Theists: Are you here to defend theism, or to convert people?

[Dywyddyr]

If you think this makes my ''there is no distinction between theists and science learners'' wrong, be my guest.

I see, so agreeing with the statement that there's a distinction (in at least one case) means there's no distinction at all.
What, exactly, do you use as a substitute for brains? Because whatever you have in your head isn't working.

Not only a liar but stupid.

 

[kx000]

Dwy..







If you think this makes my ''there is no distinction between theists and science learners'' wrong, be my guest.

jan.

The scientific method goes against faith I believe.

 

[Believe]

Theists: Why are posting here, engaging in discussion?

Are you here to defend theism, or to convert people?
Are you here to help people?
To come to your own certainty?
A combination of the above?
Other?


Please only theists answer the poll.

Ahhh, this is sciforums not religion.com so even though I'm spiritual am here to read about/talk about science and other topics. Really kind of strange how much religion talk goes on here. I think they should ban taking about it from both sides but that's just my take.

 

[kwhilborn]

Careful Jan,

This Troll doesn't like being called Dwy, and will go whining to a moderator like a baby.

Try using a shorter form of his name like Dywy. That is acceptable I am told.

I already got a warning from a moderator this week for spelling his name wrong.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I already got a warning from a moderator this week for spelling his name wrong.

And you're likely to get another for stalking.
How often do you wander into this sub-forum?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I see, so agreeing with the statement that there's a distinction (in at least one case) means there's no distinction at all.
What, exactly, do you use as a substitute for brains? Because whatever you have in your head isn't working.

Not only a liar but stupid.

I agree from the point of view of knowledge91 which was made clearer.
As I saw it he meant that for a scientist to 'accept' God from a proffesional point of view, there must be scientific evidence, as per the scientific method.

But as there ARE proffesional scientists who accept the existence of God regardless of the scientific method, there isn't a distinction in ''learning'' about God.



jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I agree from the point of view of knowledge91 which was made clearer.
As I saw it he meant that for a scientist to 'accept' God from a proffesional point of view, there must be scientific evidence, as per the scientific method.
But as there ARE proffesional scientists who accept the existence of God regardless of the scientific method, there isn't a distinction in ''learning'' about God.

Irrelevant. And avoiding the actual point.
You claimed

There is no distinction between theist and scientific learners.

You have admitted that, in at least one case, there is a distinction.

 

[universaldistress]

One distinction would seem to be that theist learners learn about god, and scientific learners learn about science (including subjects other than god, in fact nearly all not about god). . .

Duh . . . Jan

 

[NMSquirrel]

.
Plus, of course, the slight problem that whatever you find in the bible you can nearly always find something to contradict it: in the bible.

Prove it.
-----

I see no reason to presume that theists and non-theists are epistemic peers.

they can be.both parties must define their terminology, there are ALOT of terms that both parties think of differently..

----------

.It is easier to play to the emotional biases of the herd,
the easiest path to take, with respect to theology, is to emotionally appeal to the biases of the atheist masses

I have always thought the church as an Emotional education center, most of the people i have met in church tend to be emotionally driven and make their choices on their emotional state of being, that doesn't mean they are all not able to keep up in a science discussion, they just tend to be more emotionally focused.
and since there is such an emotional focus then that means if you want to know anything about emotional consequences, a church would be a good place to find out (irregardless of religion/God)


just as Science is for our physical state of being, so is religion for our Emotional state of being.

just so that you can have a rant at me?

but you make it so easy to rant at you..

------

Really kind of strange how much religion talk goes on here. I think they should ban taking about it from both sides but that's just my take.

but then there would be no where to go to hone our arguments..

-------

Careful Jan,

This Troll doesn't like being called Dwy, and will go whining to a moderator like a baby.

Try using a shorter form of his name like Dywy. That is acceptable I am told.

I already got a warning from a moderator this week for spelling his name wrong.

i usually catch myself trying to spell it Dwy..Really? A warning for spelling?

 

[wynn]

they can be.both parties must define their terminology, there are ALOT of terms that both parties think of differently..

Please go to the thread on whether theists and atheists are epistemic peers.

 

[wynn]

I'm expressing my point of view.

This is not how you expressed it, though.

You said:

There is no distinction between theist and scientific learners.

You did not say something like:

I think that there is no distinction between theist and scientific learners.
or
In my view, there is no distinction between theist and scientific learners.


At a discussion forum like this, it is understood that we cannot take for granted that everything a person says, is merely their opinion or view.

Taking for granted that everything a person says is merely their opinion or view, is an ontological and epistemological position which is under scrutiny as well.

Our language is rich enough to allow for a wide range of expressions.

So if we think that something is merely our opinion, we can say so by starting with "In my opinion ..."

And if we think that what we are about to say is more than just our opinion, that it is in fact, the objective truth, we have the language means to do so too, by speaking in the objective form, like I just did.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Prove it.

Pick something. Give me a couple of bible quotes.

i usually catch myself trying to spell it Dwy..Really? A warning for spelling?

He's being somewhat coy. The warning was for deliberate mis-spelling of my user name. Something that has been flagged as an infractionable offence.

