Notices
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 799
Like Tree322Likes

Thread: Is god really exist or not? !! i know its very common question.

  1. #101  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by CosmosCranium View Post
    However, that is the difference between being an athiest and an agnostic.
    No it isn't.
    They are two completely different stances, on two different subjects.

    Until we have scientific proof of every single phenomenon (which, I believe is out there. We just have not found it yet) I will remain skeptic.
    Right.
    You declare a belief in something (with zero actual evidence) and then claim you're sceptic.
    How does that work?

    Which also forces me to accept that if some deity came down from the heavens and he turned out to be "god", I would have to believe that.
    How would you check that he actually was a deity?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Until we have scientific proof of every single phenomenon (which, I believe is out there. We just have not found it yet) I will remain skeptic.
    Right.
    You declare a belief in something (with zero actual evidence) and then claim you're sceptic.
    How does that work?
    While I disagree with the word, "proof" being used in such a context, you are being overly critical, here.
    He declared a belief that everything in the Universe can be explained scientifically. That is a belief I share and it is in no way a belief in something with zero actual evidence, as you say. There is a great deal of evidence that science works. There is a great deal of evidence that the scientific method is valid for explaining all phenomena that actually exists in the Universe. Granted, not enough models are developed to do so now. Granted that currently, this is a belief and not a theory.

    But, it does work. I am a skeptic. But the evidence is strong. Science. It works, bitches.
    danhanegan likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    most people miss the point that in all the stories, the old gods were purely nature gods, and the stories were all metaphor
    But would that only be true of "old gods"?
    Upon that, could be based a whole series of studies into comparative mythologies.
    The Greeks, seemed to have focused on ever more man-based gods and then into "heroes" whose main strengths were consensus building.
    It seems that all of the titans wer nature "gods", while Zeus was a consensus builder, eschewing unilateral battles, while seeking allies among the oldest gods, and some among the titans in his battles with the titans. (the enemy of my enemy is my friend?)
    It seems that a significant portion of the stories of the latter-day gods and heroes, were of the nature of "morality plays", wherein, certain behaviours were honored for their effectiveness in creating a strong society, culture, and polity.
    ..
    I did not find the same evolution in reading the icelandic sagas...........something lost in translation?
    .......................
    edit:
    as re the existance of god(s?)
    Does not the scientific method say roughly that a postulation stands until the null hypothesis is proven.
    Should we not assume the same posture as/re our supposed god(s)?

    (I'm running into a simular problem with g e williams' postulation of cryogenian >54 degree axial tilt vs snowball earth postulation) discussed, not disproved
    and the discussion there lingers unfinalized
    Last edited by sculptor; June 3rd, 2013 at 09:32 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly
    While I disagree with the word, "proof" being used in such a context, you are being overly critical, here.
    He declared a belief that everything in the Universe can be explained scientifically.
    No! He didn't. What he said was "We do not have to say everything imaginable exists, but we can't rule it out until something proves it does not." (it's the age old prove god doesn't exist, BS) And then he seemed to contradicted himself with "Until we have scientific proof of every single phenomenon (which, I believe is out there. We just have not found it yet) I will remain skeptic." (Though the two statements are mutually exclusive. You cant both belief the possibility of a thing, and be sceptical that it exists.) He does seems to be marrying them.

    It must be a british thing, because to me he is stating that there must be scientific proof of god.
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly
    That is a belief I share and it is in no way a belief in something with zero actual evidence, as you say. There is a great deal of evidence that science works. There is a great deal of evidence that the scientific method is valid for explaining all phenomena that actually exists in the Universe.
    As do I. Agreed, However he was expressing a belief in a god or something similar, In his statements I.E "we cant rule in out." You and I know you can't prove a negative.

    The Thread is whether a god exists after all.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    (Though the two statements are mutually exclusive. You cant both belief the possibility of a thing, and be sceptical that it exists.) He does seems to be marrying them.

    Agreed, However he was expressing a belief in a god or something similar, In his statements I.E "we cant rule in out." You and I know you can't prove a negative.
    True enough- but at no point did I see him say he believes in God.
    He's taking the stance of a more firm, "Unknown" than those of use that find the idea of a God absurd given the nature of the Universe.

    I'm a bit more forgiving, I suppose, then some about wording and expression.
    What I read in his post was more along the lines of- "It cannot be said with any certainty whether there is or is not a God, since it cannot be proven in either case." His post said he learns more toward scientific explanations and remains a skeptic about whether there is a God.

    It might be better if he responds in his own words...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Freshman Josey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Amerika
    Posts
    59
    Oh no! Not "Will I am"
    Seriously, then you are god. As "you are"
    Oh wait so am I. This is confusing.
    Who's not "I am



    I Am that I Am - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Josey likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Josey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    Oh no! Not "Will I am"
    Seriously, then you are god. As "you are"
    Oh wait so am I. This is confusing.
    Who's not "I am
    I Am that I Am - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Oh no! Not Popeye too.
    sculptor and Josey like this.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    Many if not all atheists have a false perception of the nature of God.
    Actually it would be more accurate (and honest) to say that everyone has a false perception about the "nature of god".

    Something that cannot be shown to exist cannot have a nature that anyone can perceive.
    I think it is more accurate to say that everyone is learning about the nature of God.

    God's nature can be perceived for people that seek God. That is what Christian theology says, and that is what I believe. Of course if one believes that all good things come from God, then all the beauty in nature and living relationships is a perception of God.

    Now the standard nonbeliever's explanation is that I am experiencing "confirmation bias". I love experiencing this sort of confirmation bias. For example, we recently were in Prague and we wanted to attend a Sunday service the day we arrived. Unfortunately, we were very tired from our travels and we fell asleep in our hotel. The last service at a church near us was at 1900 and it was about a 10 minute walk away from the hotel.

    I "coincidentally" awoke almost exactly 15 minutes before the service and I was able to walk there and arrive about a minute before the Mass started.

    Now, when these kinds of "coincidences" keep happening, they strengthen my belief system in which I know that God is looking out for me.

    I would not want to live any other way.

    On this thread the OP has heard from both believers and nonbelievers. It may also be helpful for him to hear from former nonbelievers. Religious forums have many threads where former atheists talk about their conversion. Their testimony is consistent with Christian theology that says that God loves each of us equally, and He is always ready to welcome anyone who seeks Him, including long term nonbelievers.
    Josey likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    God's nature can be perceived for people that seek God.
    No sorry it can't. Only their imagined idea of god can be conceptualized. Also it doesn't follow, because everybody who seeks god, would come to the same conclusion on his nature. But they don't.
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    I know that God is looking out for me.
    But you don't, you only imagine you do.
    Neverfly and LuciDreaming like this.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Masters Degree LuciDreaming's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    656
    I object to being called a non believer to be honest because that implies that I ought to believe and I'm erroneous in not doing so. I am with Christopher Hitchins on the terminology here - I am not an atheist, I am an anti-theist.

    Dedo-the reason anti-theists would say you are suffering from confirmation bias is because you are. In order to not suffer from this you would need to set about proving your theory of god is wrong.
    Neverfly likes this.
    "And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh" Nietzsche.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Ok, that was hilarious.
    God is looking out for you and will make sure you make it to church on time, but he won't look out for babies in Africa born with HIV, in tornado struck buildings or being struck by drunk drivers.

    Well, we know where Gods priorities are...
    Josey likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    In my opinion,
    the statement "God exists" is false.

    I will not elucidate this viewpoint, this will only lead to more posts in this atheist-vs-theist discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Freshman Josey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Amerika
    Posts
    59
    I am not sure God is looking out for me, but I will probably be looking out for him my entire life.
    Neverfly likes this.
    "the opera ainít over until the fat lady sings." - Ralph Carpenter
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    I think it is more accurate to say that everyone is learning about the nature of God.
    Then you'd be drastically wrong.
    Like I said - how can anyone claim to have any knowledge about the nature of something that has not yet been shown to exist?

