Cult Evolution
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
They can say, "I don't know" and then look up experimental evidence of electromagnetic radiation passing through mediums, which will provide an explanation.
What is the point of your inquiry?
Try an answer super's question, please.
Informed ones say "It's called Rayleigh scattering dear" and start them on the path of understanding that nature is NOT due to unknowable supernatural bogeymen.
But as (Q) says, answer my question. I know you know an number of answers.
So a poor speller is actually smarter for having escaped indoctrination from parents and school?
And a poor math student who gets F in every paper should be admired for not allowing preformed concepts to affect his thinking?
The less you learn from others, the more you know?
Sam, I would love for you to start another thread dedicated to the definition of non sequitur. It would be fun.
I asked a simple question. It has many simple answers.
I want to know which argument from authority you support.
Don't be a troglodyte sam. Did you read my previous post where I said:
Can you detect a hint of the free-thinking approach in that?
No ones gonna answer my question, are they.
Free thinking? Based on the observations, assumptions, inferences and conclusions of others? Based on your decision that they should communicate in a language and manner devised by others? Based on your decision that this is what is right? What makes you an authority? On anything?
Don't be silly. I advise all newborns be dumped in an insensate environement and fed by tubes to avoid unnecessary interference with their thought processes.
Christ in a red wagon.
Based on being able to actually observe and test objective phenomena. Unless you decide to raise your kids as philosophers and doom them to a limbo-like existence of never actually understanding anything.
If authority needs to rest on some foundation, which foundation will you choose sammy? One with no hope of ever being verifiable and as such based completely on hearsay? Or one that provides the ability, even if it's hard going sometimes, to do a test, get a result, use your own logic and reason to interpret the result, and learn something about the common properties of the universe?
I already know your choice.
And I already know by the nature of almost all of your posts that you've given up defending it as anything but exactly what it is - faith. Belief without even the requirement for proof or evidence.
New thread idea. Here it comes...
Christ in a red wagon.
Based on being able to actually observe and test objective phenomena. Unless you decide to raise your kids as philosophers and doom them to a limbo-like existence of never actually understanding anything.
If authority needs to rest on some foundation, which foundation will you choose sammy? One with no hope of ever being verifiable and as such based completely on hearsay? Or one that provides the ability, even if it's hard going sometimes, to do a test, get a result, use your own logic and reason to interpret the result, and learn something about the common properties of the universe?
I already know your choice.
New thread idea. Here it comes...
I believe you are imposing your beliefs on me.
Perhaps your children have been abused in the same manner, by YOUR ideas of what is right for them?
/grrrr
I'm glad you realised comparing a beak to a cult is based on faith.
I believe you are imposing your beliefs on me.
Perhaps your children have been abused in the same manner, by YOUR ideas of what is right for them?
/grrrr
I'm glad you realised comparing a beak to a cult is based on faith.
Answer my question.
What question?
That depends on the purpose of my question?
e.g. If my question is why do we seek a purpose in life?
What is your answer?
Answer my question.
I did.
It depends on what authority I choose.
e.g. is it right that some companies should make profit if it means that poor farmers will starve and die?
Empirical observation is meaningless, scientific method clueless. Survival of the fittest is amoral and inhumane.
Religion tells me it is wrong, that this earth belongs to everyone, no one has a right to more than they need, if their greed deprives another of their needs. I should love my neighbor, share my bounty, give of my plenty.
Religion "feels" right, science feels cold and lifeless.
So I accept religion over science, in this matter.
Religion tells you this is wrong? So you are clearly saying that in the absence of religion you would be an inhumane, amoral, SOB. I feel sorry for you. That you don't understand your own inherent nature. I guess that proves that we conscientious, helpful, moral and ethical atheists really are better than the rest of you since we do the right thing without being told to.
You are no scientist. You take no joy in the learning and discovery. You're a technician at best.
As do all of those who decide that what god tells them to do is the right thing. And you don't fear that kind of thinking. This is as astounding to me as it always is. The chill and terror of it never gets old.
Hahaha
What a joke.
Your lifestyle is based on exploitation.
And didn't you work with people who design weapons systems?
Without religion, science is blind.