The gig is up.

audible said:
So lets get this right, if we start talking about the whogleflugle bird from somewhere in the cosmos.
How do they ascertain a solid basis in regard to that whogleflugle bird.
No sir your arse about face, no discussion unless its one we imagined, (IE, whogleflugle bird) can be discussed without it first having a solid basis.
Click to expand...
Even if you want to state that the whogleflugle bird has no solid basis you have already brought philosophical tools to the table.
Can you not see this?

It's clear it is you that has no idea. my claims are based on demonstrable facts, whereas yours cannot be demonstrated to be anything more than imaginings, anybody can imagine anything they wish and claim it's true just as you do. But until they offer evidence, we must reject it, else we would be believing anything and everything just because someone imagined it.
Click to expand...
Demonstratable to who exactly?
You can try and demonstrate to me an electron till the cows come home (in fact I wouldn't doubt that you haven't even had an electron demonstrated to yourself) and I can also reply "yr fulla shit asshole"
:shrug:

Exactly my point, you need a solid basis, from which to start.
Click to expand...
My exact point is that you already have beliefs in place to establish what constitutes a "solid basis" (I mean its not like you have ever seen an electron, or more specifically a streak in a foggy medium, is it?).

Nothing inherently wrong with that since most educated persons recognize that belief plays an integral role in the initial stages of epistemology and even pedagogy.
Or your lack of beliefs on what constitutes truth and proof, (like say a heavy bias against empiricism within reductionist disciplines) inhibits your comprehension.
Click to expand...
I never said that empiricism lacks substance.

I simply said it was a crappy tool to monopolize all knowable claims (like identifying who one's biological mother or father is for example)

There is a reason empiricism exists, else every single crazy idea would have to be accepted until proven wrong.
Click to expand...
And there is a reason why empiricism is not uniformly advocated to cover the wide spread of knowable claims even amongst zealous advocates like yourself (I mean its not like you have had a dna test on your parents, is it?)
No typo as I never actually said that ( your reading comprehension must be faulty), what I said was "you can't use philosophy to ascertain truths or proves for religion, it is a non sequitur.
Click to expand...
"

If you ever take the opportunity to haul your sorry ass to a learning institute that teaches philosophy I can guarantee that you will spend at least the first semester reading the works by persons who do ascertain religious truths through the language of philosophy.
:shrug:

No, the reason I can make that statement, is because the people claiming religious experiences have not met their burden of proof, it is not rocket science.
Click to expand...
If its not rocket science.
The same tools that govern rocket science also place the claims of certain persons to be your parents squarely in the category of "deluded"

I can reject it outright until some evidence is presented.
Click to expand...
Ironically you can apply the same limited mode of thinking to reject the claim of certain persons to be your parents.

No!!!!! you have a slanted view as there is no rigorous proof in your world.
I'm surprised you don't believe in every religion and imagined idea, by the way you talk.
Click to expand...
The way you speak I would be surprised if you have a functional relationship with your parents.
:shrug:
 
lightgigantic said:
Actually its more the case that you opted out to elaborate on the sore points of your contribution.

Bet you didn't even know that physics is compounded (pun intended) by philosophical constructs, huh?
Click to expand...

Elaborate on what sore points? I do not recognise any sore points LOL:

I have already dealt with philosophy:
universaldistress said:
Physics is the non-delusionals' framework for reality. Philosophy is just the exploration of ideas, and the presentation of said ideas within debate/theory. For a philosophical idea to be accepted into the proven framework of reality it needs to be proved.

I repeat: If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?
(No one has the balls or brains to take this on? Present your proof, individualistic or otherwise).
Click to expand...

I haven't opted out of the OP's question, you have. It is in fact your sore point dumbass.

Why not try and answer it instead of questioning its validity. LOL.
 
universaldistress said:
Care to elaborate in a sensical fashion?
Click to expand...

yes, thank you for the invitation. :)

if you want to find god, you have to look inside yourself, so if you limit your search to a laboratory, or something outside yourself, you are dooming yourself. not to say that god doesn't operate inside laboratories every day, it's just that, it's not there to be manipulated, just experienced if that's what you want. so is that what you want?
 
lightgigantic said:
If you can't recognize that physics has a philosophy, you are simply deluded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_physics
Click to expand...

Your point is? You just play with terminology to gain ground LOL. Physics is not accepted until it is PROVEN. Until then it can be philosophy. A crossover does not question my stance. Indeed a philosophy WITHIN Physics itself (philosophy is a broad term) would only support my claim that proof is needed to prove fact. And that the rest is just ideas.