    God's nature can be perceived for people that seek God. That is what Christian theology says, and that is what I believe.
    Simply because Christian theology says it doesn't make it true.
    It's an unsupported claim with zero evidence.

    Their testimony is consistent with Christian theology...
    Well it would have to be wouldn't it?
    There isn't an option.
    pavlos and Neverfly like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,091
    If God exists then he needs a place to exist in. So what came first, God or his natural habitat?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    984
    "God =I am"
    The actual referrence is from the Old Testament, A holy man, I think it was Abraham, is having a conversation with God in which God has told him to go and lead people. He asks how he shall convince the people that he has had instruction from a devinity. The prophet says, What shall I say when they ask which god told me to speak to them? God answers, "I AM , WHO AM", when they ask tell them "IAM " sent you. ( I paraphrase abit but that's the gist of it.)


    This is a pretty sophistcated answer given that it appears in a book written by a bronze age sheppard. God claims to be syonomis with existence, every thing that exists is God and He is everything that exists.
    Josey likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    God is That!
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,015
    ~ None of which finds favour with me. Because I can not find faith.

    I do not have a belief structure conducive to accepting as real the notion of God., or gods.

    That science has shown no god is required, seems to negate the need or want to consider one at all.

    Fortunately my own past has not led me to such folly as religion.. So you don't find me seeking one.

    But that I question and doubt that such a god could or does exist is for me a resolve I find easy.

    Such that " I am." is all I need. That god is 'that', or god is 'this'... Naa, not a high factor of probability.

    None at all seems to win favour with the type of logic I find in the science of humanity.

    The spirit of humanity is to endure is as near to faith as I dare venture..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Masters Degree LuciDreaming's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    "God =I am"
    The actual referrence is from the Old Testament, A holy man, I think it was Abraham, is having a conversation with God in which God has told him to go and lead people. He asks how he shall convince the people that he has had instruction from a devinity. The prophet says, What shall I say when they ask which god told me to speak to them? God answers, "I AM , WHO AM", when they ask tell them "IAM " sent you. ( I paraphrase abit but that's the gist of it.)


    This is a pretty sophistcated answer given that it appears in a book written by a bronze age sheppard. God claims to be syonomis with existence, every thing that exists is God and He is everything that exists.
    What makes that answer sophisticated? I he'd said that to me I'd have thought him ignorant not sophisticated .....

    BTW - that being an old Testament story and him being god and all its more likely that whoever wrote that story would have said god answered - "Yahweh". Which means "he exists" in Hebrew not "I am". Methinks you are too liberal with your paraphrasing.
    pavlos likes this.
    "And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh" Nietzsche.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Masters Degree LuciDreaming's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    656
    Sorry - I feel the need to point out that means that whoever Abraham was supposedly talking to they were scheming and when he said "How can I prove my word is the word of god" the other bloke said something along the lines of "Just tell them he exists, they'll believe any old tripe....". At least that's how it went in my mind
    "And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh" Nietzsche.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Freshman Josey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Amerika
    Posts
    59
    Point of clarification: Moses was instructed rather than Abraham
    "the opera ainít over until the fat lady sings." - Ralph Carpenter
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Paramvir Jakhar View Post
    I watch a show "Does god create the universe? " by Stephen Hawking, i watch the full show but question remain unanswered. Tell me, what you think about it, what really science says.
    http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/howfar/howbig.html

    T
    he link that I posted above can humble us to acknowledge how little we know about our own universe. With all the advancement that the modern science has made we are still unable to provide any definitive answer about the origins of universe or even about the size of the universe or whether it is infinitely big and many other questions about the universe goes unanswered as of yet. Now assume for a minute that The Mighty Creator brought the universe into existence with His simple process (simple for Him) we call BiG Bang. Now if we are unable to answer the questions about His creation, is it justified in any manner for us to even comment on His Essence. And if we come to a NEGATIVE CONCLUSION about His Existence is it not a kind of arrogance? If each one of us answers this question while being 100% neutral, we will all arrive at the same answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    Now assume for a minute that The Mighty Creator brought the universe into existence with His simple process (simple for Him) we call BiG Bang. Now if we are unable to answer the questions about His creation, is it justified in any manner for us to even comment on His Essence.
    No, let's not assume.
    Because what you just did was make the assumption and then based your beliefs and conclusions upon it.
    'Tis much wiser to not start out with totally unsupported assumptions.
    It is wiser still to not let that lead to more assumptions.
    And even wiser than that to not jump to a wild and unsupported conclusion on that mountain of assumptions you made.

    Demonstrate that there is empirical evidence for "his essence." We'll start there instead of at your wild assumptions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    And if we come to a NEGATIVE CONCLUSION about His Existence is it not a kind of arrogance?
    The only arrogance I see here is your faithful assumptions and beliefs leading you to actually think you know more about the creation of the Universe than people that devoted their lives to its actual study.
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    If each one of us answers this question while being 100% neutral, we will all arrive at the same answer.
    That no God is needed to fathom the Universe or anything within it?
    pavlos likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    Now assume for a minute that The Mighty Creator brought the universe into existence with His simple process (simple for Him) we call BiG Bang.
    Why would we want to add further, and even less substantiable speculation to the question?

    Now if we are unable to answer the questions about His creation, is it justified in any manner for us to even comment on His Essence.
    Since he hasn't been shown to exist, nor is there any evidence for his existence then all you're doing is assuming.

    And if we come to a NEGATIVE CONCLUSION about His Existence is it not a kind of arrogance?
    No. It's being scientific and rational.

    If each one of us answers this question while being 100% neutral, we will all arrive at the same answer.
    Hardly, unless you're declaring that the answer we'll all arrive at is "god didn't do it".
    pavlos and Neverfly like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Wow... Jinx, Dywyddyr...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    You all beat me to it.
    But heres my twopence worth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever
    The link that I posted above can humble us to acknowledge how little we know about our own universe.
    No! Not humble us. Just make us admit that the honest answer is "I don't know" Instead of positing imaginary beings in place of facts we don't have.
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever
    With all the advancement that the modern science has made we are still unable to provide any definitive answer about the origins of universe or even about the size of the universe or whether it is infinitely big and many other questions about the universe goes unanswered as of yet.
    And I doubt we ever will, but this still doesn't suggest we should invent answers does it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever
    Now assume for a minute that The Mighty Creator brought the universe into existence with His simple process (simple for Him) we call BiG Bang. Now if we are unable to answer the questions about His creation, is it justified in any manner for us to even comment on His Essence.
    Note the assumption here My emphasis. and the huge difference between what we can know about the universe at present and what we can imagine about a creator. Note that I used imagine because a creator is merely a concept, we can know nothing actual about it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever
    And if we come to a NEGATIVE CONCLUSION about His Existence is it not a kind of arrogance? If each one of us answers this question while being 100% neutral, we will all arrive at the same answer.
    No! Sorry we can't arrive at the same answer, as one is real the other imaginary.
    You would be better off claiming a Banana was the creator of the universe, at least it is real. But it still wouldn't give us any more answers.
    Neverfly likes this.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    Now assume for a minute that The Mighty Creator brought the universe into existence with His simple process (simple for Him) we call BiG Bang.
    Why would we want to add further, and even less substantiable speculation to the question?

    Now if we are unable to answer the questions about His creation, is it justified in any manner for us to even comment on His Essence.
    Since he hasn't been shown to exist, nor is there any evidence for his existence then all you're doing is assuming.

    And if we come to a NEGATIVE CONCLUSION about His Existence is it not a kind of arrogance?
    No. It's being scientific and rational.

