Home  Sign In  Search  Date Ideas  Join  Forums  Singles Groups  - 100% FREE Online Dating, Join Now!


1/28/2015 11:55:23 PMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 
Yasureoktoo
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (24,130)
Seattle, WA
63, joined Dec. 2014


Quote from womanofjehovah1:
Science cant reveal GOD


Of course not, that is one of the main points.

Nothing at all, can reveal any of the Gods.




Meet singles at DateHookup.com, we're 100% free! Join now!

DateHookup.com - 100% Free Personals


1/29/2015 1:32:32 AMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

turkalurk82
Over 1,000 Posts (1,071)
Godfrey, IL
35, joined Sep. 2014


Ok, I can relate to all that, and I appreciate the response. So, you want to scrutinize harmful religious beliefs without your beliefs being scrutinized? How do you expect them to abandon their blind faith, if you can't abandon yours? Do you realize science is actually a philosophy? It is actually science that has disproven materialism. I can show ypu how, but I won't claim the victory. I would just be repeating the information gathered by the scientific community. I may have minored in Philosophy, but I majored in Biology.

I find it odd you don't care if you are not following the same rules that you expect your opposition to? You say, "To me it seems that philosophical concepts of God/s are abstract constructs made possible by language but not reproducible in reality." Try to remember, I am interpreting this message in the context of my Monism. So, this abstract concept that represents the totality of potentiality being actualized. I can call it many things, and recognize the associations between the names and the concept that they represent. I can call it th Supreme Being, or I can call it God. When I learn about th subjective nature of perception, I realize this reality I perceive is only reflective of a greater objective reality that my consciousness never interacts directly with its environment, but only indirectly through the sensory input recieved from sensory organs that can only sense a limited amount of the properties that the object possesses. So, is this concept I call Objective Reality not reproducible in reality? If you mean reducible, I have arguments against reductionism as well, which is why I prefer emergentism or Holism.

You say, "I have other things to read right now and find arguments about abstract ideas unappealing."

Then, why are you arguing against them? Why are you even here trying to discuss them? Do you realize all concepts are an abstraction, a mental construct of something and not the "thing" itself? The concept of "Truth" is unappealing to you?

I guess you don't want to apologize because you meant as a whole the forum has no quality? So, if there is no quality as a whole, there is no quality individually. Therefore, your insult applied to all forum posters incuding yourself. So, yes, lacking quality would be a better way to put it, but you didn't so you are kind of being a jerk because you showed no remorse for your smugness.


The problem with most strong atheists, is they usually behave like smug a**holes. Just like the other end of the spectrum.

"the best indication of an individual's philosophy was not what a person said but how that person behaved."[John Sellars. Stoicism, p. 32.]

1/29/2015 1:41:05 AMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

turkalurk82
Over 1,000 Posts (1,071)
Godfrey, IL
35, joined Sep. 2014


One more thing, what would you consider posting something "good" with respect to religion without posting about abstract ideas?

1/29/2015 3:14:36 AMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

sail_dancer
Over 7,500 Posts!! (8,647)
Saint Petersburg, FL
70, joined Apr. 2010


Quote from turkalurk82:
Yes, these concepts only represent a reflection of the Mystery that is Existence. This is what the "en" in panendeism signifies. God transcends this subjective reality. My Supreme Being transcends this physical observable universe to include a Totality of All. To communicate the nature of our subjective relationship with objective reality. Our subjective reality is inferior to the obective reality because it is subject to it and would not exist without it. This is why you can also call me a Monist. So, simply put,

God=Truth

God=Objective Reality

God=Supreme Being


I have yet to see a convincing argument that your conception of a god is any more supported than that of other religions ..... Until you can show that there is a need for such a supreme being for life to exist ..... you are only speculating ..... and adding concepts to the equation simply to reach your desired outcome.

You are no better than the others ..... you are just debating the validities of your fantasies with those whose fantasies differ from yours.

You mentioning truth ..... when will you start using it and admit that you created the need for a supreme being ..... but cannot in truth insist that one must exist.

