That may be the most controversial topic title I've ever typed...
Just thought I'd share an article published in New Scientist about warning signs that a supposedly 'pop science' book or article is pushing a religious agenda. Link.
Much of it rings true in my experience...
QUOTE (Kaeroll+Feb 28 2009, 02:58 PM)
That may be the most controversial topic title I've ever typed...
Just thought I'd share an article published in New Scientist about warning signs that a supposedly 'pop science' book or article is pushing a religious agenda. Link.
Much of it rings true in my experience...
Great article. It holds very true to my experiences with creationists. It really is scary to think how easily people can sacrifice their rationality for a little comfort and how malicious they can be towards others who actually have intellectual integrity.
Just thought I'd share an article published in New Scientist about warning signs that a supposedly 'pop science' book or article is pushing a religious agenda. Link.
Much of it rings true in my experience...
Great article. It holds very true to my experiences with creationists. It really is scary to think how easily people can sacrifice their rationality for a little comfort and how malicious they can be towards others who actually have intellectual integrity.
Is it just me, or is New Scientist getting more politically and culturally aggressive over the last few years?
QUOTE (Kaeroll+Feb 28 2009, 02:58 PM)
That may be the most controversial topic title I've ever typed...
Just thought I'd share an article published in New Scientist about warning signs that a supposedly 'pop science' book or article is pushing a religious agenda. Link.
Much of it rings true in my experience...
I have to say that, I gauge hidden religious agenda (of all sides) by how much they dwell on religion or use science against others. A truly objective scientist will only dwell on the science all are missing even when they know it will also make them an outcast.
Just thought I'd share an article published in New Scientist about warning signs that a supposedly 'pop science' book or article is pushing a religious agenda. Link.
Much of it rings true in my experience...
I have to say that, I gauge hidden religious agenda (of all sides) by how much they dwell on religion or use science against others. A truly objective scientist will only dwell on the science all are missing even when they know it will also make them an outcast.
That's two very unclear posts. Gary fails to make specific recommendations despite the use of pontification. Cusa's post suffers from unclear antecedent that renders his post useless for further comment.
QUOTE (Kaeroll+)
Just thought I'd share an article published in New Scientist about warning signs that a supposedly 'pop science' book or article is pushing a religious agenda.
Kaeroll: I just finished reading the article that you linked to and, according to the Biblical definition of "religion", I failed to notice "a religious agenda" of any kind.
"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."(James 1:27)
Of course, I fully understand what YOU(and the author of the article) meant by "a religious agenda". At the same time, I fully expect you to recognize and acknowledge the difference between YOUR meaning and the Biblical one. Things are NOT always as they seem. There's really nothing "controversial" about what you posted. "Religious" people, at least many who call themselves "Christians", are involved in a whole host of things that they ought not be involved in, whilst simultaneously ignoring the direct commandments of their supposed "Lord" as pertaining to what they ought to be involved in. There's a word for people like that. I trust that you already know what that word is. Welcome back.
Kaeroll: I just finished reading the article that you linked to and, according to the Biblical definition of "religion", I failed to notice "a religious agenda" of any kind.
"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."(James 1:27)
Of course, I fully understand what YOU(and the author of the article) meant by "a religious agenda". At the same time, I fully expect you to recognize and acknowledge the difference between YOUR meaning and the Biblical one. Things are NOT always as they seem. There's really nothing "controversial" about what you posted. "Religious" people, at least many who call themselves "Christians", are involved in a whole host of things that they ought not be involved in, whilst simultaneously ignoring the direct commandments of their supposed "Lord" as pertaining to what they ought to be involved in. There's a word for people like that. I trust that you already know what that word is. Welcome back.
QUOTE (Duzma+)
It really is scary to think how easily people can sacrifice their rationality for a little comfort and how malicious they can be towards others who actually have intellectual integrity.
Duzma: Actually, what is REALLY scary is to see a guy like YOU post about "intellectual integrity". Perhaps you've forgotten your stint as "Bringer-Of-Light"? You know, where you deceitfully posted 272 times in about a 1 week span. Leave me all the childish negative feedbacks that you'd like. It only verifies that you're still bothered by the fact that I had enough discernment to see through your deceit. Don't worry, though. Some of your "disciples" ought to be along soon to support you...
Duzma: Actually, what is REALLY scary is to see a guy like YOU post about "intellectual integrity". Perhaps you've forgotten your stint as "Bringer-Of-Light"? You know, where you deceitfully posted 272 times in about a 1 week span. Leave me all the childish negative feedbacks that you'd like. It only verifies that you're still bothered by the fact that I had enough discernment to see through your deceit. Don't worry, though. Some of your "disciples" ought to be along soon to support you...
QUOTE (newguy+Mar 1 2009, 03:37 PM)
QUOTE (Duzma+)
It really is scary to think how easily people can sacrifice their rationality for a little comfort and how malicious they can be towards others who actually have intellectual integrity.
Duzma: Actually, what is REALLY scary is to see a guy like YOU post about "intellectual integrity". Perhaps you've forgotten your stint as "Bringer-Of-Light"? You know, where you deceitfully posted 272 times in about a 1 week span. Leave me all the childish negative feedbacks that you'd like. It only verifies that you're still bothered by the fact that I had enough discernment to see through your deceit. Don't worry, though. Some of your "disciples" ought to be along soon to support you...
I don't know why you continue to talk about the BoL issue, unless its because you have nothing else meaningful to say and simply want an excuse to spam the forum. I leave you negatives because you never contribute anything to the discussion except praise for those you like and attacks on those that you do not, oh and a fair bit of patting yourself on the back in almost every one of your posts. You are clearly still upset about BoL, but its time to move on. Ill stop leaving you negative feedback the moment that you actually engage in a discussion, until then ill just laugh at you for crying about everything. I still think its hilarious that you are so obsessed with sock puppets and trying to figure out who they are, you would rather deal with that then try to debate the issues with us because you have nothing to bring to the table but blind faith. I don't think that you are fooling anyone, but I could be wrong there are some real suckers out there. On the topic of me being upset about your 'discernment' (as you call it when you constantly pat yourself on the back) I actually don't really care what you think about the actions of other posters, I simply get disgusted when you enter forums solely to bash people or to pat yourself (or one of the people who you like) on the back. If this is going to be the manner of your posting then don't expect acknowledgment from me. I guess I should thank you for giving me the opportunity to laugh at your expense but I'm not sure that it is not deliberate so I will withhold thanks until some evidence of your joking becomes visible. You have to admit that it is a little humorous that you are still flogging the BoL issue and the issues of other sock puppets. I guess if I was part of the group that was being torn down through example in that way I might be upset too but I cannot imagine being as upset as you must be to still be constantly talking about this topic every chance that you get. I hope that you can actually participate in discussion in the future.
