Which is a reply to which part of my post?
How about:
Let's assume for the purposes of argument that "A" is true. Where does that take us? What would be the consequences?
Theists: Are you here to defend theism, or to convert people?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
Let's assume for the purposes of argument that "A" is true. Where does that take us? What would be the consequences?
I agree. He could put in some more effort, and/or find opponents who are more on par with him.
Knowledge91,
Do you believe in God because of this, or inspite of this?
There is no distinction between theist and scientific learners.
That may be one way of looking at it, but it serves no purpose in any kind of discussion or debate.
Then you need to put things into perspective.
What is faith?
Why have faith?
What and who is God?
What is his relationship to us?
Why is it important that WE have faith?
Try to answer those questions.
jan.
Do you believe in God because of this, or inspite of this?
There is no distinction between theist and scientific learners.
That may be one way of looking at it, but it serves no purpose in any kind of discussion or debate.
This is because faith is very important to YAWH, a test in a way. A man can go crazy trying to explain what im thinking about right now
Then you need to put things into perspective.
What is faith?
Why have faith?
What and who is God?
What is his relationship to us?
Why is it important that WE have faith?
Try to answer those questions.
jan.
Really?
I mean really?
I see no reason to presume that theists and non-theists are epistemic peers.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=108355
Point?
It was question (the clue was in the squiggly thing at the end of the sentence - it's called a question mark).
You made a claim: please support it.
Oh dear.
Let's try again:
Jan said:
All you've done with the comment "both can learn" is point out a similarity, not support your contention that there's no distinction between the two.
And an attempt at diversion.
The claim was yours.
It's up to you to support it.
Can you? Or are you willing to admit that, once again, you're making unsupportable claims?
It is easier to destroy than create. Any two year old can knock down the block house with a stick, but few two year old can build the block house. It is easier to pretend intelligence and understanding with cynicism than to demonstrate intelligence and understanding with logical arguments and data. Cynicism is just a mature version of the two year old who uses words like their sticks to knock down the blocks. It is easier to play to the emotional biases of the herd, than to stand outside the herd and make them think.
Since this is a science forum, the easiest path to take, with respect to theology, is to emotionally appeal to the biases of the atheist masses, using the stick of cynicism that will lacks logical and data support. I prefer to take the harder path since it is better excercise for the brain. But if you take this path, you run the risk of many sticks constantly knocking over the blocks. But who can blame a two year old. You just build again and again until they learn to do this.
Relative to theism, if you observe small children at play, most will have an active imagination, which often is expressed with an imaginary friend. They might talk to their teddy bear. This behavior occur naturally, since they are too young to have been culturally programmed to do this. This phenomena also occurs in a widespread way. It is natural human.
Older children are shamed away the imaginary friend and the world of mythology (santa claus) via social taboos. This is learned behavior since it requires external peer pressure. From the beginning, the genetic basis for inner spirituality is a natural part of the child. Culture induces its repression about the time of school. There is a logical reason for this. It is connected to projection onto surrogate factors.
As an analogy, a baby animal losers its mother. The natural connection is broken. If a human takes that baby animal in, and nurtures it, the original instinctive connection that was broken can become projected onto the human and they can become the surrogate mother. Culture does the same thing when it breaks that instinctive connection to the inner self. Culture get to become the object of projection, thereby allowing it the influence of the imaginary friend. If all the imaginary friend projection come to a focus, via cultural protocol, this allows the herd to synchonize. The original connection is unique, the projection creates the herd.
Both science and religion, are on the same page, in that they both repress the imaginary friend of the child. Science will call this child behavior, while religion might say the devil. This allows each to assume the role of the surrogate. The battle in philosophy, between science and religion is really a battle between surrogate mothers, each of which are not the natural mother and don''t really have all the answers for the unique individual. But both have some of the answers.
Some of the more modern religion spin-offs attempt to reform a connection to a personal god. This can actually form a better approximation to the original natural connection of the child's internal dialogue. The use of mythological factor (talking bear) is also closer to the the connection of the natural child. Atheism is less natural since it maintains the projection that the inner voice is outside and not inside. It limits uniqueness to the ego but will not allow an internal connection. This makes that approach more unconscious and subject to compulsions. One can see it in these forums, based on the low road approach where religion can not be discussed in an adult way.
Jung called the factors of the inner voice of the child, the archetypes of the collective unconscious. These are personality firmware which are empty at birth and collect data. The little child has a better interface with these factors as they begin that data collection, and can often access them on demand as they play.