    If each one of us answers this question while being 100% neutral, we will all arrive at the same answer.
    Hardly, unless you're declaring that the answer we'll all arrive at is "god didn't do it".
    In my opinion it will only be rational to come to a NEGATIVE CONCLUSION when we are able to scientifically explain all the questions related to a matter, until then it can only be qualified as arrogance. While believing otherwise qualifies it as personal faith of a person. But then you are also entitled to your own opinion until the matter is scientifically explained.
    Josey likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Your positive conclusion is far more arrogant. It's based on whimsy.

    At least my negative conclusion is based on a whole lotta evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Your positive conclusion is far more arrogant. It's based on whimsy.

    At least my negative conclusion is based on a whole lotta evidence.
    It can also be seen as that I believe because I acknowledge my lack of knowledge, so I chose to go with the intuition. If you wish you and the genius duck may call it my arrogance that I chose to believe my intuition. Its all fine with me.
    Josey likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    It can also be seen as that I believe because I acknowledge my lack of knowledge, so I chose to go with the intuition. If you wish you and the genius duck may call it my arrogance that I chose to believe my intuition. Its all fine with me.
    That is acceptable.

    But consider this about your intuition... In another remote part of the world, some other persons intuition tells him a great dragon breathed life into the 'world.'
    Their intuition told them that the Earth rested on the back of a great turtle.
    Intuition told ignorant layman back in the day that the Earth was flat.

    Is it arrogant of you to assume that your intuition has any validity? Yes, it is.

    It seems less arrogant to acknowledge a lack of knowledge and seek knowledge instead of assuming, following intuition or blind faith.
    pavlos and Josey like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Your positive conclusion is far more arrogant. It's based on whimsy.

    At least my negative conclusion is based on a whole lotta evidence.
    It can also be seen as that I believe because I acknowledge my lack of knowledge, so I chose to go with the intuition. If you wish you and the genius duck may call it my arrogance that I chose to believe my intuition. Its all fine with me.
    Ok. That is your prerogative. But to come here and tell us that we are arrogant because we use evidence, is arrogance in the extreme. When you come from a basis of imagination, but lets call that intuition for now as it make you feel better. You do realize that intuition is usually based on some facts, so I take that back lets not call it intuition, lets call it what it is! "Imagination." as your conclusion could only be imagination, and not intuition.
    Neverfly likes this.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Your positive conclusion is far more arrogant. It's based on whimsy.

    At least my negative conclusion is based on a whole lotta evidence.
    It can also be seen as that I believe because I acknowledge my lack of knowledge, so I chose to go with the intuition. If you wish you and the genius duck may call it my arrogance that I chose to believe my intuition. Its all fine with me.
    Ok. That is your prerogative. But to come here and tell us that we are arrogant because we use evidence, is arrogance in the extreme. When you come from a basis of imagination, but lets call that intuition for now as it make you feel better. You do realize that intuition is usually based on some facts, so I take that back lets not call it intuition, lets call it what it is! "Imagination." as your conclusion could only be imagination, and not intuition.
    Is it really fair that one tells me that I do not seek knowledge only because I believe in intuition?

    People use to think that Earth is flat only because they believed what they were able to see with their limited physical vision not because of their intuition. Many times intuition is confused with many different things such as a person's imagination or person's own will of something he wants for himself. But the reality is the true intuition is not even in the control of the person own self, it occurs without explanation and that is why I said you may call it my arrogance that I believe in my intuition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    In my opinion it will only be rational to come to a NEGATIVE CONCLUSION when we are able to scientifically explain all the questions related to a matter
    Wrong again.
    We can rationally come to a negative conclusion because, and I'm sure I've mentioned this before, we have no evidence whatsoever for god.

    While believing otherwise qualifies it as personal faith of a person.
    An unsupported faith.

    But then you are also entitled to your own opinion until the matter is scientifically explained.
    An opinion that happens to have rationality and evidence behind it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    so I chose to go with the intuition. If you wish you and the genius duck may call it my arrogance that I chose to believe my intuition.
    You put untestable, unsupported, supposition above science?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    In my opinion it will only be rational to come to a NEGATIVE CONCLUSION when we are able to scientifically explain all the questions related to a matter
    Wrong again.
    We can rationally come to a negative conclusion because, and I'm sure I've mentioned this before, we have no evidence whatsoever for god.

    While believing otherwise qualifies it as personal faith of a person.
    An unsupported faith.

    But then you are also entitled to your own opinion until the matter is scientifically explained.
    An opinion that happens to have rationality and evidence behind it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    so I chose to go with the intuition. If you wish you and the genius duck may call it my arrogance that I chose to believe my intuition.
    You put untestable, unsupported, supposition above science?
    Look Dywyddyr, I am not trying to be stubborn here but it may appear as such to you because you are trying to view the Concept Of God as if He were one of the created things. Modern science deals with the testable things which are obviously testable to humans so it does ignore the Concept of God. But now think about it like this, if we are only part of creation then obviously science that we have access to will always be limited to created things but not to the Creator Himself. One way of acknowledging the Creator would be to notice the creation and admitting we do not know enough about the creation so let alone passing any judgement on The Creator and His ways! I stop my part in the discussion here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    you are trying to view the Concept Of God as if He were one of the created things
    Wrong.
    Stop making assumptions.

    But now think about it like this, if we are only part of creation then obviously science that we have access to will always be limited to created things but not to the Creator Himself.
    Assumption again.

    One way of acknowledging the Creator would be to notice the creation and admitting we do not know enough about the creation so let alone passing any judgement on The Creator and His ways!
    Wrong again.
    Notice the "creation" (that we and the universe exist) and admit we don't know enough about it (how it started). Full stop.
    No further assumptions - especially no insupportable ones about a "creator".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    long ago and far away, while studying religion, I read an interesting take on the subject at hand.
    roughly:
    The momentary "GOD"
    God was not god before the act of creation, nor after the created was seperated from "GOD", but only during the moment of creation.

    ---likely based on the concept that religion has base re ligio which translates as re linking, or re connecting(to god)

    (a worthy goal if ever there was one?)
    Faithfulbeliever likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    long ago and far away, while studying religion, I read an interesting take on the subject at hand.
    roughly:
    The momentary "GOD"
    God was not god before the act of creation, nor after the created was seperated from "GOD", but only during the moment of creation.

    ---likely based on the concept that religion has base re ligio which translates as re linking, or re connecting(to god)

    (a worthy goal if ever there was one?)
    I like the re-connecting part!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    Is it really fair that one tells me that I do not seek knowledge only because I believe in intuition?
    Yes! Because you claim an imaginary creator exists, so you are clearly not seeking the truth, you're just filling a void you can't be bothered to find answers for.
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    People use to think that Earth is flat only because they believed what they were able to see with their limited physical vision not because of their intuition.
    I dare say people also could have believed the world was square, or triangular, after all, the imagination can conjure up anything we can think of.
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    Many times intuition is confused with many different things such as a person's imagination or person's own will of something he wants for himself.
    Yes many people need a comfort blanket, hence why religion came to exist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    But the reality is the true intuition is not even in the control of the person own self, it occurs without explanation
    Your imagination is working overtime, Woo woo land hear we come. So it's now not your intuition but intuition from the ether.
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    and that is why I said you may call it my arrogance that I believe in my intuition.
    Well you would, you wouldn't be religious if you didn't. You need that comfort blanket.
    Neverfly likes this.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    116
    People need a god, without god what is the meaning of life? First God was something we invented to explain things, then he was something like a last hope and now he is simply purpose
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    you are trying to view the Concept Of God as if He were one of the created things
    Wrong.
    Stop making assumptions.

    But now think about it like this, if we are only part of creation then obviously science that we have access to will always be limited to created things but not to the Creator Himself.
    Assumption again.

