think this type of statement is sufficient but it's not sufficient to prove the genocide claim. With a claim as important as that you have to obey the formal rules. Look at the below image. The zone 2 (purple zone) represents the arguments put forward by you and Popoi in this thread. The inference, "genocide" is a non-sequitur because your arguments are of the following form; "If it was genocide I might expect evidence P". You then present evidence P and say, "therefore I regard it as genocide", which is called, affirming the consequent. The A.I. I quoted earlier said that genocide has to be qualified by intent to do away with people. The evidence you have put forward could be used as evidence of genocide or evidence of collateral damage. You did not prove that Israel had a motive (which proves intent) to aim and kill those people. You can provide an argument where you say, "their reasons don't seem good enough", however, that still does not prove their reasons were genocidal. If you are going to ask me how you would prove that leftist claim rather than using the epithet, "genocide", as a solidly proven argument, the only real sure fire way to do it is to extrapolate the percentage of people killed compared to ordinary wars that are not genocide. If there is a clear, uniform disparity where in each and every instance it would seem there are more people killed to the point where the goal seems to be to kill them, then you have a stronger case for genocide. However thus far nobody has shown the figures to be figures that would prove that intent because those figures don't really exist. You have PLAYED UP the figures that do exist, but you have not shown figures that would give an inference of genocide. Establishing motive can be VERY difficult but with a claim like this you really need to do it. There is no way you can compare Netanyahu to the likes of Hitler in morally and logically if in fact he did not intend to kill those people but in fact they were collateral damage. So the real question becomes; if the evidence doesn't give definitive proof of genocide as it clearly doesn't, why choose that conclusion? I believe a reasonable answer is that because you are leftwing ideologues that cannot possibly infer anything about Jewish people that is not negative. You DESIRE it to be genocide because of a bizarre unbalanced, unfair and irrational love of islam and anything and anyone to do with it, and a love of protecting it, which is why traditionally leftwing people are always in their corner. Sorry, but that is simply OBVIOUS because you are all the same. Though I appreciate you are more thoughtful than some of them which would be 100% content to just go with the epithet and not employ any investigation whatsoever. Sorry but it on the balance of probability, it's just OBVIOUS why you want the power of the word, "genocide". However logical rules dictate that the burden-of-proof is heavy where there are heavy claims. It is particularly difficult to determine intent where there aren't clear examples, if there are possibilities such as reasons of intelligence for what they did, or targets they had where they did not know there would be that many civilians, etc...however the main way to prove your claim is not a leftist fact-finding mission, as that could be regarded as pseudo-science. The correct way is to find facts which is in the red zone on that diagram. The fact is no matter how damning the example seems, it could still have been collateral damage if they badly wanted to destroy a certain person/target. That person may only seem like one person, but if they are a mastermind for example, then it could have been like taking out a 150 from their perspective. All such motives/intel, cannot be seen with "satellite imagery and reports on the ground". I reserve the right to caution. I don't see the kind of figures that might imply genocide. Even if I accepted your figure of 58,000 over 1 year and nine months that is approx 90 people a day. Am I to believe had you not known anything about this war, had you been asked if 90 civilians a day had died on one side of a war, that you thought it was "genocide", I don't believe you would have said, "yes" given the population of Gaza is 2 million. On google it said the population is down by "6%" annually because of the war. That is "genocide"? Sorry but that is not convincing in the least. (but you are free to opine and believe whatever you decide to, of course.) Just admit it Goku, this is all about the power of the word, like it usually is with the left. Now don't have me reverse my sakabato! Sorry but that is how I see it, I don't think the claim is anywhere near proven just because it is popular with that prioritise muslims as a special group by special pleading, that will do anything to support them and would never support any type of people of the bible because they are leftist, liberal, atheists. No offence meant personally, I am speaking more generally in this message, than to you. But you can't have me just ignore what you guys have always represented and just brush it off as irrelevant coincidence. OF COURSE it's about your ideology. (Bye for now.)

Don't have me turn my sakabato on you! The difference is that you don't practice anything from the bible, koran or nazi book. This guy practiced terrorism, he was reading it and he did it. You don't know what he believed, but what you do know is that he done the same as muslim terrorists. Do you think we are what we say we are or what we actually do? In that respect your comment isn't as smart as you think it is, since technically it's a fallacy of exclusion. (Because it's not just determined by what you own, but by what your actions are, and you excluded that my judgement was predicated on that also.) "see how he changes his style in response to the captain of the shinsengumi!" "Oh no! That look in his eye! He's turning into Battousai again!" - Miss Kairu.

I am a lowly rurouni now, I am no longer a hitokiri. Hence the term, "mikey" rather than, "mike the wiz". So don't have me return to my hiten mitsiyugi ryu style as was in the days of Battosai ad logica. "Then die as you deserve to!!" - General Zod. (Superman the movie. 1978?) Fact is at the time I was speculating there would be an immigrant and muslim link (because of probability stats). Now we find his parents were not from the UK and he has a muslim terrorist manual in his keeping. Even if he wasn't technically a muslim terrorist does it really matter if he does everything the same as a muslim terrorist, even to using their handbooks? A rose by any other name is the same thing - Mike Super Summers!!! Ho, ho!

That is so ironical (and shows humility). Do you know why it's ironic? Because Popoi was the WORST when it came to having the last word. He predicated most of his debating on that pigeon-chess victory of getting that last word in, knowing most people would simply tire of his pedantic, "question all" policy of pretending he could refute every single little thing someone said. "I don't know anyone else that gets the sheer joy of combat like Joe Frazier does" - commentator from, "Ali-Frazier fight 1" known as, "The fight of the century" (1972?) He was a classic for thinking response was an equivalent to rebuttal. He would ALWAYS respond, even if you stated your name! "no, that's not your name, provide a source!" This guy would happily let a debate go on for twenty years. He should be thankful I put him out of his misery. I'm not being mean to Popoi though, he was by no means the worst example of a lib-atheist online. Most of what I have said here would be the same for many, many trolls of atheism online. They have no concept of a true refutation and simply get a kick out of being argumentative jerk wads.