I'm not saying that your beliefs are ridiculous or stupid ..... the way you present them ..... I can see why you find them interesting. But just because something can be considered interesting ..... does not mean it contains even one word of truth.

You are just frustrated with the many questions that cannot at this time be answered in the real world ..... so you have created a fantasy alter-world to answer these questions to relieve those frustrations.

Why is it that you and others ..... that insist on the existence of a supreme being ..... cannot live with the fact that for every answer we do find ..... that knowledge most likely will create multiple more questions. Why choose to have fantasy provide these answers, when we live in what is currently considered reality?

Peace

1/29/2015 3:15:57 AMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

sail_dancer
Over 7,500 Posts!! (8,647)
Saint Petersburg, FL
70, joined Apr. 2010


Quote from Yasureoktoo:
You can play on words all you want but superstition and gods are not science.

There may be science in the psychology of why people believe in such things, but that is about as far as the science goes.




Peace

1/29/2015 3:23:34 AMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

sail_dancer
Over 7,500 Posts!! (8,647)
Saint Petersburg, FL
70, joined Apr. 2010


Quote from clarencec:
I'm not educated in philosophy. To me it seems that philosophical concepts of God/s are abstract constructs made possible by language but not reproducible in reality. I've been more interested of late in reading biblical scholarship and gaining an insight from that material into historical reasons for why the Abrahamic deity is most likely false. The Abrahamic God interests me most because I live in a Christian culture and He's the only deity who traditionally threatens to torture for eternity or annihilate those who don't believe in him. God/s that don't make threats hardly seem worth refuting IMO. Most of 'em are historical relics anyway.


I totally agree with this.



Peace

1/29/2015 3:42:50 AMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

sail_dancer
Over 7,500 Posts!! (8,647)
Saint Petersburg, FL
70, joined Apr. 2010


Quote from clarencec:
Yes, I've got too snarky with certain trolls when I should just have left 'em to their own devices. It was funny to watch Sail revert to dumb gripes about spelling though.



I brought up the spelling because it just supported my claims that you have an obsession to make the rules in our discussions ..... you continually insist your that opinions are right over and over ..... within rules that you yourself set ..... is also revealed by your insistence of using British spelling in an American site even after being previously corrected. It had nothing to do with the spelling ..... it had to do with your ego and your insistence on using the British spelling in your posts.

Peace

1/29/2015 3:44:51 AMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

sail_dancer
Over 7,500 Posts!! (8,647)
Saint Petersburg, FL
70, joined Apr. 2010


Quote from womanofjehovah1:
Science cant reveal GOD



Nothing can reveal that which isn't there ..... NOTHING!

Peace

1/29/2015 6:41:14 AMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 
clarencec
Over 2,000 Posts (3,667)
South Yorkshire
United Kingdom
60, joined Oct. 2008


.
Quote from sail_dancer:


I brought up the spelling because it just supported my claims that you have an obsession to make the rules in our discussions ..... you continually insist your that opinions are right over and over .....

No, the rules that say Abraham and Moses cannot be hallucinating in context of the Genesis narrative aren't made up by myself, but are universally correct to any reasonable thinking person. The same rule would say that Aragorn in The Lord of the Rings isn't hallucinating when he sees himself surrounded by Hobbits, Elves and Dwarves and believes he's on a mission to help Frodo Baggins destroy a magic ring by throwing it in the Crack of Doom in Mordor. The Genesis narrative would have to demonstrate a mismatch between Abraham and Moses's predicted visions from Yahweh and the outcomes of those visions for there to be a diagnosis of hallucination. There's no such mismatch recorded in the biblical text. Yahweh tells Abraham his missus will become pregnant at the age of 99, Abraham expresses scepticism, but the pregnancy duly happens as promised and Isaac is born - the lad who later figures in the sacrifice story. This is but one example but there are many more in the biblical narrative that portray visions delivered to Abraham, Moses and other characters as veridical.