You say nothing to affirm YOUR (supposed) fact a belief doesn't need to be proven before it can be held within a sane context by anyone.

The OP is still unanswered:

"If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?"

The simple fact you are a theist proves you are delusional.
 
Lori_7 said:
yes, thank you for the invitation. :)

if you want to find god, you have to look inside yourself, so if you limit your search to a laboratory, or something outside yourself, you are dooming yourself. not to say that god doesn't operate inside laboratories every day, it's just that, it's not there to be manipulated, just experienced if that's what you want. so is that what you want?
Click to expand...

I do not wan't anything. It would be interesting to receive some proof to justify theist belief. So I may better understand my delusional counterparts.

So I look inside myself and find God? Sounds like delusional BS.
 
Answering for the believers, I'd say that it is a comfort to believe. As this pertains only to the person, as a coping strategy, it can't go beyond that, say, to requiring political decisions of governments based on it. Reality bites the gig, too, showing what really is, contradicting belief, in all areas.
 
universaldistress said:
I do not wan't anything. It would be interesting to receive some proof to justify theist belief. So I may better understand my delusional counterparts.

So I look inside myself and find God? Sounds like delusional BS.
Click to expand...

ok then don't find it. but if you would, stop bitching at, and blaming, and labeling, and hating those of us who do. thanks. :)

and what i'm saying is this, if you don't want anything from god, then you shouldn't be surprised that you don't find anything from god. and that's your fault, not mine.
 
Lori_7 said:
ok then don't find it. but if you would, stop bitching at, and blaming, and labeling, and hating those of us who do. thanks. :)

and what i'm saying is this, if you don't want anything from god, then you shouldn't be surprised that you don't find anything from god. and that's your fault, not mine.
Click to expand...

Right. Lets get one thing straight :). I have seen through the eyes of god. I have had moments of cognitive enlightenment and am very close to finding some kind of will to believe, through my theories and thoughts. But I myself can't get over the lack of proof. So cannot take the leap.

My god experience was whilst heavily hallucinating on mexican mushrooms. I would treat any delusion/hallucination I might have as non-proof of gods existence (internal proof). The only proof that could alter the superior stance (which frustrates the hell out of theists cause they can't dent it) of atheists (who are willing to accept the possibility of god) like me is for there to be external proof/action documented within reality. Verified by a respected group of unbiased learned humans.

Until that happens god-believers are consigned to the loony bin.
 
lightgigantic said:
Demonstratable to who exactly?
You can try and demonstrate to me an electron till the cows come home (in fact I wouldn't doubt that you haven't even had an electron demonstrated to yourself) and I can also reply "yr fulla shit asshole"
Click to expand...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4cEL6UoMqg
Now it is possible to see a movie of an electron. The movie shows how an electron rides on a light wave after just having been pulled away from an atom. This is the first time an electron has ever been filmed, and the results are presented in the latest issue of Physical Review Letters.

Previously it has been impossible to photograph electrons since their extremely high velocities have produced blurry pictures. In order to capture these rapid events, extremely short flashes of light are necessary, but such flashes were not previously available. With the use of a newly developed technology for generating short pulses from intense laser light, so-called attosecond pulses, scientists at the Lund University Faculty of Engineering in Sweden have managed to capture the electron motion for the first time.

â??It takes about 150 attoseconds for an electron to circle the nucleus of an atom. An attosecond is 10-18 seconds long, or, expressed in another way: an attosecond is related to a second as a second is related to the age of the universe,â?￾ says Johan Mauritsson, an assistant professor in atomic physics at the Faculty of Engineering, Lund University. He is one of seven researchers behind the study, which was directed by him and Professor Anne Lâ??Huillier.

These scientists also hope to find out more about what happens with the rest of the atom when an inner electron leaves it, for instance how and when the other electrons fill in the gap that is created.

â??What we are doing is pure basic research. If there happen to be future applications, they will have to be seen as a bonus,â?￾ adds Johan Mauritsson.

The length of the film corresponds to a single oscillation of the light, but the speed has then been ratcheted down considerably so that we can watch it. The filmed sequence shows the energy distribution of the electron and is therefore not a film in the usual sense.

Previously scientists have studied the movements of electrons using indirect methods, such as by metering their spectrum. With these methods it has only been possible to measure the result of an electronâ??s movement, whereas now we have the opportunity to monitor the entire event.