That's politicians for you though isn't it. After all Netanyahu is a politician, and they always have political motives. There is usually some disparity between what politicians want and what the citizens want would you agree? From our perspective our priorities at this stage probably would be to say, "stop it or find more narrow avenue of military precision". If I was in charge at this stage I would issue perhaps a 50 day ceasefire where I would totally relieve the people, but I would issue a demand that at the end of the 50 days the hostages be released, and I would still go after the terrorists by using intelligence to snuff them out. However, REALISTICALLY, the terrorists would never give up the hostages. They want to use them as chess-pieces because all the terrorist wants is holy war for allah. But who am I to say those things? That's just a hypothetic, I speak from ignorance of the situation and therefore my provisional hypothetic means little.

The police found an al-qaeda terrorist manual at his house and did not report it to the public, but allowed speculation that he was a Christian, to be spread. He was planning a terrorist attack but instead went with the knife-attack they sometimes go with. His family are not from the UK. So I think you're really trying to force some rather negligible semantics through here, by trying to get some pedantic, semantic "technical" victory. YAWN. I believe you and others were quite happy to let it be speculated that he was a Christian. And so were the police and the labour government because they only want to protect one religion, and we all know what religion that is. Please don't make any further false statements that this terrorist was not muslim, it has now been established as fact that he owned a muslim terrorism manual. Please point out where those instructions are found in the peaceful gospels and then realise just what kind of odious people you are protecting on behalf of woke virtue, dimwit. (I advise strongly that you do not respond to this message, since it was highly generous of me in the first place to tolerate a post from you that was only an ad-hom attack.)

Hi Goku, nice to hear from you again. I was only going with ballpark, with all such one-the-spot mathematics, I know that the assumptions become too loose and you don't get accuracy. I got the figure from someone that wrote in to a leftwing media outlet, and said 3,000 children had died and that this was genocide, so I just used that figure. (since the accusation came from someone that used that figure, then what is good for the goose is good for the gander.) It's not really emotion or logic, it's a hypothetic. It's just showing that at their rate of ACTUAL genocide, that would be their intention each day. It was never meant to be a literal attempt to infer a figure, it's just a bit of an absurdum because if you extrapolate from a rate of say 600 a day, then think of the powers Israel command, and see that for children the rate would be 4.7 per day (if we take that leftist's figure of 3,000), then it would seem a very inept attempt at, "genocide", from Israel. I don't agree with that comparison in red. Especially when we look at the atrocities of October the 7th which were intentional genocide and other horrors, whereas I don't believe there are any facts that would show that Israel are intentionally killing but that it is that unfortunate phrase, "collateral damage" which occurs with war, and I don't see any reason why the figures even after your adjustments, would not be in line with that. However, if you are not saying it is genocide but you are saying, "this has gone too far, they are heavy handed", that is a more reasonable argument it is harder for me to argue against because you are not necessarily wrong about that, and I offered that up in message one anyway as a possibility. As you can see, I am not some secret demon like Popoi thinks. If people are reasonable with me and admit to these fine differences, I am just as reasonable too. I am not here secretly thinking Israel are some holy saints, I am just not accepting the "genocide" claim easily as it seems outlandish to me as a sensible person that understands reality well. I think it's more complicated that that. I think that's a "face value" assessment. I genuinely believe reality will show a more complex scenario where hamas terrorists are (as per usual), using civilians as body-shields, and are hiding in areas of heavily dense population and so forth, hospitals and so forth. Now before you get your sources out, think about it this way, if hamas are willing to rape women (oct 7th), and genuinely commit genocide on that date, and indiscriminately fire rockets at Israel (OUTSIDE of wartime, since they have always fired rockets into Israel), and if they are willing to hold on to hostages while THEIR gazan people are continually killed by Israel, then is it reasonable to believe they wouldn't use any dirty tactics to make Israel look like a monster? (and we know that they are infamous for being cunning and dirty) That's propositional logic, where a "yes" or, "no" should follow and anything else is extraneous. Would people that could be labelled, "the scum of the earth", be more trusted than a country like Israel that was just peacefully going about living before October the 7th? If that has switched around and you now think terrorists are more reliable then why would you go that far just to support gaza? It's one thing to not like what is happening to civilians and I don't claim that is a good thing, but to pretty much side with terrorists? Didn't you once offer up an example of a moral dilemma where you said morality wasn't just about numbers? I think it's complicated but it would be a good thing if they let it in. There are issues with that also, apparently. This is why I said in message one it's hard to know the facts because usually they are filtered from either a right-leaning perspective or a left-leaning perspective. It doesn't seem realistic to me that any of this is any kind of intended genocide but is in line with this; It is still my provisional argument that it is more probable the left DESIRE the power of the term, "genocide" than it's actuality. Remember numbers don't really determine intent to destroy a people unless there is a definite figure that matches that intent. That's not to say Israel are behaving perfectly. After all I give to organisations that help people like the children in gaza and I want that money and help to get through to them, the same as anyone in that position of any country. Or............I'm a caricature, and you can believe something like this that Popoi said of me because I am "far right", right? (Look at the very last part too, then compare what he said to the "Lord appears on baby scan", after reading my posts in that topic.) But thanks for posting again Goku. Nice and refreshing to not get the personal insinuations and all that rhetorical content and just get to focus on the topic at hand.

Great! I love to look at any art.