Yam and yourself consistently failed to deal with that point in a thread discussion that's now become too rude, hostile and irrational on the part of contributions by Yam and yourself to be worth pursuing.

As for the gripes about my spelling, that's a ridiculous argument and shows all too clearly that you're an irrational bigot who shouldn't be advising anyone to see a shrink. Both American and British spelling is correct. There's no reasonable basis for criticizing anyone for using the correct spelling for where they happen to have spent their whole lives, especially when you yourself can't spell correctly in either American or UK English. "Clarence is loosing it". Ridiculous. You should have the humility and self-knowledge to realize you're a reason challenged person and desist from charging others with your own faults and also from handing out fake psychiatric advice.



[Edited 1/29/2015 6:43:20 AM ]

1/29/2015 7:07:41 AMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 
Yasureoktoo
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (24,130)
Seattle, WA
63, joined Dec. 2014


Quote from sail_dancer:


Nothing can reveal that which isn't there ..... NOTHING!

Peace



Wait a minute

Are you questioning my invisible magic penguin.

He is real, I have faith. you are wrong

See, that proves it.

1/29/2015 7:14:06 AMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

jrbogie1949
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (13,851)
Ventura, CA
68, joined Mar. 2009


i put faith in nothing.

1/29/2015 7:20:01 AMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 
Yasureoktoo
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (24,130)
Seattle, WA
63, joined Dec. 2014


I put faith in my heading indicator, DME, and compass.

1/29/2015 7:24:15 AMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

jrbogie1949
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (13,851)
Ventura, CA
68, joined Mar. 2009


Quote from Yasureoktoo:
I put faith in my heading indicator, DME, and compass.


put faith in those crossing the atlantic and you're toast. heading indicator/compass?

1/29/2015 7:37:04 AMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 
Yasureoktoo
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (24,130)
Seattle, WA
63, joined Dec. 2014


LOL

They are pretty bad around Juneau also.

1/29/2015 7:40:41 AMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 
Yasureoktoo
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (24,130)
Seattle, WA
63, joined Dec. 2014


But I still use my antique VOR in faith.

1/29/2015 8:01:08 AMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

jrbogie1949
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (13,851)
Ventura, CA
68, joined Mar. 2009


just jerkin' yer chain. flew the polar routes a lot during my career where a compass was about as useful as a boat anchor on an aircraft. have you ever pondered this? if you are directly over the north pole, which south heading would you fly to get to jfk? which to get to lax? to hnl? anywhere in australia? now this would require faith, huh?

1/29/2015 8:01:16 AMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 
clarencec
Over 2,000 Posts (3,667)
South Yorkshire
United Kingdom
60, joined Oct. 2008


.
Quote from turkalurk82:
Ok, I can relate to all that, and I appreciate the response. So, you want to scrutinize harmful religious beliefs without your beliefs being scrutinized?

I've argued my beliefs on forum over the years.

How do you expect them to abandon their blind faith, if you can't abandon yours?

I don't expect anyone to abandon their faith on account of anything I say. I think what people are going to believe is probably tuned by the temperament they've developed as a result of genetics and environment and is unlikely to change in most cases. If it does change, this means they were always susceptible to changing their views. Walt posted a video of a guy called Lee Strobel who claims to have once been an atheist who converted to Christianity after being convinced by arguments. The only thing is, the arguments are really naive ones that wouldn't convince any hardline rationalist and his version of Christianity is the naive fundamentalist kind. My verdict after watching the video is that Lee Strobel was always had an overwhelming psychological propensity to become a naive Christian fundamentalist.

Do you realize science is actually a philosophy? It is actually science that has disproven materialism. I can show ypu how, but I won't claim the victory. I would just be repeating the information gathered by the scientific community. I may have minored in Philosophy, but I majored in Biology.

Feel free to disprove materialism.

