Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
I guess you have caught the drift then
While the error in your statements have been clearly pointed out I will, for the sake of discussion, now relent, bow down to you and say "I can't"
So can you? What's your next excuse? Do you, once more, seemingly contend that god is a mental concept only?
That is all evidence based.
"How do you think she goes about gaining knowledge? Messages from the stars is not the correct answer. And the thing is it works. It becomes accepted because it works not because it's "fundamentally believed""
There is no pre-set belief, there is merely evidence gathering.. A child learns that when it cries it gets fed.. time after time. When it cries it has it's bum changed time after time and so on. As it gets older it adapts new methods with which to communicate based upon learning what those around it do. My daughter has now learnt to shake and nod her head, eventually she will say yes and no and so on. These are all learnt based upon her observations - not messages from the stars.
The same is also true even of pets, (dogs mainly).
It's why it's quite amusing when parents refer to their children as "spoilt little brats" etc. Ultimately the parent is at fault. You see some kid screaming in a shop and the mother buys it a chocolate bar. What do you think will happen on the next shopping trip?
In thousands of years nobody has seemingly managed to show otherwise which does not help your case whatsoever.
Is that merely to everyone else or would it also include yourself because you have no actual way to distinguish that the thing that resides solely in your mind isn't simply a product of it?
Well, would you look at that.. me too! So as we now know I am at the same level of qualification as you, (qualification as you listed it to be), you can show me.. right?
That is within the senses. Both can see a dead body, both can ultimately find hair strands etc etc, one just has more knowledge of how to conduct the process. Once again:
"Something outside of your senses is testable how?"
Not at all. My lack of belief stems from absolute lack of evidence of any form of the existence of a deity - be it via sense experience or theists much loved non-sense experience.
Now now, I just asked you what it would take for you to believe [know] that leprechauns exist. That you haven't answered sufficiently is not my fault.
Mental concepts aren't "the truth, the light and the way", (odd terminology). I explained to you that mental concepts are not ulimate truth, that they differ from person to person and there is no ultimately right or wrong answer. People can however 'see' their own brand of that mental concept and that such concepts exist can be shown.
That's because "a justice" does not exist - it's not an existing object. Your argument is fallacious here. The mental concept
So you're trying to get me to show you an object that does not exist, I'm trying to get you to show me an object that supposedly does. If I was less tolerant I'd beat you senseless for such flagrant rudeness.
You say there's a god (x) which is comprised of omnipotence (a), omnipresence (b), and omniscience (c), exists in a spiritual realm (d)... the list goes on, unfortunately I'll run out of letters to use come z.
You are simply talking about some mental concept that exists solely in your mind. Glad we agree.
I don't drift. God is my rudder, my engine and my boat.
that's nice sweetie
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
So ? You still steer the boat right ? Not God..
Snakelord
If you want to see you such things are indicated, back track a few posts with Myles
(or during your training in psychology did you tear out all the pages in your text books that you didn's agree with)
am I on the same level of qualification as einstein?
“
the problem is that you think that the senses (which are even more clumsy tools of discerning evidence) is the truth the light and the way
ok so justice doesn't exist
does that mean you will stop whining about religion or other moral issues now?
gee, you also can't indicate a H or an O to a high school drop out so I guess water as H2O is also some subjective nonsense ....
the problem is that your pet theories about world view also enable one to reduce human civilization by about 90% - and interestingly enough, it is the upper 90%
:shrug:
if you cannot indicate a justice, then I guess there is no use to listening to your rants about the injustices of religion.
If you want to see you such things are indicated, back track a few posts with Myles
says one yabbering voice in a wild circle of contending opinions on psychology
and there is no evidence at all that all knowledge is learnt?
(or during your training in psychology did you tear out all the pages in your text books that you didn's agree with)
gee - not only are you such an expert that you can silence contending schools of psychology with a mere paragraph, but now you can evaluate thousands of years of religious commentary (quite a feat for a person who had never encountered the term "text critical issues" until about 2 weeks ago)
there is no way except to follow prescriptive descriptions, much like any other field of knowledge that sports a claim, like physics, chemistry, biology, archeology, philosophy, astronomy, etc etc
einstein also knew about physics to a degree - so do I
am I on the same level of qualification as einstein?
:bravo:
I put it in bold for you
“
the fact that you call it non-sense experience clearly indicates your bias
you tell me - I can't think of anything that falls within the folds of empiricism that fits such a description
I know
the problem is that you think that the senses (which are even more clumsy tools of discerning evidence) is the truth the light and the way
so in otherwords when you draw up all the various understandings of justice in the world you see absolutely no common qualities or characteristics?
ok so justice doesn't exist
does that mean you will stop whining about religion or other moral issues now?
I'm trying to show you that if you want to bring everything down to the platform of gross sense perception you have a world view less than pigs and dogs
is that your check mate?
gee, you also can't indicate a H or an O to a high school drop out so I guess water as H2O is also some subjective nonsense ....
the problem is that your pet theories about world view also enable one to reduce human civilization by about 90% - and interestingly enough, it is the upper 90%
:shrug:
You are so dim. God is my autopilot. He steers me heavenwards as long as I fuel the boat with faith
Myles I would be very interested in such a reference. Please provide.
LG,
Quote :" is that your check mate ? Do you really want SN to send you money or are you referring to "checkmate" as in chess.
If you want money ask for a " cheque " and you might get lucky. But don't forget that a financial transaction is only a concept.
Is money your God ?
Quote :" is that your check mate ? Do you really want SN to send you money or are you referring to "checkmate" as in chess.
If you want money ask for a " cheque " and you might get lucky. But don't forget that a financial transaction is only a concept.
Is money your God ?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
So what do you do ? Just sit there looking stupid ?
Last edited:
You're being childish. While I know why you're doing it, I resent it. kindly desist. I'm not going to waste more of my time explaining the same very simple thing to you for the tenth time.
However, I do believe the subject at hand is you showing me this god. Must you continually evade?
Apologies, I don't see where this has come from.
Damn, did I miss that specific NewsWeek? Can I download it anywhere?
I wouldn't say that exactly.... I was simply using that which you listed:
[Snake] "Now you can list me the required qualifications for me to be able to know that this something exists."
[lg] "the general consensus amongst scriptures and saintly persons seems to indicate getting free from the influences of lust/wrath/envy/etc"
Nevermind though.. So, what's next?
If an experience is gained from something other than the senses, not the senses, then what is inaccurate about non-sense? Bias.. no.
I didn't ask me, I asked you.
As opposed to the non-senses. You'll have to explain that non-sense to me if you want me to accept non-sense as the way to establish truths.
No, no.. I'm more than happy to get into this non-sense perception you speak of. Go for it oh wise one, fill me in on your non-sense.
Wouldn't know, it was your statement.
Hi LG.
So you wantto see "a" justice. When I was about ten years old, I was taught that some nouns are abstract. You cannot have "a" justice, you must settle for justice.
You can prove me wrong by showing me "a whitness ". Go to it !
Today's tip: Look up REIFICATION
So you wantto see "a" justice. When I was about ten years old, I was taught that some nouns are abstract. You cannot have "a" justice, you must settle for justice.
You can prove me wrong by showing me "a whitness ". Go to it !
Today's tip: Look up REIFICATION
In case you haven't gathered it yet, Myles is just pretending to be stupid and being very good at it.
there's a difference between saying things like "justice is blind" and discussing, say, platonic idealism
Snakelord
“
much like if you can't count to ten you can't do algebra
my statement was that it isn't rational
your statement was that it isn't truthful
big difference
“
if you can't determine the real foundation of abstractions, you can't determine the real foundation of god
much like if you can't count to ten you can't do algebra
from your statement .....
the main reason why psychology is defined as a soft science is that there is no means to objectively analyze humans outside of cultural issues and develop a proper "control group" that would enable comparison (and thus statements like the one you offered on the authority of psychology are simply nothing more than statements offered)
you could narrow down your search by googling for phrases that you already agree with
then there could also be a case for a gradation amongst persons free from the influence of avarice/envy/etc
well we have been discussing how having a bit of knowledge (like say forensic science) can enable one person to see something that another person cannot (like say a janitor) - even if both of them have perfectly functional eyeballs
call upon the skills of a janitor when you actually require a forensic scientist and get back to us with any findings ....
no it wasn't
my statement was that it isn't rational
your statement was that it isn't truthful
big difference
Doesn't leave you in the best of positions then given the fact that you can't even work out the difference between a concept and an object :bugeye:
I see, and how does one determine these levels? Is there an envyometer or wrathometer that detects specific levels and then determines specific grades? Can you and I compare somehow to see who is more qualified in this regard?
Well no, you have. I've been pointing out the error in your statement. However, as is typical of you, it doesn't address what was said.. You must concur that if you gain experience or evidence using methods that do not utilise any senses then it can be accurately described as a non-sense method, or no-sense method if you prefer.
Where is anything here not utilising the senses? Well? If the janitor starts looking for forensic evidence, then he is using his senses - regardless to whether he knows what he's looking for. Now explain to me this mystical non-sense of yours.
Uhh.. no, I merely repeated what you said.