    One way of acknowledging the Creator would be to notice the creation and admitting we do not know enough about the creation so let alone passing any judgement on The Creator and His ways!
    Wrong again.
    Notice the "creation" (that we and the universe exist) and admit we don't know enough about it (how it started). Full stop.
    No further assumptions - especially no insupportable ones about a "creator".
    Exactly the reason agnosticism is so popular, however every religion only states partial faith thus why faith is quantified.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    Exactly the reason agnosticism is so popular
    Huh?

    however every religion only states partial faith thus why faith is quantified.
    That would be incorrect.
    Religion requires complete faith.
    And how do you quantify faith?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Yes many people need a comfort blanket, hence why religion came to exist. You need that comfort blanket.
    wowie zowei
    speaking of unsubstantiated assumptions

    lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    Exactly the reason agnosticism is so popular
    Huh?

    however every religion only states partial faith thus why faith is quantified.
    That would be incorrect.
    Religion requires complete faith.
    And how do you quantify faith?
    No it does not for instance the catholic religion states that sins lessen faith, it is not stated but implied.
    Faith can it be quantified?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    No it does not for instance the catholic religion states that sins lessen faith, it is not stated but implied.
    Er, like so many claims of and by religions, that happens to be hooey.
    One must have faith to accept the teachings of that religion.
    If you don't accept them you don't stay in that religion.

    Faith can it be quantified?
    Excellent link which doesn't actually support any quantification at all.
    jakesyl likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    No it does not for instance the catholic religion states that sins lessen faith, it is not stated but implied.
    Er, like so many claims of and by religions, that happens to be hooey.
    One must have faith to accept the teachings of that religion.
    If you don't accept them you don't stay in that religion.

    Faith can it be quantified?

    Excellent link which doesn't actually support any quantification at all.
    I appreciate the sarcasm, but consider this, the catholic church says that the people are the church and the church is made up of the people. It's obvious from the blogosphere that most people are skeptical. Therefore faith, can be quantified, without scale but there are different degrees of faith.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    I appreciate the sarcasm
    There was no sarcasm.

    but consider this, the catholic church says that the people are the church and the church is made up of the people.
    So what?
    You still have to have faith (that god exists) to accept the teachings.

    It's obvious from the blogosphere that most people are skeptical.
    Unsupported by the facts.
    Atheists are in a minority.

    Therefore faith, can be quantified, without scale but there are different degrees of faith.
    Your therefore isn't actually a therefore.
    And your claim that there are "different degrees of faith" may well be ture (but unsupported).
    That doesn't actually mean there's any quantifcation method for faith.
    Josey likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    I appreciate the sarcasm
    There was no sarcasm.

    but consider this, the catholic church says that the people are the church and the church is made up of the people.
    So what?
    You still have to have faith (that god exists) to accept the teachings.

    It's obvious from the blogosphere that most people are skeptical.
    Unsupported by the facts.
    Atheists are in a minority.

    Therefore faith, can be quantified, without scale but there are different degrees of faith.
    Your therefore isn't actually a therefore.
    And your claim that there are "different degrees of faith" may well be ture (but unsupported).
    That doesn't actually mean there's any quantifcation method for faith.
    I never said anything about atheism, people who consider themselves catholics, who go to mass every sunday are skeptics there are hundreds of thousands of blogs like this: The Skeptical Catholic | A Skeptical Commentary on Catholic Culture and Practices
    and people don't "accept" his teachings they do things in the hope that he is real not in the faith that he is real

    one more thing god is, in the words of Shakespeare "Not having that, which, having makes" life worth living"

    Last edited by jakesyl; June 5th, 2013 at 08:18 PM. Reason: New idea, no reply ter
    Josey likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    I never said anything about atheism, people who consider themselves catholics, who go to mass every sunday are skeptics there are hundreds of thousands of blogs like this: The Skeptical Catholic | A Skeptical Commentary on Catholic Culture and Practices
    Oh right.
    You fell for religious sophistry.
    If they believe in god and follow the teachings of the Catholic church how can they be sceptics?
    They have already decided that god exists.
    You really should read your links: we profess our belief in one God; we profess our belief in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
    THAT IS NOT SCEPTICISM.

    and people don't "accept" his teachings they do things in the hope that he is real not in the faith that he is real
    I'd like some actual support for this claim, it's belied by your link: we believe that what the Church teaches is true.

    one more thing god is, in the words of Shakespeare "Not having that, which, having makes" life worth living"

    That's an assumption. An unsupported one.
    (Oh, and Shakespeare wasn't referring to god and had better punctuation).

    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    116
    People do not know what they are not saying, why they are not well educated, nor do they have time to perform critical analysis. After all, Wisdom of the Crowds, if everyones doing it it must be right. How about a poll, catholics only where people rate their level of skepticism?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    People do not know what they are not saying
    You're a prime example.

    How about a poll, catholics only where people rate their level of skepticism?
    Um, which part did you miss?
    You fell for religious sophistry.
    If they believe in god and follow the teachings of the Catholic church how can they be sceptics?
    They have already decided that god exists.
    You really should read your links: we profess our belief in one God; we profess our belief in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
    THAT IS NOT SCEPTICISM.
    pavlos and Neverfly like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    116
    People do not know what they are not saying, why they are not well educated, nor do they have time to perform critical analysis.  After all, Wisdom of the Crowds, if everyones doing it it must be right.  How about a poll, catholics only where people rate their level of skepticism?

    Don't I feel dumb, I don't know how to create a poll, as you can see I'm a bit new here. However I think we could get a descent sample size.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    People do not know what they are not saying, why they are not well educated, nor do they have time to perform critical analysis.  After all, Wisdom of the Crowds, if everyones doing it it must be right.  How about a poll, catholics only where people rate their level of skepticism?
    Repeating an inane assertion doesn't make it any less inane.

    Don't I feel dumb, I don't know how to create a poll, as you can see I'm a bit new here. However I think we could get a descent sample size.
    It wouldn't matter what size sample you used.
    For the reasons stated.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    People do not know what they are not saying, why they are not well educated, nor do they have time to perform critical analysis.  After all, Wisdom of the Crowds, if everyones doing it it must be right.  How about a poll, catholics only where people rate their level of skepticism?
    Repeating an inane assertion doesn't make it any less inane.

    Don't I feel dumb, I don't know how to create a poll, as you can see I'm a bit new here. However I think we could get a descent sample size.
    It wouldn't matter what size sample you used.
    For the reasons stated.
    Inane Assertion? well here's a fact for you, most newspapers are written no higher than a 5th grade reading level. This should somewhat prove the stupidity of the world, at least the US. Think about it newspapers want to find a mass market, the walls street journal wants to find the "smarter people". If it "doesn't matter" then my point is proven, I've already cited a skepticist blog
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    well here's a fact for you, most newspapers are written no higher than a 5th grade reading level. This should somewhat prove the stupidity of the world, at least the US. Think about it newspapers want to find a mass market, the walls street journal wants to find the "smarter people".
    So what?

    If it "doesn't matter" then my point is proven, I've already cited a skepticist blog
    You mean the "skepticist blog" that actually supported MY point and refuted yours?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    116
    Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

    Originally Posted by jakesyl
    People do not know what they are not saying, why they are not well educated, nor do they have time to perform critical analysis.  After all, Wisdom of the Crowds, if everyones doing it it must be right.  How about a poll, catholics only where people rate their level of skepticism?




    Repeating an inane assertion doesn't make it any less inane. Originally Posted by jakesylwell here's a fact for you, most newspapers are written no higher than a 5th grade reading level. This should somewhat prove the stupidity of the world, at least the US. Think about it newspapers want to find a mass market, the walls street journal wants to find the "smarter people".



    So what?
    people of low intelligence might have trouble with critical analysis

    Heres a sample size of a few million
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    people of low intelligence might have trouble with critical analysis
    Yes, you constantly demonstrate this point.
    But I fail to see how it's relevant.

    Heres a sample size of a few million
    Apart from the fact that it's not necessarily a sample size that large, what exactly is your point here?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    116
    Originally Posted by jakesyl
    people of low intelligence might have trouble with critical analysis



    Yes, you constantly demonstrate this point.
    But I fail to see how it's relevant.
    Heres a sample size of a few million
    Apart from the fact that it's not necessarily a sample size that large, what exactly is your point here?
    My point being that skepticism is present among a large portion of church attendees, and although it cannot be proved through statistics, it is most likely a majority (skepticism). The church is the people that are in it, therefore the church allows skepticism.