Duzma: Actually, what is REALLY scary is to see a guy like YOU post about "intellectual integrity". Perhaps you've forgotten your stint as "Bringer-Of-Light"? You know, where you deceitfully posted 272 times in about a 1 week span. Leave me all the childish negative feedbacks that you'd like. It only verifies that you're still bothered by the fact that I had enough discernment to see through your deceit. Don't worry, though. Some of your "disciples" ought to be along soon to support you...
I don't know why you continue to talk about the BoL issue, unless its because you have nothing else meaningful to say and simply want an excuse to spam the forum. I leave you negatives because you never contribute anything to the discussion except praise for those you like and attacks on those that you do not, oh and a fair bit of patting yourself on the back in almost every one of your posts. You are clearly still upset about BoL, but its time to move on. Ill stop leaving you negative feedback the moment that you actually engage in a discussion, until then ill just laugh at you for crying about everything. I still think its hilarious that you are so obsessed with sock puppets and trying to figure out who they are, you would rather deal with that then try to debate the issues with us because you have nothing to bring to the table but blind faith. I don't think that you are fooling anyone, but I could be wrong there are some real suckers out there. On the topic of me being upset about your 'discernment' (as you call it when you constantly pat yourself on the back) I actually don't really care what you think about the actions of other posters, I simply get disgusted when you enter forums solely to bash people or to pat yourself (or one of the people who you like) on the back. If this is going to be the manner of your posting then don't expect acknowledgment from me. I guess I should thank you for giving me the opportunity to laugh at your expense but I'm not sure that it is not deliberate so I will withhold thanks until some evidence of your joking becomes visible. You have to admit that it is a little humorous that you are still flogging the BoL issue and the issues of other sock puppets. I guess if I was part of the group that was being torn down through example in that way I might be upset too but I cannot imagine being as upset as you must be to still be constantly talking about this topic every chance that you get. I hope that you can actually participate in discussion in the future.
QUOTE (DuzmA+)
You are clearly still upset about BoL, but its time to move on.
DuzmA: Actually, I was never "upset" about "Bringer-Of-Light". No, rather, I'm genuinely concerned about your mental condition. Quite frankly, I wonder if you're not schizophrenic...one minute deriding Christianity...the next minute embracing it through an alter ego.
DuzmA: Actually, I was never "upset" about "Bringer-Of-Light". No, rather, I'm genuinely concerned about your mental condition. Quite frankly, I wonder if you're not schizophrenic...one minute deriding Christianity...the next minute embracing it through an alter ego.
QUOTE (DuzmA+)
Ill stop leaving you negative feedback the moment that you actually engage in a discussion, until then ill just laugh at you for crying about everything.
You can leave me all of the negative feedbacks that you'd like. You aren't the first to do so and I seriously doubt that you'll be the last. Doesn't faze me in the least. As I suggested, it only makes you look childish...not to mention, vindictive. Anyhow, what exactly is it that I've been "crying about"? Kaeroll posted his complaint about "hidden religious agendas". Perhaps you have the two of us confused? Perhaps you think that he is a crybaby, instead? Try to stay focused. I know that it's hard when you have multiple personalities...
You can leave me all of the negative feedbacks that you'd like. You aren't the first to do so and I seriously doubt that you'll be the last. Doesn't faze me in the least. As I suggested, it only makes you look childish...not to mention, vindictive. Anyhow, what exactly is it that I've been "crying about"? Kaeroll posted his complaint about "hidden religious agendas". Perhaps you have the two of us confused? Perhaps you think that he is a crybaby, instead? Try to stay focused. I know that it's hard when you have multiple personalities...
QUOTE (DuzmA+)
I still think its hilarious that you are so obsessed with sock puppets and trying to figure out who they are, you would rather deal with that then try to debate the issues with us because you have nothing to bring to the table but blind faith.
My, my...you really aren't all that bright, are you? Far from being "obsessed with sock puppets", I simply prefer HONESTY. I realize that is a foreign concept to a deceiver such as yourself, but, for some of us, it is a way of life. "Blind faith"? Who's being "hilarioius", now? No, "blind faith" is simply a construct of your desperate mind because you have no genuine recourse when you encounter those who have plenty of genuine experiences with a living God. Ooooh...I hope that last comment doesn't constitute a patting of myself on the back.
My, my...you really aren't all that bright, are you? Far from being "obsessed with sock puppets", I simply prefer HONESTY. I realize that is a foreign concept to a deceiver such as yourself, but, for some of us, it is a way of life. "Blind faith"? Who's being "hilarioius", now? No, "blind faith" is simply a construct of your desperate mind because you have no genuine recourse when you encounter those who have plenty of genuine experiences with a living God. Ooooh...I hope that last comment doesn't constitute a patting of myself on the back.
QUOTE (DuzmA+)
I don't think that you are fooling anyone, but I could be wrong there are some real suckers out there.
Of course, I'm not "fooling anyone". That was never my intent. It was your intent, though, wasn't it? Sure it was. You did a pretty good job of it, too. Yeah, you're right..."there are some real suckers out there". Anytime that you need to be reminded of who some of them are, just take a look at "Bringer-Of-Light's" feedback. Much to your chagrin, you won't find my name listed among them. Get's you right there, doesn't it? Or, as I suppose, will you just dismiss that reality as another "patting of myself on the back"? You're pitiful, but, since I question your sanity, I'll go easy on you.
You can leave me all of the negative feedbacks that you'd like. You aren't the first to do so and I seriously doubt that you'll be the last. Doesn't faze me in the least. As I suggested, it only makes you look childish...not to mention, vindictive. Anyhow, what exactly is it that I've been "crying about"? Kaeroll posted his complaint about "hidden religious agendas". Perhaps you have the two of us confused? Perhaps you think that he is a crybaby, instead? Try to stay focused. I know that it's hard when you have multiple personalities...