The repression of this connection, cause these to project into the external environment onto collective herd surrogates, such as philosophy. But most of these middlemen projection are anything but natural.
Since this is a science forum, the easiest path to take, with respect to theology, is to emotionally appeal to the biases of the atheist masses, using the stick of cynicism that will lacks logical and data support. I prefer to take the harder path since it is better excercise for the brain. But if you take this path, you run the risk of many sticks constantly knocking over the blocks. But who can blame a two year old. You just build again and again until they learn to do this.
Relative to theism, if you observe small children at play, most will have an active imagination, which often is expressed with an imaginary friend. They might talk to their teddy bear. This behavior occur naturally, since they are too young to have been culturally programmed to do this. This phenomena also occurs in a widespread way. It is natural human.
Older children are shamed away the imaginary friend and the world of mythology (santa claus) via social taboos. This is learned behavior since it requires external peer pressure. From the beginning, the genetic basis for inner spirituality is a natural part of the child. Culture induces its repression about the time of school. There is a logical reason for this. It is connected to projection onto surrogate factors.
As an analogy, a baby animal losers its mother. The natural connection is broken. If a human takes that baby animal in, and nurtures it, the original instinctive connection that was broken can become projected onto the human and they can become the surrogate mother. Culture does the same thing when it breaks that instinctive connection to the inner self. Culture get to become the object of projection, thereby allowing it the influence of the imaginary friend. If all the imaginary friend projection come to a focus, via cultural protocol, this allows the herd to synchonize. The original connection is unique, the projection creates the herd.
Both science and religion, are on the same page, in that they both repress the imaginary friend of the child. Science will call this child behavior, while religion might say the devil. This allows each to assume the role of the surrogate. The battle in philosophy, between science and religion is really a battle between surrogate mothers, each of which are not the natural mother and don''t really have all the answers for the unique individual. But both have some of the answers.
Some of the more modern religion spin-offs attempt to reform a connection to a personal god. This can actually form a better approximation to the original natural connection of the child's internal dialogue. The use of mythological factor (talking bear) is also closer to the the connection of the natural child. Atheism is less natural since it maintains the projection that the inner voice is outside and not inside. It limits uniqueness to the ego but will not allow an internal connection. This makes that approach more unconscious and subject to compulsions. One can see it in these forums, based on the low road approach where religion can not be discussed in an adult way.
Jung called the factors of the inner voice of the child, the archetypes of the collective unconscious. These are personality firmware which are empty at birth and collect data. The little child has a better interface with these factors as they begin that data collection, and can often access them on demand as they play.
The repression of this connection, cause these to project into the external environment onto collective herd surrogates, such as philosophy. But most of these middlemen projection are anything but natural.
Last edited:
Yeah. Blah blah. And wrong. But never mind.
That too is incorrect.
Nope.
Supposition.
And none of this addresses the OP.
You need a time out.
Is Dywy trolling here as well, guess it is to be expected.
It is kind of silly to ask someone their point, after they have written many paragraphs on their topic. What are they supposed to sum it up in 2-3 words?
Try instead Dywy to learn English Comprehension. I easily understood Jan.
When Jan said there is no difference between Theist and Scientific learner I knew it was in reference to herself and others. Believers can be scientists, but what was left out is not all scientists are believers.
I hope this clears it up for you Dywy, and I hope I am not interfering with your troll. Comprehension is as important as what is written. Good Luck!
It is kind of silly to ask someone their point, after they have written many paragraphs on their topic. What are they supposed to sum it up in 2-3 words?
Try instead Dywy to learn English Comprehension. I easily understood Jan.
When Jan said there is no difference between Theist and Scientific learner I knew it was in reference to herself and others. Believers can be scientists, but what was left out is not all scientists are believers.
I hope this clears it up for you Dywy, and I hope I am not interfering with your troll. Comprehension is as important as what is written. Good Luck!
You need to stop posting word salad.
Oh dear. Decided to carry your little vendetta into other sub-forums? Stalking?
It would be, if they actually had.
Ah, so you're claiming Jan can't state what he/ she means? I can believe that.
It is NOT what jan claimed (for a start there was no personal reference) and neither is that "version" correct.
But a nice try anyway...
Nonsense. Try destroying a nuclear power plant! Or the Universe!
Not so chubby, lovey-dovey hubby. Jan is a he.