    And my point is people don't know what they're agreeing to
    Last edited by jakesyl; June 5th, 2013 at 09:34 PM. Reason: Typos, clearence
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    That skepticism is present among a large portion of church attendees
    Not supported.

    and although it cannot be proved trough statistics most likely a majority.
    Speculation.

    The church is the people that are in it
    Wrong.

    And my point is people don't know what they're agreeing to
    In other words, they don't think about what they're doing.
    I.e. they aren't sceptical.

    And, one more time:
    You fell for religious sophistry.
    If they believe in god and follow the teachings of the Catholic church how can they be sceptics?
    They have already decided that god exists.
    You really should read your links: we profess our belief in one God; we profess our belief in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
    THAT IS NOT SCEPTICISM.

    Please learn to reason.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    116
    That skepticism is present among a large portion of church attendees-me
    Not supported.
    actually i think the couple million people that I cited are qualified as a "large number"
    and although it cannot be proved trough statistics most likely a majority.-me
    Speculation
    True but it is supported by logic, after all it's in peoples nature to be skeptical it's a heuristic
    The church is the people that are in it-me
    Wrong
    Please elaborate, I'm not sure why this is "wrong"
    And my point is people don't know what they're agreeing to-me
    In other words, they don't think about what they're doing.
    I.e. they aren't sceptical.
    They are tho, use logic once again, If you knew you would have eternal happiness, would you go to church every sunday? Of course you would. These people despite their lack of knowledge in the meaning of a creed, are skeptical or they would live differently. Also I was just saying they did not understand the language. One more thing, confirmation: how many 14 year olds, besides myself, know the meaning of "consubstantial" (lack of vocabulary diversity, once again relative to my people lack intellectual capabilities argument)

    You fell for religious sophistry.
    If they believe in god and follow the teachings of the Catholic church how can they be sceptics?
    They have already decided that god exists.
    You really should read your links: we profess our belief in one God; we profess our belief in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
    THAT IS NOT SCEPTICISM.
    I'd just like to say for documentation I am agnostic, just being devils advocate because it's fun. They don't believe and follow (as I proved above). No they haven't as I proved above. Once again don't know what they're agreeing to.
    Please learn to reason
    Thanks for the constructive criticism
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    actually i think the couple million people that I cited are qualified as a "large number"
    You didn't cite "a couple million".
    What you got was a list of references that included the words scepticism and religion on the same page.
    Some of those were by atheists, some will probably be quotes of earlier references.

    True but it is supported by logic
    Wrong. You consistently been illogical.

    after all it's in peoples nature to be skeptical it's a heuristic
    And now you're trying for incoherent.

    Please elaborate, I'm not sure why this is "wrong"
    The church is the hierarchy: specifically the hierarchy that dictates the tenets of that church. If you don't agree with what is laid down you leave or are expelled.

    They are tho
    Wrong. As shown

    use logic once again, If you knew you would have eternal happiness, would you go to church every sunday? Of course you would.
    Would I?
    How would I know that would give "eternal happiness"?

    These people despite their lack of knowledge in the meaning of a creed, are skeptical or they would live differently.
    What?
    They accept the tenets of that faith. They are NOT sceptical.

    Also I was just saying they did not understand the language. One more thing, confirmation: how many 14 year olds, besides myself, know the meaning of "consubstantial" (lack of vocabulary diversity
    What's your point?

    once again relative to my people lack intellectual capabilities argument
    As you so consistently demonstrate.

    I'd just like to say for documentation I am agnostic, just being devils advocate because it's fun.
    So you're agnostic.
    Are you an atheist or a theist?

    They don't believe and follow (as I proved above). No they haven't as I proved above. Once again don't know what they're agreeing to.
    You have "proved" nothing, except, possibly, to your own satisfaction.
    Which would be easy given your lack of logic, reasoning and basic gullibility.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    welcome to dyvvdyddyr's church of the pseudoathiesticlostsouls all are welcome
    don't mind the preaching, it's just habit
    enjoy the soup and toast
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Just sniping?
    No valid argument?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    People need a god, without god what is the meaning of life? First God was something we invented to explain things, then he was something like a last hope and now he is simply purpose
    Exactly a comfort blanket.
    Oh and the only meaning to life, is to continue the species. Why is there any need for more?
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Yes many people need a comfort blanket, hence why religion came to exist. You need that comfort blanket.
    wowie zowei
    speaking of unsubstantiated assumptions

    lol
    Well you could explain what reason there is for a god, if it is not to allay the fears of it's believers? Oh and please when you've done that, explain why you consider it an assumption?.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ncept-religion
    http://www.thenewhumanism.org/author...omfort-blanket
    http://pinterest.com/descannon/relig...mfort-blanket/
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    anecdotes

    D.T. Suziki once wrote that you could not communicate nor understand zen through words, and then proceeded to write several articles and books on the subject.

    I studied design with Buckminster Fuller, and he said: If you cannot find the answer to the problem, don't blame the problem, keep changing the question, and when you have found the right question, the answer becomes obvious.

    I would submit that if you seek to understand "GOD" you will not succeed by using words, and if you are asking questions, perhaps they are the wrong questions.
    ..................
    ..................
    yeh duck, just sniping
    , but
    You seem to be willing to discuss the concept of "GOD" and re ligio, far more than I, and I am a self avowed theist who is reasonably convinced that if you would really seek "GOD" you must do so without the use of words, or language, or the conscious mind as all of these are but shadows of the mind of man.
    and
    just as these words could not possibly explain "YOU" they are hopelessly inadaquate to the task which you seem willing to assign them in your contemplations of a quest for an understanding of a(the?)diety.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    >I am a self avowed theist who is reasonably convinced that if you would really seek "GOD" you must do so without the use of words, or language, or the conscious mind as all of these are but shadows of the mind of man.
    Quote Originally Posted by sarcastic reply by me
    So if one wishes to know god he must do so in an unconscious state, makes perfect sense. And in such a state he would not be able to speak or use words, so fits right in with your logic doesn't it.
    And when he regains consciousness will he know god? if so then anybody that has been in an unconscious state will come out of it knowing god, brilliant.
    Everybody in coma, has that to look forward too.
    Sculptor I don't think you realize how dumb your above statement is. Wow!!!!!!!!!!!
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    lol
    Last edited by sculptor; June 6th, 2013 at 10:04 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    lol
    ................
    and
    the crazy thing is
    that I knew that the attempt was not likely to succeed before I even started
    ....................


    Words----Dana Gioia

    The world does not need words. It articulates itself
    in sunlight, leaves, and shadows. The stones on the path
    are no less real for lying uncatalogued and uncounted.
    The fluent leaves speak only the dialect of pure being.
    The kiss is still fully itself though no words were spoken.

    And one word transforms it into something less or other—
    illicit, chaste, perfunctory, conjugal, covert.
    Even calling it a kiss betrays the fluster of hands
    glancing the skin or gripping a shoulder, the slow
    arching of neck or knee, the silent touching of tongues.

    Yet the stones remain less real to those who cannot
    name them, or read the mute syllables graven in silica.
    To see a red stone is less than seeing it as jasper—
    metamorphic quartz, cousin to the flint the Kiowa
    carved as arrowheads. To name is to know and remember.

    The sunlight needs no praise piercing the rainclouds,
    painting the rocks and leaves with light, then dissolving
    each lucent droplet back into the clouds that engendered it.
    The daylight needs no praise, and so we praise it always—
    greater than ourselves and all the airy words we summon.