Of course, I'm not "fooling anyone". That was never my intent. It was your intent, though, wasn't it? Sure it was. You did a pretty good job of it, too. Yeah, you're right..."there are some real suckers out there". Anytime that you need to be reminded of who some of them are, just take a look at "Bringer-Of-Light's" feedback. Much to your chagrin, you won't find my name listed among them. Get's you right there, doesn't it? Or, as I suppose, will you just dismiss that reality as another "patting of myself on the back"? You're pitiful, but, since I question your sanity, I'll go easy on you.
Of course, I'm not "fooling anyone". That was never my intent. It was your intent, though, wasn't it? Sure it was. You did a pretty good job of it, too. Yeah, you're right..."there are some real suckers out there". Anytime that you need to be reminded of who some of them are, just take a look at "Bringer-Of-Light's" feedback. Much to your chagrin, you won't find my name listed among them. Get's you right there, doesn't it? Or, as I suppose, will you just dismiss that reality as another "patting of myself on the back"? You're pitiful, but, since I question your sanity, I'll go easy on you.
QUOTE (DuamA+)
I guess if I was part of the group that was being torn down through example in that way I might be upset too but I cannot imagine being as upset as you must be to still be constantly talking about this topic every chance that you get.
As we both know, I'm far from being a "part of the group that was being torn down". In fact, that's apparently what upsets you the most about me. Well, I've got some real life issues to go deal with. Enjoy your delusions. Take care.
As we both know, I'm far from being a "part of the group that was being torn down". In fact, that's apparently what upsets you the most about me. Well, I've got some real life issues to go deal with. Enjoy your delusions. Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Mar 1 2009, 04:24 PM)
You can leave me all of the negative feedbacks that you'd like. You aren't the first to do so and I seriously doubt that you'll be the last. Doesn't faze me in the least. As I suggested, it only makes you look childish...not to mention, vindictive. Anyhow, what exactly is it that I've been "crying about"? Kaeroll posted his complaint about "hidden religious agendas". Perhaps you have the two of us confused? Perhaps you think that he is a crybaby, instead? Try to stay focused. I know that it's hard when you have multiple personalities...
Of course, I'm not "fooling anyone". That was never my intent. It was your intent, though, wasn't it? Sure it was. You did a pretty good job of it, too. Yeah, you're right..."there are some real suckers out there". Anytime that you need to be reminded of who some of them are, just take a look at "Bringer-Of-Light's" feedback. Much to your chagrin, you won't find my name listed among them. Get's you right there, doesn't it? Or, as I suppose, will you just dismiss that reality as another "patting of myself on the back"? You're pitiful, but, since I question your sanity, I'll go easy on you.
QUOTE (DuamA+)
I guess if I was part of the group that was being torn down through example in that way I might be upset too but I cannot imagine being as upset as you must be to still be constantly talking about this topic every chance that you get.
As we both know, I'm far from being a "part of the group that was being torn down". In fact, that's apparently what upsets you the most about me. Well, I've got some real life issues to go deal with. Enjoy your delusions. Take care.
I'm actually laughing and not only because of your misunderstanding and misuse of the term schizophrenia. Keep it up, your absurdity amuses me as I'm sure it does others. The negative feedback isn't for your benefit it is so that new posters can see who is worthwhile and who is not.
As we both know, I'm far from being a "part of the group that was being torn down". In fact, that's apparently what upsets you the most about me. Well, I've got some real life issues to go deal with. Enjoy your delusions. Take care.
I'm actually laughing and not only because of your misunderstanding and misuse of the term schizophrenia. Keep it up, your absurdity amuses me as I'm sure it does others. The negative feedback isn't for your benefit it is so that new posters can see who is worthwhile and who is not.
QUOTE (newguy+Mar 1 2009, 04:24 PM)
"Blind faith"? Who's being "hilarioius", now? No, "blind faith" is simply a construct of your desperate mind because you have no genuine recourse when you encounter those who have plenty of genuine experiences with a living God. Ooooh...I hope that last comment doesn't constitute a patting of myself on the back.
You have blind faith in yourself that you can tell if something is from God or not.
You have blind faith in yourself that you can tell if something is from God or not.
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 1 2009, 04:36 PM)
You have blind faith in yourself that you can tell if something is from God or not.
Humorously the delusion of experiences with a "living god" could actually be related to schizophrenia. Which doesn't have anything to do with dissociative identity disorder. Newguy might actually suffer from schizophrenia based on some of the things that he has posted. I forgive his confusion as to the nature of psychological disorders and his failure to research such things before attempting to use them as tools for insulting others as he is uneducated. People like him are the reason that so many people try to live with mental illness without seeking the help that they need, people who view mental disorders as the fault of the sufferer or as a way to insult someone. It is one thing to insult me, you can do it all that you want, but it is not OK to try and use serious mental problems as tools for insulting people. Your misunderstanding of the disorder is humorous but your intent in using it is not. This really is over the line, even one with as little integrity as you have should see that.
Humorously the delusion of experiences with a "living god" could actually be related to schizophrenia. Which doesn't have anything to do with dissociative identity disorder. Newguy might actually suffer from schizophrenia based on some of the things that he has posted. I forgive his confusion as to the nature of psychological disorders and his failure to research such things before attempting to use them as tools for insulting others as he is uneducated. People like him are the reason that so many people try to live with mental illness without seeking the help that they need, people who view mental disorders as the fault of the sufferer or as a way to insult someone. It is one thing to insult me, you can do it all that you want, but it is not OK to try and use serious mental problems as tools for insulting people. Your misunderstanding of the disorder is humorous but your intent in using it is not. This really is over the line, even one with as little integrity as you have should see that.
DuzmA: Actually, for once, you are correct. When using the term "schizophrenia" to describe you, I was actually thinking about the etymology of the word which literally means "split mind". My mistake. I apologize. Of course, I should have mentioned something like "multiple personality disorder" to describe an individual such as you. Like I said, my mistake. I'll be more careful with my word usage in the future. By the way, it is not my intent to insult you...I seriously believe that an individual who has the need to "voice" his/her "alter ego" has some serious mental problems.
EDIT:
EDIT:
QUOTE (DuzmA+)
People like him are the reason that so many people try to live with mental illness without seeking the help that they need, people who view mental disorders as the fault of the sufferer or as a way to insult someone.
Actually, "people like me", those who are able to help others THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, have helped people with mental disorders. I have neither the need, nor the desire, to convince one as uneducated as you of this. No, the people who have been helped are appreciative(towards God, the true Helper) and that's good enough for me. Carry on.