 

[chimpkin]

Mi-ke-gal

The wooden cross is also called the tree of salvation . Something like that . I think it is a 12 century thing ? Could have something to do with the pagans conversion . Tree worshiping cultures being converted by swapping out the tree with the cross .

True that...and I understand the Norse sacrificed people to Wotan by hanging them from trees...
but it strikes me as something evocative of disconnection from the earth...a sacrifice on a living tree converted to a sacrifice on a dead piece of wood.

We all give our life back to the earth in the end; we really just borrow it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

This is not how you expressed it, though.

You said:

There is no distinction between theist and scientific learners.

You did not say something like:

I think that there is no distinction between theist and scientific learners.
or
In my view, there is no distinction between theist and scientific learners.

I still don't think there is a distinction between the learning abilities for the simple reason that there are scientists who are theists. If you think otherwise, then state your point.

At a discussion forum like this, it is understood that we cannot take for granted that everything a person says, is merely their opinion or view.

Notice that you said ''discussion forum'' meaning a place where discussion takes place. I don't expect you to take for granted everything I say. But I do expect discussions to take place at a discussion forum.

Our language is rich enough to allow for a wide range of expressions.

So if we think that something is merely our opinion, we can say so by starting with "In my opinion ..."

Have there been any scientific tests performed which give conclusive results
about the learning capabilities of theist versus scientists?

Maybe the language used by Knowledge91 was not entirely explicit, and needed clarification. Something that we can do as humans without the need
for a lesson in philosophy.

And if we think that what we are about to say is more than just our opinion, that it is in fact, the objective truth, we have the language means to do so too, by speaking in the objective form, like I just did.

We aren't in a formal debate Signal, we're human beings in discussion on various topics of religion and religious based stuff.

geesh!


jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Notice that you said ''discussion forum'' meaning a place where discussion takes place. I don't expect you to take for granted everything I say.

Yeah, but neither, I suspect, do you expect us to take everything you say as personal opinion.

Plus, of course, there's the added fact that your responses to me asking for support indicated, initially at least, that it wasn't simply an opinion.

I still don't think there is a distinction between the learning abilities for the simple reason that there are scientists who are theists.

Oh, so now you claim that you actually meant their learning abilities? Not what you stated:

There is no distinction between theist and scientific learners.

Maybe your ability to learn English and how to express yourself in it was somewhat below par.

 

[wynn]

If all people embraced my particular faith there would be no more wars in this world.

Then there would be only people who believe they have enemies, but they couldn't point them out and couldn't actually fight with them! Everyone would be paranoid.

 

[wynn]

Personally, I believe that the first lesson that should be pounded into theist's heads is "judge not lest ye be judged."

Ha! And then we wake up to reality ...

 

[wynn]

Actually is does make sense from a religious point of view, namely Adstar's religion.

You're ignoring his perspective.

I suppose killing Jew makes sense from the perspective of Nazis, and enslaving blacks makes sense from the perspective of white supremacists.

We really should not ignore their perspectives! :bugeye:

 

[wynn]

I still don't think there is a distinction between the learning abilities for the simple reason that there are scientists who are theists. If you think otherwise, then state your point.

I started a thread for this purpose, please go there.

I don't expect you to take for granted everything I say.

From how you sourly react when I don't accept your points, I conclude that you do expect me to take for granted everything you say.

Have there been any scientific tests performed which give conclusive results
about the learning capabilities of theist versus scientists?

Have you considered that your claim that "There is no distinction between theist and scientific learners" is an ideological one?

If we posit that theists and atheists are epistemic peers, then it is easy to posit that the reason atheists don't believe in God is because they do not want to, not because they couldn't. Surely such a view suits many theists, as it allows them to judge the atheists.

Other than that, you made the claim "There is no distinction between theist and scientific learners", so you have to support it.

Maybe the language used by Knowledge91 was not entirely explicit, and needed clarification. Something that we can do as humans without the need
for a lesson in philosophy.

Lol.

We aren't in a formal debate Signal, we're human beings in discussion on various topics of religion and religious based stuff.

geesh!

Then we apparently have different ideas on what the nature of this forum and the discussions on it is.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

From how you sourly react when I don't accept your points, I conclude that you do expect me to take for granted everything you say.

Dominating both sides again are we?
You two don't need me.

Have you considered that your claim that "There is no distinction between theist and scientific learners" is an ideological one?

It's not.
You're not going to dodge my question again are you?

If we posit that theists and atheists are epistemic peers, then it is easy to posit that the reason atheists don't believe in God is because they do not want to, not because they couldn't. Surely such a view suits many theists, as it allows them to judge the atheists.

Erm, we're not discussing theists and atheists.

Other than that, you made the claim "There is no distinction between theist and scientific learners", so you have to support it.

Okay, for I retract that ''claim''.
It is my opinion that "There is no distinction between theist and scientific learners".
Now really, what is the difference.

Lol.

Lol.

Then we apparently have different ideas on what the nature of this forum and the discussions on it is.

It appears that way, doesn't it.

jan.