    ......................
    If you would have words, may I suggest that you read your suzuki, then delve into the depths of TAO
    .............
    or
    The Moody Blues: The Word | OM - YouTube
    Faithfulbeliever likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    If we think in reality , there is nothing like GOD
    But it is not irrational to give some chances although very few .009% or less to "suspense" that arises when
    we look into nature,
    Matter has capacity to create sense,thinking power, consciousness in itself
    Means consciousness can exist in matter in this space
    Human brain has physical limit to get information
    So there may be some suspense , & they are not illogical
    But this does not mean what religions say are logical and based on reality,these are completely based on
    fictitious facts
    Even if there is something out of our brain, is God
    Even if we call that suspense "GOD"
    How people say GOD is God, just imagination
    "God" is nothing more than illogical imagination , not a logical observation
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    lol
    ................
    and
    the crazy thing is
    that I knew that the attempt was not likely to succeed before I even started
    ....................


    Words----Dana Gioia

    The world does not need words. It articulates itself
    in sunlight, leaves, and shadows. The stones on the path
    are no less real for lying uncatalogued and uncounted.
    The fluent leaves speak only the dialect of pure being.
    The kiss is still fully itself though no words were spoken.

    And one word transforms it into something less or other—
    illicit, chaste, perfunctory, conjugal, covert.
    Even calling it a kiss betrays the fluster of hands
    glancing the skin or gripping a shoulder, the slow
    arching of neck or knee, the silent touching of tongues.

    Yet the stones remain less real to those who cannot
    name them, or read the mute syllables graven in silica.
    To see a red stone is less than seeing it as jasper—
    metamorphic quartz, cousin to the flint the Kiowa
    carved as arrowheads. To name is to know and remember.

    The sunlight needs no praise piercing the rainclouds,
    painting the rocks and leaves with light, then dissolving
    each lucent droplet back into the clouds that engendered it.
    The daylight needs no praise, and so we praise it always—
    greater than ourselves and all the airy words we summon.

    ......................
    If you would have words, may I suggest that you read your suzuki, then delve into the depths of TAO
    .............
    or
    The Moody Blues: The Word | OM - YouTube

    your post reminds me of a old saying "Silence is language of the God, All Else is a poor translation".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    your post reminds me of a old saying "Silence is language of the God, All Else is a poor translation".
    Well, it might have done ... if it hadn't been so long.
    pavlos likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Raj
    By your own mind have you a fantasy created for your amusement, and then assigned a name "GOD" to that shadow of a meme.

    So, when you write:
    "God" is nothing more than illogical imagination
    know that; that which you decry is but the workings of your own imagination.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Forum Masters Degree LuciDreaming's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    656
    When it comes to god, gods or whatever you want to call them - they are all fantasy because they are all man-made.

    If a meme is a concept that spreads between people, what is a shadow of a meme (other than a nonsensical statement)?
    "And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh" Nietzsche.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    116
    Originally Posted by jakesyl
    actually i think the couple million people that I cited are qualified as a "large number"



    You didn't cite "a couple million".
    What you got was a list of references that included the words scepticism and religion on the same page.

    Some of those were by atheists, some will probably be quotes of earlier references.
    14 Million results, if we're being generous 1:5 ratio of theist to athies (which it should be the other way around, I still come up with almost 3 million.

    Wrong. You consistently been illogical.
    And you've been incoherent
    after all it's in peoples nature to be skeptical it's a heuristic



    And now you're trying for incoherent.
    It is read Wray Herbert's book on heuristics.

    Please elaborate, I'm not sure why this is "wrong"
    The church is the hierarchy: specifically the hierarchy that dictates the tenets of that church. If you don't agree with what is laid down you leave or are expelled.
    Wrong, the church is not a hierarchy it cannot exists without the people second of all, they consistently say "you are the church"
    use logic once again, If you knew you would have eternal happiness, would you go to church every Sunday? Of course you would.
    Would I?
    How would I know that would give "eternal happiness"?
    Jesus' description of heaven and the catholic churches description of heaven (as this terrible article loosely explains)

    These people despite their lack of knowledge in the meaning of a creed, are skeptical or they would live differently.


    What?

    They accept the tenets of that faith. They are NOT skeptical.

    If they were not skeptical, they would go to church every Sunday in order to go to "heaven" behavioral psychology.

    Also I was just saying they did not understand the language. One more thing, confirmation: how many 14 year olds, besides myself, know the meaning of "consubstantiation" (lack of vocabulary diversity
    What's your point?
    People don't know what they're agreeing to

    I'd just like to say for documentation I am agnostic, just being devils advocate because it's fun.


    So you're agnostic.

    Are you an atheist or a theist?
    Since you ask I feel obligated to explain my irrational beliefs I'm a atheist as a scientist, but as a human I must believe in a higher being. Why? Without life after death life has no purpose (and no the continuance of the species does not count as a reason to live.

    welcome to dyvvdyddyr's church of the pseudoathiesticlostsouls all are welcome
    don't mind the preaching, it's just habit
    enjoy the soup and toast
    Great point!

    Originally Posted by jakesylPeople need a god, without god what is the meaning of life? First God was something we invented to explain things, then he was something like a last hope and now he is simply purpose



    Exactly a comfort blanket.
    Oh and the only meaning to life, is to continue the species. Why is there any need for more?
    So we continue the species, what satisfaction does that grant us?

    You seem to be willing to discuss the concept of "GOD" and re ligio, far more than I, and I am a self avowed theist who is reasonably convinced that if you would really seek "GOD" you must do so without the use of words, or language, or the conscious mind as all of these are but shadows of the mind of man.
    and
    just as these words could not possibly explain "YOU" they are hopelessly inadequate to the task which you seem willing to assign them in your contemplation of a quest for an understanding of a(the?)diety.
    The "I have faith argument" in the scientific study of religion category, really? but while we're being irrational I would like to quote south park in that "maybe just believing in a god makes one exist". God could also be the product of a con tributary reality, I.E we're all god, which would line up with the catholic religion, Jeusus and the you hurt that man you hurt me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    a reflection in still water is still only a reflection
    excite the water and the reflection becomes legion, albiet somewhat fragmented

    chosing one out of legion allows a glimpse of the whole
    dancing light illuminating the darkness of a shadow
    an imitation of a concept, fragmented by the excitation
    awaits
    the calm

    if you cannot see the pattern within the shadow
    if you cannot dream the shadow of a meme
    perhaps
    the quest
    remains too damned vague
    beyond reach
    beyond comprehension

    .................
    Luci dreaming
    lucid reaming
    lucid dreaming
    all shadows
    &
    reflections of shadows of a meme
    Last edited by sculptor; June 6th, 2013 at 04:00 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    a reflection in still water are still only a reflection
    excite the water and the reflection becomes legion, albiet somewhat fragmented

    chosing one out of legion allows a glimpse of the whole
    dancing light illuminating the darkness of a shadow
    an imitation of a concept, fragmented by the excitation
    awaits
    the calm

    if you cannot see the pattern within the shadow
    if you cannot dream the shadow of a meme
    perhaps
    the quest
    remains too damned vague
    beyond reach
    beyond comprehension

    .................
    Luci dreaming
    lucid reaming
    lucid dreaming
    all shadows
    &
    reflections of shadows of a meme
    Wow, just wow what was that and how is it relevant, and I'm guessing your a follower of spirit science?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    sorry jakesyl
    that was in response to lucidreaming's post

    these nonsequiturs get you every time?
    .................
    you're familiar with Hui-neng?

    since there has never been a single thing, wherethen is defiling dust to cling
    alternately phrased
    seek not the moon in reflections of the moon
    Last edited by sculptor; June 6th, 2013 at 04:45 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #178  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    116
    oh I got it now, I'm still waiting for "ducks" counter-argument
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #179  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    116
    (deleted)
    Last edited by jakesyl; June 6th, 2013 at 05:15 PM. Reason: duplicate
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #180  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    14 Million results, if we're being generous 1:5 ratio of theist to athies (which it should be the other way around, I still come up with almost 3 million.
    So you're just guessing wildly and hand-waving.
    Okay.