P.S. Did YOU just accuse ME of having "little integrity"? On second thought, perhaps you ARE schizophrenic...
Actually, "people like me", those who are able to help others THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, have helped people with mental disorders. I have neither the need, nor the desire, to convince one as uneducated as you of this. No, the people who have been helped are appreciative(towards God, the true Helper) and that's good enough for me. Carry on.
P.S. Did YOU just accuse ME of having "little integrity"? On second thought, perhaps you ARE schizophrenic...
QUOTE (newguy+Mar 1 2009, 04:56 PM)
DuzmA: Actually, for once, you are correct. When using the term "schizophrenia" to describe you, I was actually thinking about the etymology of the word which literally means "split mind". My mistake. I apologize. Of course, I should have mentioned something like "multiple personality disorder" to describe an individual such as you. Like I said, my mistake. I'll be more careful with my word usage in the future. By the way, it is not my intent to insult you...I seriously believe that an individual who has the need to "voice" his/her "alter ego" has some serious mental problems.
EDIT:
EDIT:
QUOTE (DuzmA+)
People like him are the reason that so many people try to live with mental illness without seeking the help that they need, people who view mental disorders as the fault of the sufferer or as a way to insult someone.
Actually, "people like me", those who are able to help others THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, have helped people with mental disorders. I have neither the need, nor the desire, to convince one as uneducated as you of this. No, the people who have been helped are appreciative(towards God, the true Helper) and that's good enough for me. Carry on.
Now you are suggesting that jesus, rather than modern psychiatric medicine is the answer to people's problems!?!?!? What is your problem? I love the stab at my education BTW, it is humorous that I can basically make you do and say anything just by hitting the right nerves. When I said it I was forgiving you on that basis, you are insulting me. Did somebody get mad? Poor baby.
Actually, "people like me", those who are able to help others THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, have helped people with mental disorders. I have neither the need, nor the desire, to convince one as uneducated as you of this. No, the people who have been helped are appreciative(towards God, the true Helper) and that's good enough for me. Carry on.
Now you are suggesting that jesus, rather than modern psychiatric medicine is the answer to people's problems!?!?!? What is your problem? I love the stab at my education BTW, it is humorous that I can basically make you do and say anything just by hitting the right nerves. When I said it I was forgiving you on that basis, you are insulting me. Did somebody get mad? Poor baby.
QUOTE (DuzmA+)
I love the stab at my education BTW, it is humorous that I can basically make you do and say anything just by hitting the right nerves.
DuzmA: Who's "patting themself on the back", now? You haven't even come close to "hitting a nerve". Your line of defense, if I can call it that, has been attempted(unsuccessfully) by others who have gone before you. You know what I'm referring to, don't you? Sure you do. Rather than admit that YOU are a deceiver and probably one who is in need of the very psychiatric care that you defend, you placate yourself by designating the one who points out your deceptions/mental disorders as "laughable". Nothing good can come of that, can it? Get some help...seriously.
"Forgiving" me on what basis? The basis of your claim that I'm "uneducated"? I possibly(the verdict is still out on your mental state) chose the wrong term to describe you. And, once again, my desire is not to insult you, but, rather, to help you. Seems that you're content just the way that you are, though. Your choice. Like I said, enjoy your delusions.
You are continually making stabs at my mental health based on a joke that I allegedly took part in on this forum? That really is absurd. Even if I had taken part in such a joke it would have been nothing but humor and it would have provided no reason to suspect a flaw in my mental health. You really don't know what you are talking about. On the hitting a nerve business, I think its pretty clear how out of hand you are getting and I think its clear how off base and off color your remarks are and have been during this discussion. I would like to think that anger has reduced you to such behavior but perhaps not.
DuzmA: Who's "patting themself on the back", now? You haven't even come close to "hitting a nerve". Your line of defense, if I can call it that, has been attempted(unsuccessfully) by others who have gone before you. You know what I'm referring to, don't you? Sure you do. Rather than admit that YOU are a deceiver and probably one who is in need of the very psychiatric care that you defend, you placate yourself by designating the one who points out your deceptions/mental disorders as "laughable". Nothing good can come of that, can it? Get some help...seriously.
QUOTE (DuzmA+)
When I said it I was forgiving you on that basis, you are insulting me.
"Forgiving" me on what basis? The basis of your claim that I'm "uneducated"? I possibly(the verdict is still out on your mental state) chose the wrong term to describe you. And, once again, my desire is not to insult you, but, rather, to help you. Seems that you're content just the way that you are, though. Your choice. Like I said, enjoy your delusions.
"Forgiving" me on what basis? The basis of your claim that I'm "uneducated"? I possibly(the verdict is still out on your mental state) chose the wrong term to describe you. And, once again, my desire is not to insult you, but, rather, to help you. Seems that you're content just the way that you are, though. Your choice. Like I said, enjoy your delusions.
QUOTE (newguy+Mar 1 2009, 05:15 PM)
"Forgiving" me on what basis? The basis of your claim that I'm "uneducated"? I possibly(the verdict is still out on your mental state) chose the wrong term to describe you. And, once again, my desire is not to insult you, but, rather, to help you. Seems that you're content just the way that you are, though. Your choice. Like I said, enjoy your delusions.
You are continually making stabs at my mental health based on a joke that I allegedly took part in on this forum? That really is absurd. Even if I had taken part in such a joke it would have been nothing but humor and it would have provided no reason to suspect a flaw in my mental health. You really don't know what you are talking about. On the hitting a nerve business, I think its pretty clear how out of hand you are getting and I think its clear how off base and off color your remarks are and have been during this discussion. I would like to think that anger has reduced you to such behavior but perhaps not.
QUOTE (DuzmA+)
You are continually making stabs at my mental health based on a joke that I allegedly took part in on this forum?
DuzmA: "Allegedly"?!? Boy, HONESTY must really be a "foreign language" to you. "A joke"?!? Personally, I find nothing "funny" about an individual living an "alter ego" life that lasted 272 posts. But, then again, that's just me. Personally, I find nothing "funny" about you duping several of the posters on this forum, who not only wasted their time arguing with you, but also wasted their time in leaving you negative feedback. But, then again, that's just me. Personally, I find nothing "funny" about your comments winding up on "FSTDT"(Fundies say the darndest things), where others can be duped by your "alter ego". For example:
http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?q=41985&page=3
But, then again, that's just me. Spare me your crap about "integrity", would you? The empirical evidence shows that you have NONE.