I find it odd you don't care if you are not following the same rules that you expect your opposition to? You say, "To me it seems that philosophical concepts of God/s are abstract constructs made possible by language but not reproducible in reality." Try to remember, I am interpreting this message in the context of my Monism. So, this abstract concept that represents the totality of potentiality being actualized. I can call it many things, and recognize the associations between the names and the concept that they represent. I can call it th Supreme Being, or I can call it God. When I learn about th subjective nature of perception, I realize this reality I perceive is only reflective of a greater objective reality that my consciousness never interacts directly with its environment, but only indirectly through the sensory input recieved from sensory organs that can only sense a limited amount of the properties that the object possesses. So, is this concept I call Objective Reality not reproducible in reality? If you mean reducible, I have arguments against reductionism as well, which is why I prefer emergentism or Holism.

"Totality of potentiality being actualized" is word salad to me, as is "Supreme Being". The only kind of being we can reliably agree exists are biological beings like ourselves that take billions of years to evolve. A Supreme Being and whatever attributes one assigns to it, such as omnipotence, incorporeality, immanence, transcendence is hypothetical.

I think of objective reality as those aspects of reality that we can all agree on. It's objectively true that birds fly through the air and fish swim in water for instance. The fact that through our senses, the brain only creates a secondhand mental model of that reality and not the thing itself doesn't seem particularly relevant. Our senses and our whole physiology were shaped via evolution by that objective external reality, so it definitely exists and creates effects. To an extent, objective reality is a truth generator, in that organisms that act in accordance with what is true (being good at predator avoidance for instance) are more likely to reproduce and leave more offspring that carry genes for recognizing what's true.

At the level of things like belief in God/s and speculation about what they may be like, I guess reality as a truth generator starts to break down and it becomes a question of is the belief adaptive, regardless of its truth value. Is there an evolutionary advantage to be gained for groups believing in a god, such as increased social co-operation and self-sacrificial willingness that will tend to benefit the group and favour their reproductive success over groups without a tradition of god belief?

You say, "I have other things to read right now and find arguments about abstract ideas unappealing."

Then, why are you arguing against them? Why are you even here trying to discuss them? Do you realize all concepts are an abstraction, a mental construct of something and not the "thing" itself? The concept of "Truth" is unappealing to you?

It's just the way my thoughts are at the moment. I don't feel inclined to study the intricacies of philosophy, but don't mind reading the posts of others who have done so and putting in my two penn'orth if anything worth expressing occurs to me.

I guess you don't want to apologize because you meant as a whole the forum has no quality? So, if there is no quality as a whole, there is no quality individually. Therefore, your insult applied to all forum posters incuding yourself. So, yes, lacking quality would be a better way to put it, but you didn't so you are kind of being a jerk because you showed no remorse for your smugness.

There are definitely variations and differences in standards of forum quality over time in my opinion. It was better when there was more participation from Christians for instance. There's been a tendency for Christians to migrate to their own enclave as the atheist contingent here have become more hostile and aggressive, as demonstrated by Yam and Sail. I'm not criticizing any individual's contribution though, just the general tenor of the whole thing.

The problem with most strong atheists, is they usually behave like smug a**holes. Just like the other end of the spectrum.

"the best indication of an individual's philosophy was not what a person said but how that person behaved."[John Sellars. Stoicism, p. 32.]

Well, we can all gripe about behaviour we disapprove of. I guess the only behaviour we have control over is our own.

1/29/2015 8:08:38 AMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

jrbogie1949
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (13,851)
Ventura, CA
68, joined Mar. 2009


Quote from turkalurk82:
I may have minored in Philosophy, but I majored in Biology.


stating your credentials on a dating site forum will get you about as far as begging for a fwb. few are interested.

1/29/2015 9:23:18 AMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

turkalurk82
Over 1,000 Posts (1,071)
Godfrey, IL
35, joined Sep. 2014


Quote from jrbogie1949:
stating your credentials on a dating site forum will get you about as far as begging for a fwb. few are interested.


I wouldn't expect them to. Thanks for supporting my point that you don't need creditials to be a Philosopher.
The only reason I post my creditials is when someone imples another's views as an authority because of their formal education. However, I disagree that few are interested in someone's field of study, nor are few interested in friends with benefits. I also doubt that you are an authority on what all or even most of the forum posters are interested in.