    It is read Wray Herbert's book on heuristics.
    Just because someone writes a book doesn't make it true.
    Take a look at what heuristics actually is.

    Wrong, the church is not a hierarchy it cannot exists without the people second of all, they consistently say "you are the church"
    What they say and what the truth is are two different things. That's why people get excommunicated.

    Jesus' description of heaven and the catholic churches description of heaven (as this terrible article loosely explains)
    Even if Jesus actually existed how do I know that what he said is factual?

    If they were not skeptical, they would go to church every Sunday in order to go to "heaven" behavioral psychology.
    Ho hum...
    They accept that god exists as an a priori case.
    That isn't scepticism.

    People don't know what they're agreeing to
    Yet, according to you, they're also sceptical.
    How does that work?

    but as a human I must believe in a higher being.
    Nonsense.
    There is no must.

    Why? Without life after death life has no purpose (and no the continuance of the species does not count as a reason to live.
    So why live?
    Why not just die and go straight to this mythical afterlife?
    (And your claim that "without life after death life has no purpose" is nonsense: what purpose is there to life if there's an afterlife?)

    and I'm guessing your a follower of spirit science?
    There's no such thing.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #181  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    116
    Originally Posted by jakesyl
    14 Million results, if we're being generous 1:5 ratio of theist to athies (which it should be the other way around, I still come up with almost 3 million.



    So you're just guessing wildly and hand-waving.
    Okay.
    Not an assumption an educated guess
    It is read Wray Herbert's book on heuristics.
    Just because someone writes a book doesn't make it true.
    Take a look at what heuristics actually is.
    The man has thousands of citations, and a P.H.D.
    Wrong, the church is not a hierarchy it cannot exists without the people second of all, they consistently say "you are the church"


    What they say and what the truth is are two different things. That's why people get excommunicated.
    You soound like dan brown
    Jesus' description of heaven and the catholic churches description of heaven (as this terrible article loosely explains)
    Even if Jesus actually existed how do I know that what he said is factual?
    There is no doubt Jesus was alive at some point, what is debated is wether he was divine. The catholic church blindly follows what he says, therefore it is factual in their minds
    If they were not skeptical, they would go to church every Sunday in order to go to "heaven" behavioral psychology.
    Ho hum...
    They accept that god exists as an a priori case.
    That isn't scepticism.
    What they say has no correspondence to their believes, they're saying it because of social pressure (most likely)
    Why? Without life after death life has no purpose (and no the continuance of the species does not count as a reason to live.
    So why live?
    Why not just die and go straight to this mythical afterlife?
    (And your claim that "without life after death life has no purpose" is nonsense: what purpose is there to life if there's an afterlife?)
    Okay this is getting off topic, I'll start a new thread for it later.
    and I'm guessing your a follower of spirit science?
    There's no such thing.
    Spirit science, is real it's a belief: Spirit Science Portal
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #182  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    There is no doubt Jesus was alive at some point
    There is a lot of doubt about that. There appears to be little or no independent confirmation of his existence.

    What they say has no correspondence to their believes, they're saying it because of social pressure (most likely)
    You have no way of knowing that. And it is pretty offensive, as well.

    but as a human I must believe in a higher being.
    Why?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #183  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    Not an assumption an educated guess
    Hmm, an "educated guess". When the FIRST TEN links are nothing whatsoever to do with being religious AND sceptic.
    Please improve your education.

    The man has thousands of citations, and a P.H.D.
    Argument from authority.

    You soound like dan brown
    Any actual refutation?

    There is no doubt Jesus was alive at some point
    Wrong.

    The catholic church blindly follows what he says, therefore it is factual in their minds
    I.e. not sceptic.

    What they say has no correspondence to their believes, they're saying it because of social pressure (most likely)
    Evidence please.
    Hand waving and wild guesses don't cut it.

    Okay this is getting off topic, I'll start a new thread for it later.
    Fair enough.

    Spirit science, is real it's a belief: Spirit Science Portal
    Just because people believe in it doesn't make it real.
    There is no "spirit science". There cannot be.
    That entire site is nothing but credulous woo.
    It promotes crap and fuzzy thinking (or, more likely, not thinking at all).


    Edit:
    There is no doubt Jesus was alive at some point, what is debated is wether he was divine.
    There shouldn't be any doubt about whether he was "divine" or not.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #184 A reply to stupidity 
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    116
    Originally Posted by jakesyl
    There is no doubt Jesus was alive at some point



    There is a lot of doubt about that. There appears to be little or no independent confirmation of his existence.
    Reference material please?
    What they say has no correspondence to their believes, they're saying it because of social pressure (most likely)


    You have no way of knowing that. And it is pretty offensive, as well.
    They refers to two or more people, from my personal experience, with my friends I know at least 15 people who, and i quote have no idea what the hell this $h!t means, also I would like to say if they understood that they verbally expressed a commitment to the church they wouldn't leave
    The man has thousands of citations, and a P.H.D.
    Argument from authority.
    ?, elaborate
    You soound like dan brown
    Any actual refutation?
    yes, I was expressing, through analogy your irrationality and lack of any credible reference source.
    The catholic church blindly follows what he says, therefore it is factual in their minds
    I.e. not sceptic.
    What they say has no correspondence to their believes, they're saying it because of social pressure (most likely)
    Evidence please.
    Hand waving and wild guesses don't cut it.



    If you don't understand something, you can't fully believe in it.
    What they say has no correspondence to their believes, they're saying it because of social pressure (most likely)
    Evidence please.
    Hand waving and wild guesses don't cut it.



    Personal experience does.

    Okay this is getting off topic, I'll start a new thread for it later.


    Fair enough.
    Here it is
    Spirit science, is real it's a belief: Spirit Science Portal
    Just because people believe in it doesn't make it real.
    There is no "spirit science". There cannot be.
    That entire site is nothing but credulous woo.
    It promotes crap and fuzzy thinking (or, more likely, not thinking at all).
    I really haven't been on the site much, the information I got is derived from the youtube videos

    There is no doubt Jesus was alive at some point, what is debated is wether he was divine.


    There shouldn't be any doubt about whether he was "divine" or not
    I'm not talking internally within the catholic religion i'm talking world wide, atheist don't think he was divine, catholics/christians do

    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #185  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    A reply to stupidity
    For it to be a "reply" to stupidity there'd have to be stupidity posted.

    Reference material please?
    There are NO contemporary records of his existence.
    Start here.

    ?, elaborate
    Just because the guy has citations doesn't make him infallible or automatically correct.

    yes, I was expressing, through analogy your irrationality and lack of any credible reference source.
    Ah, I see.
    You don't recognise logic when you see it.

    If you don't understand something, you can't fully believe in it.
    Huh?

    Personal experience does.
    Not scientifically it doesn't.

    I really haven't been on the site much, the information I got is derived from the youtube videos
    In other words you've been unsceptical, uncritical and gullible.
    Way to go.

    I'm not talking internally within the catholic religion i'm talking world wide, atheist don't think he was divine, catholics/christians do
    Correct.
    One set is gullible and credulous, the other not.
    There should be no doubt.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #186 Summary of arguments thus far/counter arguments 
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    116
    Summary of my arguments thus far:
    So theism, mainly in the catholic religion consist of unsupported facts, and divinity which only comes from the book that is supposedly "divined" which makes it invalid.
    Theism, despite the full commitment the church "expects one to make" they don't actually make it. The church is not a hierarchy but a republic because people are chosen from in the church to perform for the better of the church.

    Therefore people are the church, and the church consists purely of it's members now it's members do agree but they are not fully aware of the creed for two reasons. First of all is stupidity, which I think I have adequately explained is present. However It's also pressures, originally the government pressured you to be a religion because the government was a theocracy. Now it is social pressure from friends, and family.