It has been possible to create attosecond pulses for a couple of years now, but not until now has anyone managed to use them to film electron movements, since the attosecond pulses themselves are too weak to take clear pictures.

â??By taking several pictures of exactly the same moment in the process, itâ??s possible to create stronger, but still sharp, images. A precondition is for the process to be repeated in an identical manner, which is the case regarding the movement of an electron in a ray of light. We started with a so-called stroboscope. A stroboscope enables us to â??freezeâ?? a periodic movement, like capturing a hummingbird flapping its wings. You then take several pictures when the wings are in the same position, such as at the top, and the picture will turn out clear, despite the rapid motion,â?￾ clarifies Johan Mauritsson.

More information:

http://www.atto.fysik.lth.se/

Tags: Atom Electron Science NASA 2012
Click to expand...
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/3007/Video__Electron_filmed_for_first_time_ever/

I am going to say your full of shit arsehole. Here endeth the lesson.

I haven't replied to the rest of your post as I feel, I'd be flogging a dead horse.
As your wrong about one thing it's definite your wrong about the rest, it seeds doubt in everything else you say, plus you keep coming back with the same inane drivel, it's boring.
If you willing to look you will find the evidence.
 
universaldistress said:
Right. Lets get one thing straight :). I have seen through the eyes of god. I have had moments of cognitive enlightenment and am very close to finding some kind of will to believe, through my theories and thoughts. But I myself can't get over the lack of proof. So cannot take the leap.

My god experience was whilst heavily hallucinating on mexican mushrooms. I would treat any delusion/hallucination I might have as non-proof of gods existence (internal proof). The only proof that could alter the superior stance (which frustrates the hell out of theists cause they can't dent it) of atheists (who are willing to accept the possibility of god) like me is for there to be external proof/action documented within reality. Verified by a respected group of unbiased learned humans.

Until that happens god-believers are consigned to the loony bin.
Click to expand...

why do you think that's such a leap? my thoughts are that it probably has nothing to do with your lack of proof or with science, and it probably has more to do with what it would mean for you personally. THAT is quite a leap. i can testify to that.
 
Lori_7 said:
"i see it as i wish" = "i believe"

don't let your beliefs inhibit you. ;)
Click to expand...

I have no unproven beliefs so they can't inhibit me per se. A wish is a desire. A belief needs to be proven.

I strive for the truth. Maybe one day WE ALL will find it.
 
Ultimately one has to judge one's own life. If you find peace in belief so be it. Just do not expect an easy ride here.
 
universaldistress said:
Ultimately one has to judge one's own life. If you find peace in belief so be it. Just do not expect an easy ride here.
Click to expand...

the biggest challenge is to find peace within yourself. you won't find that in a lab.

just sayin'...
 
universaldistress said:
I have no unproven beliefs so they can't inhibit me per se. A wish is a desire. A belief needs to be proven.
Click to expand...
belief need not be proven, knowledge does.
belief does need evidence, evidence is not proof..
and as far as no unproven beliefs..what if the authority who taught you such beliefs comes into question? (how/why do you believe what you believe?)
I strive for the truth. Maybe one day WE ALL will find it.
Click to expand...
..lol..i read that as 'I survive for the truth'..
truth is what we accept as truth.
it is a very subjective thing.
 
universaldistress said:
Nobody is explaining why they believe without proof.
Click to expand...

I can't address belief in 'God', since I don't believe in gods.

But pretty much everything that I do believe has never actually been demonstrated by logical or mathematical proof. That includes my belief in the principles of logic themselves.

And nobody is attacking the point of the OP's premise.
Click to expand...

Which was what? That you believe that religious people suck? That's not very interesting.

What would have been more interesting is if you had produced a convincing or even a creative reason why you think whatever it is that you think. But so far, your comments about proof, belief and delusion seem to be overly aggressive and philosophically naive.
 
NMSquirrel said:
truth is what we accept as truth.
it is a very subjective thing.
Click to expand...

mmmm, i dont know about that. The truth is the truth and either you know something or you dont (truth).

Though i agree we all delude ourselve to some degree and its perfectly fine. If i look in the mirror and want to believe i look like Johnny Depp or Marlon Barndo when he was in his prime, well it is not true. That example was an exaggeration to make a point.;)

Now if i go around telling people "Hey, I am Marlon Brando and you have to believe it" well that can\would be a problem?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top