But, a haters gonna hate hate hate hate hate, so I will shake it off, shake it off. Gotta love that Taylor Swift.


Seems like you question everything but your own opinion. Thanks anyway for your snide remarks, you really showed me, bud. I will probably end up ignoring you from now on. You keep reiforcing my initial assessment of your character when you wanted to hate on me for flirting with that lady for her openminded position.

1/29/2015 9:36:30 AMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

jrbogie1949
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (13,851)
Ventura, CA
68, joined Mar. 2009




1/29/2015 10:26:25 AMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

turkalurk82
Over 1,000 Posts (1,071)
Godfrey, IL
35, joined Sep. 2014


Is there an evolutionary advantage to be gained for groups believing in a god, such as increased social co-operation and self-sacrificial willingness that will tend to benefit the group and favour their reproductive success over groups without a tradition of god belief?

I certainly believe so, they can call their Supreme being something other than god. Maybe their Supreme is the collective of the group as a whole. Religion is simply about putting an amount of faith in something greater than your own ego. It is this process of bypassing our egoic tendencies that leads to spiritual experience. In this sense, Science, is my religion, and the world is my church.


So, the only beings that exist are biological? If you definie Being this way, then Life would be the Supreme Being. I tend to use a broader definition of a being.


a :the quality or state of having existence
b (1) :something conceivable as existing (2) :something that actually exists (3) :the totality of existing things
c :conscious existence :life
2 :the qualities that constitute an existent thing :essence; especially ersonality


I will be busy with work the next few days, but I will try to start a thread about matterialism, and why we mostly call it physicalism now. If you read a simply encyclopedia article about physicalism, I believe you will better understand my point about simply rephrasing the terminology due to our understanding of matter. If you simply took time to google a few words you would see, I only would have expected you to say that you were using yhe word materialism in a broader sense as synonymous with physicalism.


One challenge to the traditional concept of matter as tangible "stuff" came with the rise of field physics in the 19th century. Relativity shows that matter and energy (including the spatially distributed energy of fields) are interchangeable. This enables the ontological view that energy is prima materia and matter is one of its forms. On the other hand, the Standard Model of Particle physics uses quantum field theory to describe all interactions. On this view it could be said that fields are prima materia and the energy is a property of the field.

According to the dominant cosmological model, the Lambda-CDM model, less than 5% of the universe's energy density is made up of the "matter" described by the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and the majority of the universe is composed of dark matter and dark energy - with little agreement amongst scientists about what these are made of.[16]


I simply prefer emergentism over reductionism, because it can explain the things that reductionism can not, with respect to the complexity of systems and the properties that emerge from these complex interactions. It would add strengh to your position against consciousness being independent from your body(biological system). I suggest you read up on it. It could lead to your ability to strengthen your position and will take less than an hour to skim through some encyclopedias as opposed to reading the UAB in its entirety.


Thanks for engaging me n conversation. I appreciate and value your opinion. I will take your reformulation about the quality of the forum to indicate that you never meant any disrespect to any of the other members of the forum.

1/29/2015 11:47:47 AMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

turkalurk82
Over 1,000 Posts (1,071)
Godfrey, IL
35, joined Sep. 2014


I just thought of a good jab about reductive matterialism or physicalism. It's superficial! For instance, a woman can value material things while also valuing abstract ideas of love and sincerity. When a woman only focuses on the value of matterial things, we call them shallow, superficial, and impractical. This is my view of reductive matterialism. If some properties of a system, can't be explained through the indiviual properties of its coponents, then what's the practicality of reductionism as opposed to Holism or Emergentism?

1/29/2015 1:31:52 PMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

turkalurk82
Over 1,000 Posts (1,071)
Godfrey, IL
35, joined Sep. 2014


Btw, merely, calling something a "word salad" as if it supports anything, implies a fallacy of personal incredulity. You should become familiar with this fallacy, if you desire to keep your beliefs rational. Its a very easy trap to fall into. I suppose thats why I consider myself agnostic. Its the most rational position, because to argue for the certain nonexistence of all the myriad of god concepts would be incredulous. Therefore, atheism without agnosticism, would be incredulous. Stong atheism is easily defeated. Therefore, all forms of strong atheists use the same blind faith to claim their position as the religious fundies that they oppose.

1/29/2015 1:44:46 PMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

maxwalbridge
Over 1,000 Posts (1,360)
Redwood City, CA
26, joined Nov. 2013


Quote from Yasureoktoo:
You can play on words all you want but superstition and gods are not science.

There may be science in the psychology of why people believe in such things, but that is about as far as the science goes.


What is not made of logic and reason, everything presents intrinsic value. If there were a God it would be part of the natural world.

1/29/2015 2:16:30 PMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

turkalurk82
Over 1,000 Posts (1,071)
Godfrey, IL
35, joined Sep. 2014


Quote from maxwalbridge:
What is not made of logic and reason, everything presents intrinsic value. If there were a God it would be part of the natural world.


Sometimes, the truth of what a person says, is in the projection of their personality. He neglects the ambiguity of language and seems to focus more on the words than on the intended message those words merely symbolize. Therefore, he can bend the words to interpret the meaning he wants them to have regardless of the context in which the words were intended to be understood. Then, when you try to explain the associations between your words and why you chose them to represent the ideas of the intended message in the specific context under which you meant them to be understood in, he simply says you are playing with words. Although, this amounts to an argument from personal incredulity, it reflects his intentions. He sees communication as a game(something to be played) to be won or lost, because it is all about reinforcing his ego. So, it doesn't matter if he is reasonable or not, his only intention is to use you to feel better about himself. The more you show him the flaws in his logic, the more insecure he feels, the deeper ego entrenches itself and buries its head in the sand.



[Edited 1/29/2015 2:18:11 PM ]

1/29/2015 4:19:44 PMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

furchizedek
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (17,868)
Kingman, AZ
75, joined Sep. 2010


Quote from turkalurk82:
Sometimes, the truth of what a person says, is in the projection of their personality. He neglects the ambiguity of language and seems to focus more on the words than on the intended message those words merely symbolize. Therefore, he can bend the words to interpret the meaning he wants them to have regardless of the context in which the words were intended to be understood. Then, when you try to explain the associations between your words and why you chose them to represent the ideas of the intended message in the specific context under which you meant them to be understood in, he simply says you are playing with words. Although, this amounts to an argument from personal incredulity, it reflects his intentions. He sees communication as a game(something to be played) to be won or lost, because it is all about reinforcing his ego. So, it doesn't matter if he is reasonable or not, his only intention is to use you to feel better about himself. The more you show him the flaws in his logic, the more insecure he feels, the deeper ego entrenches itself and buries its head in the sand.


Wow! That's some heavy stuff.

I don't know if this applies here but there are better debaters here than I am and in the process of debating with them I have come to realize that their only purpose is to win and to smash the other side's arguments to sh*t, they're not here for any truth. And when you try to explain it again, they'll say you are playing word games.

1/29/2015 4:46:39 PMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

furchizedek
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (17,868)
Kingman, AZ
75, joined Sep. 2010


Quote from turkalurk82:
Btw, merely, calling something a "word salad" as if it supports anything, implies a fallacy of personal incredulity. You should become familiar with this fallacy, if you desire to keep your beliefs rational. Its a very easy trap to fall into. I suppose thats why I consider myself agnostic. Its the most rational position, because to argue for the certain nonexistence of all the myriad of god concepts would be incredulous. Therefore, atheism without agnosticism, would be incredulous. Stong atheism is easily defeated. Therefore, all forms of strong atheists use the same blind faith to claim their position as the religious fundies that they oppose.


Yeah, I hate that "word salad" card played on me.

1/29/2015 4:50:50 PMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

turkalurk82
Over 1,000 Posts (1,071)
Godfrey, IL
35, joined Sep. 2014


Quote from furchizedek:
Wow! That's some heavy stuff.

I don't know if this applies here but there are better debaters here than I am and in the process of debating with them I have come to realize that their only purpose is to win and to smash the other side's arguments to sh*t, they're not here for any truth. And when you try to explain it again, they'll say you are playing word games.


Yes, I understand it, because, in my younger days, I used to have a similar mentality without realizing it. Its a natural thing to have faith in oneself. Sometimes, when we have too much faith in our "reasons" it blinds us to a logic, allowing us to avoid cognitive dissonance. That's why it is important to use logic to guide us in our pursuit of truth. When I was younger I was harsher with my truth, I would rip thier logic to shreds with my philosophical background, but as I grew older I began to believe that, "the best way to judge a person's perspective on Life, is how a person behaves." After some deep introspection, I could no longer appreciate my impulse to destroy the things I oppose. I realized that my problem wasn't with atheism or theism, the beef I had was with blind faith and irrationality. So, now I handle my debates with as much sincerity as I can muster, and try to argue impartially to the best of my ability. Sometimes, this requires me to ignore my own egoic tendencies, so I can understand its not an easy task. The ego is a very tricky part of our minds. That's why I will consider criticisms especially if I see any truth to it, because that's what this is all about for me now. Pursuing Truth, and sharing my perspective with others while possibly learning something about their perspective.

Thanks, Furch, I appreciate the sentiment!

1/29/2015 5:28:41 PMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 
Yasureoktoo
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (24,130)
Seattle, WA
63, joined Dec. 2014


Quote from maxwalbridge:
What is not made of logic and reason, everything presents intrinsic value. If there were a God it would be part of the natural world.


Yes it would, but since there is not a god, he/she, is not a part of the natural world.

1/29/2015 6:29:47 PMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

sail_dancer
Over 7,500 Posts!! (8,647)
Saint Petersburg, FL
70, joined Apr. 2010


Quote from Yasureoktoo:
Yes it would, but since there is not a god, he/she, is not a part of the natural world.




Peace

1/29/2015 9:55:54 PMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

furchizedek
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (17,868)
Kingman, AZ
75, joined Sep. 2010


Didn't your profile used to say you were in New Mexico? Or am I thinking of someone else?

Quote from turkalurk82:
Yes, I understand it, because, in my younger days, I used to have a similar mentality without realizing it. Its a natural thing to have faith in oneself. Sometimes, when we have too much faith in our "reasons" it blinds us to a logic, allowing us to avoid cognitive dissonance. That's why it is important to use logic to guide us in our pursuit of truth. When I was younger I was harsher with my truth, I would rip thier logic to shreds with my philosophical background, but as I grew older I began to believe that, "the best way to judge a person's perspective on Life, is how a person behaves." After some deep introspection, I could no longer appreciate my impulse to destroy the things I oppose. I realized that my problem wasn't with atheism or theism, the beef I had was with blind faith and irrationality. So, now I handle my debates with as much sincerity as I can muster, and try to argue impartially to the best of my ability. Sometimes, this requires me to ignore my own egoic tendencies, so I can understand its not an easy task. The ego is a very tricky part of our minds. That's why I will consider criticisms especially if I see any truth to it, because that's what this is all about for me now. Pursuing Truth, and sharing my perspective with others while possibly learning something about their perspective.

Thanks, Furch, I appreciate the sentiment!


1/29/2015 10:10:17 PMGod WILL not let Himself be revealed by science..but ONLY BY FAITH | Page 2 

turkalurk82
Over 1,000 Posts (1,071)
Godfrey, IL
35, joined Sep. 2014


Quote from furchizedek:
Didn't your profile used to say you were in New Mexico? Or am I thinking of someone else?



Yeah, it was "truth or consequences" NM, I borrowed assumptions from cupocheer, because I liked it, and I it was in my homestate of IL. I actually live closer to St. louis, but I don't want to be on any local search results or news feed.