    Now a reply to your arguments:
    For it to be a "reply" to stupidity there'd have to be stupidity posted.
    Well, some of lucid dreamings arguments might qualify.
    There are NO contemporary records of his existence.
    Start here.
    Interesting link, however I recently read this and have since been convinced jesus lived, however this is no sign of his divinity.
    ?, elaborate
    Just because the guy has citations doesn't make him infallible or automatically correct.
    My point is he has some validity, that and wisdom of the crowds, after all the book was on the best sellers for a while.
    If you don't understand something, you can't fully believe in it.
    Huh?
    How can you believe in something you can't comprehend, oh ya it's called religion...
    Personal experience does.
    Not scientifically it doesn't.
    It does, the problem is lack of documentation
    I really haven't been on the site much, the information I got is derived from the youtube videos
    In other words you've been unsceptical, uncritical and gullible.
    Way to go.
    No, I haven't had time to investigate the claims fully, however I found the youtube videos interesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #187  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    Theism, despite the full commitment the church "expects one to make" they don't actually make it.
    Yet to be supported.

    The church is not a hierarchy but a republic because people are chosen from in the church to perform for the better of the church.
    Yet to be supported.

    Therefore people are the church, and the church consists purely of it's members now it's members do agree but they are not fully aware of the creed for two reasons. First of all is stupidity, which I think I have adequately explained is present.
    No you haven't.

    However It's also pressures, originally the government pressured you to be a religion because the government was a theocracy. Now it is social pressure from friends, and family.
    Really?
    Which government are you talking about?

    Well, some of lucid dreamings arguments might qualify.
    You didn't reply to any posts by LuciDreaming.
    Plus the fact that there was nothing stupid in her posts.

    Interesting link, however I recently read this and have since been convinced jesus lived, however this is no sign of his divinity.
    Ah, a crank site that uses sources already refuted by the link I gave.

    My point is he has some validity, that and wisdom of the crowds, after all the book was on the best sellers for a while.
    Wisdom of the crowds?
    WTF?
    So you're switching from argument from authority to argumentum ad populum...

    How can you believe in something you can't comprehend, oh ya it's called religion...
    Er no. What I meant was: what are you assuming I don't understand?

    It does, the problem is lack of documentation
    Wrong again.
    Personal experience, ESPECIALLY when extrapolated without justification, is NOT science.

    No, I haven't had time to investigate the claims fully, however I found the youtube videos interesting.
    In other words you've accepted those videos uncritically, unsceptically and credulously.
    jakesyl likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #188  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesy
    So we continue the species, what satisfaction does that grant us?
    Why do you need satisfying?
    The fact you exist is one chance in billions, why do you need glorification for existing?

    Again (Why is there any need for more?). Perhaps if you had answered this from my previous post, you would be able to explain your question above to yourself. Instead of answering a question with a question!
    LuciDreaming likes this.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #189  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    [If "GOD" exists, then:]God exists outside the boundaries of [scientifically measurable] reality. ...

    cool?
    Scientifically measurable? No. There are things we're fairly sure about that we just haven't been able to pin down ..... yet.

    The most important feature of science is that we're perfectly willing to say whether current theories (analysis, observations) aren't clear enough to say that we know them properly yet. In the immortal words of Dara O'Briain,

    "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise, it'd stop!"

    Dara O'Briain: Science doesn't know everything - YouTube
    If I told you about a book on Meta Physics that really proves the existence of not god but of a form of energy that the universe is comprised of, would you be interested in knowing about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #190  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    just give us your personal understanding of the knowledge you have gained from your reading of your aforementioned book
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #191  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    just give us your personal understanding of the knowledge you have gained from your reading of your aforementioned book
    There are metaphysical techniques that really work, not in proving the existence of a god but of a so called Higher Power. This is an invisible form of energy that permeates the entire universe, and can be easily used by enlightened ones such as the Aztecs did 3000 years ago successfully. You can do bi location, you can do astral projection and so on and so forth. Even past life regression and communicating with departed loved ones.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #192  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Are you going to post this utter shite in any more threads? This is a science forum not a mystical bullshit forum. As your post history shows you have no knowledge or understanding of science please stop. I know you won't so your going on the ignore list. How someone as clueless as you remembers how to breathe is beyond me.
    Okay, I won't bother any more. Metaphysics is not BS, please. I have more knowledge of science that would go right over your head so better I go back. Ignore me at your own peril. It is not I who is clueless, it is you who has NO IDEA what I am talking about. End of the discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #193  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    The word "metaphysics" causes me to punch the nearest person. There's nothing I can do to stop it.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #194  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arjundeepakshriram View Post
    I have more knowledge of science that would go right over your head
    I very much doubt it. Some of us are actually scientists not ignorant pretenders

    Quote Originally Posted by arjundeepakshriram View Post
    Ignore me at your own peril.
    I ignore most clueless loonies. Have had no peril yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by arjundeepakshriram View Post
    It is not I who is clueless, it is you who has NO IDEA what I am talking about.
    The sad thing is is that you seem to have no idea about what you're talking about either.

    Quote Originally Posted by arjundeepakshriram View Post
    End of the discussion.
    I wish I could believe this. You'll be back peddling the same moronic crap in the very near future.
    As a scientist you should be willing to accept the truth.
    Again ignore me at your own peril.
    It is all going over your head and not mine.
    There is nothing you need to believe if you simply don't want to.
    The moronic crap is the true language of a true scientist's distorted thinking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #195  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    The word "metaphysics" causes me to punch the nearest person. There's nothing I can do to stop it.
    Why? Far too incredulous?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #196  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by arjundeepakshriram View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    The word "metaphysics" causes me to punch the nearest person. There's nothing I can do to stop it.
    Why? Far too incredulous?
    Because it is a pathetic attempt to make philosophy into a hard science. Simply because it contains the word 'physics' does not make it an upper echelon science. It's just a magnet for snakes, scammers, and loonies.
    Neverfly and mat5592 like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #197  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arjundeepakshriram View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    The word "metaphysics" causes me to punch the nearest person. There's nothing I can do to stop it.
    Why? Far too incredulous?
    Because it is a pathetic attempt to make philosophy into a hard science. Simply because it contains the word 'physics' does not make it an upper echelon science. It's just a magnet for snakes, scammers, and loonies.
    You simply "don't know better". Metaphysics is not a philosophy but a science. It is very advanced in its own right. You have to simply see it working in order to believe it. If you are interested in finding out exactly how it works and then actually making it work, I can PM the name to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #198  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    You forgot pseudo-intellectual, Dunning-Kruger a-holes...
    So Einstein, Maxwell, Newton and Planck were all pseudo-intellectuals...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #199  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    I am god! Bow before me with your offerings of beer, hotwings and ribs....or feel my wrath!!!
    shlunka likes this.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #200  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    You forgot pseudo-intellectual, Dunning-Kruger a-holes...
    Metacognition, in a broad sense, is the thoughts that a person has about their own thoughts. More specifically, metacognition includes things like:
    How effective a person is at monitoring their own performance on a given task (self-regulation).
    A person's understanding of their capabilities on particular mental tasks.
    The ability to apply cognitive strategies.
    Much of the current study regarding metacognition within the field of cognitive psychology deals with its application within the area of education. Being able to increase a student's metacognitive abilities has been shown to have a significant impact on their learning and study habits. One key aspect of this concept is the improvement of students' ability to set goals and self-regulate effectively to meet those goals. As a part of this process, it is also important to ensure that students are realistically evaluating their personal degree of knowledge and setting realistic goals (another metacognitive task).

    Applies to you as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Is this function of writings common among all god-scripture-religions?
    By RamenNoodles in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 8th, 2013, 05:19 PM
  2. Common question now?
    By Brandon in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: September 21st, 2011, 09:36 AM
  3. Common ancestor question
    By KennyX in forum Biology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 25th, 2010, 02:21 PM
  4. Does God exist?
    By Jim Colyer in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: June 22nd, 2007, 02:33 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •