No, those don't exist either. Ideas are not real, but they can represent real things, in greater or lesser precision.
People have always had long held beliefs in a different God, different Gods. And different philosophies and moral stories on how to live your life. But psychologically the current state of affairs in society over the subject is more broken than any political debate. We all share the same morals at heart, and sometimes that is the most important thing to listen to. You have to dig deeper than the surface of your fellow man to find what you are looking for.
What does he believe?
and why can't you accept that he does not know either. This is applicable to both sides of the fence... religions have their Gods, science has its God particle.
The best definition for God is something you don't "understand".
No, they are very different ideas. In science, there is just that which is not yet known. In religion those things can never be known. Religion closes the mind to rational explanations, science is open to them.
That's a big thread. Can you direct me to the post with the definition?
I want you to clearly understand what you just said... which is you would prefer to have an answer that isn't true than to say "I don't know" and wait for a true answer. That means you value the psychological satiation of having an answer more than truth (i.e. you value how you feel more than truth). This fully supports my statement that belief puts "truth" in the back seat.
S
science man
Guest
You don't give convincing answers to the issues I've brought up. You say things that don't make sense such as, "Evolution is under no doubt." what the heck does that even mean? You say it's shocking that my name is science man because I don't seem to know much about cosmology, yet you don't try to correct me or if you are, you're not making any sense what so ever. From what I've seen around here, it seems like you atheists on here think I'm ignorant,(especially on my understanding of the theory of evolution) yet you don't try to correct me, or at least, not in a way that I can understand. You guys are very unclear when you to argue back to me on the theory of evolution or you are clear but what you say doesn't argue what I've said. btw phlogistican you don't understand what I was saying when I was talking about converting so let me ask it this way. Do/did your follow a religion? If so, did you talk to them about why you didn't want to follow their religion? If not, why or if so, how did it go?
the problem is that you are not talking about real things but things as they appear to the senses (or how we interpret things appearing to the senses).
IOW you appear completely unable to fathom that not only can the senses (and the interpretation of the senses) be subject to illusion but also that we have other means of determining whether something is real or not aside from the senses (as evidenced by most people accepting certain persons as their parents despite not having done the dna testing or personally witnessed their conception)
bollocks
In science (or at least your version of it) you claim to know that all and everything is a consequence of physical phenomena ... which is quite clearly a claim that "science" can never know (since empiricism is always girded by metonymic barriers at the marco and micro level ... or to put it another way, why at a certain level the investigation of the universe or a cup of flour falls on its ass ).
Needless to say, this is not rational.
:shrug:
Last edited:
Maybe a religious nut-case is closed minded... but in science there is this certain level of uncertainty that lies behind all they can prove yet. There is no point in arguing over something you can't prove. And much less you should trust perfectly literally in any book. You read one religious book I say I like them all. And many forms of good literature as well.
Religion is Just good words spread by many through the corse of time. Many people have asserted themselves God at times, so far immortality only rests in their "GOOD" words. Some are not meant for this time.
we have other means of determining whether something is real or not aside from the senses (as evidenced by most people accepting certain persons as their parents despite not having done the dna testing or personally witnessed their conception)
What means are those? Revelation?
Irrational nonsense.
S
science man
Guest
um is this in response to what I said?
You did exactly what I asked you not to.
Do you not understand how dishonest this makes you appear?
Now, your personal viewpoint, please.
Well, they don't in a circle. If your entire Universe is analogous to a circle, then no, corners do not exist.
What was your point, exactly?
No it isn't. Theists have faulty logic. It's been demonstrated time over. It's a fair comment. Simply, they go beyond faith, without proof. That's not logical. It's also been proven that generally belief decreases as IQ increases. Proven. Got that? It's also been shown that generally atheists have a better knowledge of religious texts than theists. Got that?
Is there a 'famous' quote? One you couldn't even be bothered to Google?
You also need to recognise that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." (Carl Sagan(I can be bothered to use and credit quotes to back up my posts, see?)). Theists claim there is a God. Not merely that they have faith in there being a God, but that there actually is. The latter requires proof. We ask for it. It is always flawed logic, fallacious argument, incomplete, or relies on faith, which demeans the premise. All atheists do, is remain unconvinced. Occasionally we might get a little annoyed with the same tired old debunked arguments being rehashed and brought back up again.
Now, if you want to defend the theist mindset, how about you try to construct a logical argument for God, and support it with some evidence.
You are really comparing things that are not real??
He has Asperger's. Apparently that makes many things so much easier ...
Not at all.
Just like most people don't carry out dna checks on persons claiming to be their parents, most people also don't make the claim on the basis of revelation.
That accepting the field of the senses as the complete field of investigation is like accepting a circle as the complete picture on whatever shape patterns exists