DuzmA: "Allegedly"?!? Boy, HONESTY must really be a "foreign language" to you. "A joke"?!? Personally, I find nothing "funny" about an individual living an "alter ego" life that lasted 272 posts. But, then again, that's just me. Personally, I find nothing "funny" about you duping several of the posters on this forum, who not only wasted their time arguing with you, but also wasted their time in leaving you negative feedback. But, then again, that's just me. Personally, I find nothing "funny" about your comments winding up on "FSTDT"(Fundies say the darndest things), where others can be duped by your "alter ego". For example:
http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?q=41985&page=3
But, then again, that's just me. Spare me your crap about "integrity", would you? The empirical evidence shows that you have NONE.
QUOTE (DuzmA+)
On the hitting a nerve business, I think its pretty clear how out of hand you are getting and I think its clear how off base and off color your remarks are and have been during this discussion. I would like to think that anger has reduced you to such behavior but perhaps not.
I think that "the Gipper" said it best:
I think that "the Gipper" said it best:
QUOTE (Ronald Reagan during his Presidential debate with Jimmy Carter+)
"There you go, again."
Boy(literally), you sure do have everything @ssbackwards, don't you? I'm the one whose "nerve" was "hit"? I'm the one who's "angry"? Who's the one leaving the childish negative feedback? That would be YOU. Who's the one who left this ANGRY response:
Once again, that would be YOU. We both know why you left it, don't we? Sure we do. It was only three days after you failed to dupe me with your positive feedback under your alter ego, "Bringer-Of-Light":
Once again, that would be YOU. We both know why you left it, don't we? Sure we do. It was only three days after you failed to dupe me with your positive feedback under your alter ego, "Bringer-Of-Light":
Bringer-of-Light Posted: Jun 27 2008, 10:25 PM
Positive Don't let the atheist club that runs this forum get to you.
My ability to discern liars like YOU really "angers" YOU, doesn't it? Sure it does. Anyhow, keep it up. Your continued responses might lead to a good case study some day...
Once again, that would be YOU. We both know why you left it, don't we?
My ability to discern liars like YOU really "angers" YOU, doesn't it? Sure it does. Anyhow, keep it up. Your continued responses might lead to a good case study some day...
Look at these angry remarks. I think it is so funny that you make judgments about people based on their behavior on a forum. You crack me up. It is very clear that you know nothing about the things you cry about all of the time. Interesting case study based on forum posts? If a case study were to come from this event it would be to study your reaction to such actions. I'm not angry at you in the least, I pity you. The more you say the more pitiful you seem, I am truly sorry for you at this point.
Boy(literally), you sure do have everything @ssbackwards, don't you? I'm the one whose "nerve" was "hit"? I'm the one who's "angry"? Who's the one leaving the childish negative feedback? That would be YOU. Who's the one who left this ANGRY response:
QUOTE
DuzmA Posted: Jun 30 2008, 03:13 AM
Negative Hypocrite of the worst kind.
Negative Hypocrite of the worst kind.
Once again, that would be YOU. We both know why you left it, don't we? Sure we do. It was only three days after you failed to dupe me with your positive feedback under your alter ego, "Bringer-Of-Light":
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| DuzmA Posted: Jun 30 2008, 03:13 AM Negative Hypocrite of the worst kind. |
Once again, that would be YOU. We both know why you left it, don't we? Sure we do. It was only three days after you failed to dupe me with your positive feedback under your alter ego, "Bringer-Of-Light":
Bringer-of-Light Posted: Jun 27 2008, 10:25 PM
Positive Don't let the atheist club that runs this forum get to you.
My ability to discern liars like YOU really "angers" YOU, doesn't it? Sure it does. Anyhow, keep it up. Your continued responses might lead to a good case study some day...
QUOTE (newguy+Mar 1 2009, 05:44 PM)
Once again, that would be YOU. We both know why you left it, don't we?
My ability to discern liars like YOU really "angers" YOU, doesn't it? Sure it does. Anyhow, keep it up. Your continued responses might lead to a good case study some day...
Look at these angry remarks. I think it is so funny that you make judgments about people based on their behavior on a forum. You crack me up. It is very clear that you know nothing about the things you cry about all of the time. Interesting case study based on forum posts? If a case study were to come from this event it would be to study your reaction to such actions. I'm not angry at you in the least, I pity you. The more you say the more pitiful you seem, I am truly sorry for you at this point.
DuzmA: You win(in your @ssbackwards world, that is). You're right(see previous parenthetical remark). There is no need for you to admit or to make reparations for your previous deceitful actions on this forum that have affected(infected) at least one other forum(FSTDT) as well. I mean, afterall, you're one of those people with *AHEM* "scientific integrity" that I keep hearing about(talk about your fairy tales...my apologies to those like Steveo who actually seem to have integrity), aren't you? Well, I tried. Deceit is apparently more palatable to you than truth. Have it your way.
QUOTE (newguy+Mar 1 2009, 06:05 PM)
DuzmA: You win(in your @ssbackwards world, that is). You're right(see previous parenthetical remark). There is no need for you to admit or to make reparations for your previous deceitful actions on this forum that have affected(infected) at least one other forum(FSTDT) as well. I mean, afterall, you're one of those people with *AHEM* "scientific integrity" that I keep hearing about(talk about your fairy tales...my apologies to those like Steveo who actually seem to have integrity), aren't you? Well, I tried. Deceit is apparently more palatable to you than truth. Have it your way.
I think therapy would help you work through whatever frustrations drive you to act like this on a forum. You are clearly projecting something onto this forum situation, it would do you some good to find out what it is that is bothering you.
I think therapy would help you work through whatever frustrations drive you to act like this on a forum. You are clearly projecting something onto this forum situation, it would do you some good to find out what it is that is bothering you.
From the looks of things this thread really turned to a good battle!
Cusa and I failed to impress rpenner who needs more information from me about religious agenda's, unless of course that later became more obvious after seeing another extreme case of it going back and forth!
First of all, this is an excellent statement:
Cusa and I failed to impress rpenner who needs more information from me about religious agenda's, unless of course that later became more obvious after seeing another extreme case of it going back and forth!
First of all, this is an excellent statement:
QUOTE (Cusa+)
I think the same thing can be said about atheist scientists. They are certain their facts disprove God. They couldnt be more wrong.
Mitch Raemsch
The atheism movement has made Dawkins a cult hero because of the following book that clearly attempts to use science to prove God does not exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
What Cusa said is true. It's even kinda silly to argue. But FGG took the indirect approach and flatly discredited every word by acting insulted like Cusa desecrated Atheism by mentioning it then after that whacked them with the added insult "Science does not deal with the supernatural dip shlt!" in order to suggest that religiously minded scientists do science on their knees in prayer and similar thoughts in the mind of the reader:
I think the same thing can be said about atheist scientists. They are certain their facts disprove God. They couldnt be more wrong.
Mitch Raemsch
You are just a complete ignorant SH!
You have no idea what atheists think or believe! Anyone thinks science has anything to say on god is just a complete freak'n idiot! Just like you! Science does not deal with the supernatural dip shlt!
FGG
I see the supernatural as another word for "unknown" so there is no such thing as "supernatural". It simply does not exist. But FGG did not consider that before hurling damaging generalizations to the point of absurdity.
Like I said, I spot religious agendas that exist on both sides by looking for science being used against another. Between Dawkins book that makes what Cusa said true and clever ways of further insulting those who then try to set the record straight, FGG's religious agenda is very obvious. To me anyway. And if FGG truly believe what they said then they seriously need to distance themselves from Atheists who preach that viewpoint.
So good luck FGG getting the Atheism movement to publicly apologize for Mr. Dawkins books and statements!
But in all seriousness it would be easier to see that you're becoming Agnostic. I know at least one Atheist who would not want you to represent the Atheism movement that way because it casts doubt on their core philosophy that thoughts of a Creator is a Delusion. Agnostics are open to the possibility that a nonsupernatural Creator may exist and can take an entirely scientific approach to answering that question.
Mitch Raemsch
The atheism movement has made Dawkins a cult hero because of the following book that clearly attempts to use science to prove God does not exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
What Cusa said is true. It's even kinda silly to argue. But FGG took the indirect approach and flatly discredited every word by acting insulted like Cusa desecrated Atheism by mentioning it then after that whacked them with the added insult "Science does not deal with the supernatural dip shlt!" in order to suggest that religiously minded scientists do science on their knees in prayer and similar thoughts in the mind of the reader:
QUOTE (FGG+Mar 1 2009, 11:01 PM)
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 28 2009, 03:39 PM)
I think the same thing can be said about atheist scientists. They are certain their facts disprove God. They couldnt be more wrong.
Mitch Raemsch
You are just a complete ignorant SH!
You have no idea what atheists think or believe! Anyone thinks science has anything to say on god is just a complete freak'n idiot! Just like you! Science does not deal with the supernatural dip shlt!
FGG
I see the supernatural as another word for "unknown" so there is no such thing as "supernatural". It simply does not exist. But FGG did not consider that before hurling damaging generalizations to the point of absurdity.
Like I said, I spot religious agendas that exist on both sides by looking for science being used against another. Between Dawkins book that makes what Cusa said true and clever ways of further insulting those who then try to set the record straight, FGG's religious agenda is very obvious. To me anyway. And if FGG truly believe what they said then they seriously need to distance themselves from Atheists who preach that viewpoint.
So good luck FGG getting the Atheism movement to publicly apologize for Mr. Dawkins books and statements!
But in all seriousness it would be easier to see that you're becoming Agnostic. I know at least one Atheist who would not want you to represent the Atheism movement that way because it casts doubt on their core philosophy that thoughts of a Creator is a Delusion. Agnostics are open to the possibility that a nonsupernatural Creator may exist and can take an entirely scientific approach to answering that question.
A scientist has to be neutral. He cannot promote his science as proof of his atheism. I require no one to believe in My God.
Science needs to come to the center where neither atheism or religion can tell you what to believe.
Mitch Raemsch
Science needs to come to the center where neither atheism or religion can tell you what to believe.
Mitch Raemsch
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 2 2009, 02:03 AM)
A scientist has to be neutral. He cannot promote his science as proof of his atheism. I require no one to believe in My God.
Science needs to come to the center where neither atheism or religion can tell you what to believe.
Mitch Raemsch
Some people use science to promote Atheism but science itself is neutral.
But being neutral means accepting what evidence there is.
And so far the evidence is not in favour of an intelligent creator.
Science needs to come to the center where neither atheism or religion can tell you what to believe.
Mitch Raemsch
Some people use science to promote Atheism but science itself is neutral.
But being neutral means accepting what evidence there is.
And so far the evidence is not in favour of an intelligent creator.
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 2 2009, 02:31 AM)
Some people use science to promote Atheism but science itself is neutral.
Science is only as good as who represents it. The atheists claim that science does not need God. This is the problem. Science has to not be represented by them. And if they do the believers have equal right to say what they believe.
Mitch Raemsch
Science is only as good as who represents it. The atheists claim that science does not need God. This is the problem. Science has to not be represented by them. And if they do the believers have equal right to say what they believe.
Mitch Raemsch
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 2 2009, 02:38 AM)
Science is only as good as who represents it. The atheists claim that science does not need God. This is the problem. Science has to not be represented by them. And if they do the believers have equal right to say what they believe.
Mitch Raemsch
You have a right to say what you believe.
But unless your belief is supported by EVIDENCE it DOES NOT count as SCIENCE!
Why can't you understand this SIMPLE point!?
Mitch Raemsch
You have a right to say what you believe.
But unless your belief is supported by EVIDENCE it DOES NOT count as SCIENCE!
Why can't you understand this SIMPLE point!?
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 2 2009, 02:03 AM)
Science needs to come to the center where neither atheism or religion can tell you what to believe.
Mitch Raemsch
Mitch, I think I already know the answer but have to ask the question. Do you see the Creator existing in a "supernatural" realm outside of what science can investigate or an entity (at least in part) in the "natural" world that science can investigate?
Mitch Raemsch
Mitch, I think I already know the answer but have to ask the question. Do you see the Creator existing in a "supernatural" realm outside of what science can investigate or an entity (at least in part) in the "natural" world that science can investigate?
QUOTE (Argyll+Mar 2 2009, 03:01 AM)
You have a right to say what you believe.
But unless your belief is supported by EVIDENCE it DOES NOT count as SCIENCE!
Why can't you understand this SIMPLE point!?
Science cannot tell me who I am.
Mitch Raemsch; Falling light changes colour
But unless your belief is supported by EVIDENCE it DOES NOT count as SCIENCE!
Why can't you understand this SIMPLE point!?
Science cannot tell me who I am.
Mitch Raemsch; Falling light changes colour
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 2 2009, 03:12 AM)
Science cannot tell me who I am.
Mitch Raemsch;
So what, that doesn't mean SCIENCE has to pay any attention to your RELIGIOUS feelings!
Mitch Raemsch;
So what, that doesn't mean SCIENCE has to pay any attention to your RELIGIOUS feelings!
QUOTE (Cusa+)
Falling light changes colour
Off-topic to this thread, but what are you trying to say here? If you're talking about gravitational red- or blue-shifting, so what?
Off-topic to this thread, but what are you trying to say here? If you're talking about gravitational red- or blue-shifting, so what?
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 2 2009, 03:27 AM)
What's your point Argyll?
With which statement? My first statement should be clear - science has no requirement to pay any attention to your religious feelings or beliefs. Science only pays attention to EVIDENCE - and as of yet, you have yet to present any.
My second statement is to inquire what point YOU are trying to make with your somewhat empty claim that "falling light changes colour".
With which statement? My first statement should be clear - science has no requirement to pay any attention to your religious feelings or beliefs. Science only pays attention to EVIDENCE - and as of yet, you have yet to present any.
My second statement is to inquire what point YOU are trying to make with your somewhat empty claim that "falling light changes colour".
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 2 2009, 03:53 AM)
Who are you according to science?
Mitch Raemsch
I'm a human being, male, of caucasian decent. I'm sure there's plenty more science can tell me about myself.
But why does that matter? What science can or cannot tell me about myself or about any other person is not at all significant to the discussion about religion in science.
Mitch Raemsch
I'm a human being, male, of caucasian decent. I'm sure there's plenty more science can tell me about myself.
But why does that matter? What science can or cannot tell me about myself or about any other person is not at all significant to the discussion about religion in science.
QUOTE (Argyll+Mar 2 2009, 03:38 AM)
With which statement? My first statement should be clear - science has no requirement to pay any attention to your religious feelings or beliefs. My second statement is to inquire what point YOU are trying to make with your somewhat empty claim that "falling light changes colour".
Your atheism also cannot represent science. It should be left out.
Your atheism also cannot represent science. It should be left out.
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 2 2009, 04:07 AM)
Your atheism also cannot represent science. It should be left out.
Atheism does not "represent science", and we have told you this repeatedly.
Science follows the evidence, period. Science does not say "there is no God" - the best science can say is "there is no evidence of a god or gods". Science is not atheist, it is secular.
Individuals who can be described as atheist simply do not have a belief in a god or gods, for whatever reasaon. This may be the lack of evidence, or it may be lack of exposure to the concept of a god or gods, or it may be some other reason entirely.
It is improper of you to claim a link between atheism and science where none exists.
Atheism does not "represent science", and we have told you this repeatedly.
Science follows the evidence, period. Science does not say "there is no God" - the best science can say is "there is no evidence of a god or gods". Science is not atheist, it is secular.
Individuals who can be described as atheist simply do not have a belief in a god or gods, for whatever reasaon. This may be the lack of evidence, or it may be lack of exposure to the concept of a god or gods, or it may be some other reason entirely.
It is improper of you to claim a link between atheism and science where none exists.
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 2 2009, 04:21 AM)
But there is evidence suggested by Math.
Bollocks.
I beg to differ here. 2 and 6 would more likely to be a "zealots" view, who would be scoffing that their God can do anything with his magic wand.
I'll stick to 1 and 3 as the plausible ones, because a definition of all-powerful to me would be within the confines of natural laws as we know them today and will come to know them in the future. There are non religious thinkers that support such views, such as Walter Russell, who criticized religion in the same way Einstein did, but believed that nature was the expression of God, and that there was nothing beyond.
I beg to differ here. 2 and 6 would more likely to be a "zealots" view, who would be scoffing that their God can do anything with his magic wand.
I'll stick to 1 and 3 as the plausible ones, because a definition of all-powerful to me would be within the confines of natural laws as we know them today and will come to know them in the future. There are non religious thinkers that support such views, such as Walter Russell, who criticized religion in the same way Einstein did, but believed that nature was the expression of God, and that there was nothing beyond.
So the Supreme Being can do anything it wants to as long as it doesn't want to do something it can't?
1 and 3 are open ended and meaningless unless details are given.
Do I care? No.
Bollocks.
QUOTE (Cusa+)
The very existence of the universe suggests a God or Originator.
Maybe to you. I see no evidence for a god or creator, and apparently the majority of the scientific community agrees with me that, at the very least, such an opinion as yours is NOT scientific.
Maybe to you. I see no evidence for a god or creator, and apparently the majority of the scientific community agrees with me that, at the very least, such an opinion as yours is NOT scientific.
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 2 2009, 04:27 AM)
Mathematics suggests the Mind of God behind creation.
Maybe to you. But to me, and I would guess to the majority of members of this forum and of the scientific community, that is a complete non sequitur.
Maybe to you. But to me, and I would guess to the majority of members of this forum and of the scientific community, that is a complete non sequitur.
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 2 2009, 04:27 AM)
Mathematics suggests the Mind of God behind creation.
I have seen you make this and similar claims many times. Please provide some evidence to support this statement. How does mathmatics suggest the "Mind of god behind creation?"
I have seen you make this and similar claims many times. Please provide some evidence to support this statement. How does mathmatics suggest the "Mind of god behind creation?"
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 3 2009, 05:35 PM)
There is a Mind behind Math. That's all there is to it.
Mitch Raemsch
That's IT? Then you have NOTHING but your own limited capacity to conceptualize the universe, and that is NOT proof of a "Mind behind Math", much less that that "mind" is "God".
Mitch Raemsch
That's IT? Then you have NOTHING but your own limited capacity to conceptualize the universe, and that is NOT proof of a "Mind behind Math", much less that that "mind" is "God".
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 3 2009, 05:35 PM)
There is a Mind behind Math. That's all there is to it.
Mitch Raemsch
How are you making the logic jump from those statements to god?
Mitch Raemsch
How are you making the logic jump from those statements to god?
Mitch doesn't use logic. The voices in his head tell him what he believes.
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 3 2009, 07:00 PM)
Mathematical logic demonstrates the Mind of God.
Mitch Raemsch
Again I ask you to demonstrate the validity of this claim.
Mitch Raemsch
Again I ask you to demonstrate the validity of this claim.
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 3 2009, 07:00 PM)
Mathematical logic demonstrates the Mind of God.
Mitch Raemsch
Only if Mathematical logic could be other than it is.
If ML is inevitable then it demonstrates nothing.
Mitch Raemsch
Only if Mathematical logic could be other than it is.
If ML is inevitable then it demonstrates nothing.
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 3 2009, 02:19 PM)
Please share the mathematical disproof of God.
Sure.
By definition, God can do anything. If there is that which God cannot do, that means there is a force superior to God.
But the laws of mathematics say that 1 + 1 will never equal 3. So the laws of mathematics say that God cannot make 1 + 1 = 3. If there is something that God cannot do, it is logical proof that God cannot exist.
Sure.
By definition, God can do anything. If there is that which God cannot do, that means there is a force superior to God.
But the laws of mathematics say that 1 + 1 will never equal 3. So the laws of mathematics say that God cannot make 1 + 1 = 3. If there is something that God cannot do, it is logical proof that God cannot exist.
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 3 2009, 07:25 PM)
Sure.
By definition, God can do anything. If there is that which God cannot do, that means there is a force superior to God.
But the laws of mathematics say that 1 + 1 will never equal 3. So the laws of mathematics say that God cannot make 1 + 1 = 3. If there is something that God cannot do, it is logical proof that God cannot exist.
God created math perfect and eternal. Your example is about wrong math to begin with. It doesn't apply.
Mitch Raemsch
By definition, God can do anything. If there is that which God cannot do, that means there is a force superior to God.
But the laws of mathematics say that 1 + 1 will never equal 3. So the laws of mathematics say that God cannot make 1 + 1 = 3. If there is something that God cannot do, it is logical proof that God cannot exist.
God created math perfect and eternal. Your example is about wrong math to begin with. It doesn't apply.
Mitch Raemsch
So 1 + 1 can equal 3?
Because if it can't, then God can never make it so. So the laws of Mathematics constrain what God can do.
A god who can be constrained is not God.
Therefore, God does not exist.
QED.
Because if it can't, then God can never make it so. So the laws of Mathematics constrain what God can do.
A god who can be constrained is not God.
Therefore, God does not exist.
QED.
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 3 2009, 02:40 PM)
This is an example that proves nothing other than God created math; obviously perfect.
I want you to build your math on this basis that 1+1=3.
See how far you can get alex.
You miss the point.
Which is expected.
If there's something that God cannot do, then there is something mightier than God, which means that God, by definition, is not God. God cannot make 1 + 1 = 3.
Prove me wrong.
BTW, simply saying it's wrong is not a form of proof.
I want you to build your math on this basis that 1+1=3.
See how far you can get alex.
You miss the point.
Which is expected.
If there's something that God cannot do, then there is something mightier than God, which means that God, by definition, is not God. God cannot make 1 + 1 = 3.
Prove me wrong.
BTW, simply saying it's wrong is not a form of proof.
That's as far as it has to go to prove that God doesn't exist.
The laws of Mathematics prove there is something that God cannot do. Therefore they are stronger than any hypothetical God.
Therefore, by definition, God is not God.
Prove me wrong.
The laws of Mathematics prove there is something that God cannot do. Therefore they are stronger than any hypothetical God.
Therefore, by definition, God is not God.
Prove me wrong.
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 3 2009, 03:46 PM)
Please take your math all the way alex
He did Cusa. You just don’t like the outcome of his argument. Care to cite where his reasoning is flawed or just how what he states is erroneous?
He did Cusa. You just don’t like the outcome of his argument. Care to cite where his reasoning is flawed or just how what he states is erroneous?
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 3 2009, 02:56 PM)
I don't have to prove your math wrong alex. 1+1 does not equal 3. But you can build your math on it.
Can God make 1 + 1 = 3?
Can God make 1 + 1 = 3?
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 3 2009, 08:03 PM)
Only if alex asks him.
Mitch Raemsch
Ask him Alex, ask him.
This I wanna see.
Mitch Raemsch
Ask him Alex, ask him.
This I wanna see.
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 3 2009, 03:53 PM)
You can't save him GeneSplicer.
Mitch Raemsch
I don't need to save him Cusa.
You however do need to back up your claim, if you can.
And no Cusa, dismissal is not acceptable.
Mitch Raemsch
I don't need to save him Cusa.
You however do need to back up your claim, if you can.
And no Cusa, dismissal is not acceptable.
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 3 2009, 03:04 PM)
Ask him Alex, ask him.
This I wanna see.
I tried.
I got a recording that said 'the deity at this number is not available due to it's non-existence'.
This I wanna see.
I tried.
I got a recording that said 'the deity at this number is not available due to it's non-existence'.
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 3 2009, 07:25 PM)
Sure.
By definition, God can do anything. If there is that which God cannot do, that means there is a force superior to God.
But the laws of mathematics say that 1 + 1 will never equal 3. So the laws of mathematics say that God cannot make 1 + 1 = 3. If there is something that God cannot do, it is logical proof that God cannot exist.
You say "by definition" as if you believe a definition exists. What definition?
By definition, God can do anything. If there is that which God cannot do, that means there is a force superior to God.
But the laws of mathematics say that 1 + 1 will never equal 3. So the laws of mathematics say that God cannot make 1 + 1 = 3. If there is something that God cannot do, it is logical proof that God cannot exist.
You say "by definition" as if you believe a definition exists. What definition?
QUOTE (Kaeroll+Feb 28 2009, 02:58 PM)
That may be the most controversial topic title I've ever typed...
Just thought I'd share an article published in New Scientist about warning signs that a supposedly 'pop science' book or article is pushing a religious agenda. Link.
Much of it rings true in my experience...
Looks like that magazine has an agenda, too bad they can't just not teach the origins debate.
Just thought I'd share an article published in New Scientist about warning signs that a supposedly 'pop science' book or article is pushing a religious agenda. Link.
Much of it rings true in my experience...
Looks like that magazine has an agenda, too bad they can't just not teach the origins debate.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Mar 3 2009, 04:18 PM)
Looks like that magazine has an agenda, too bad they can't just not teach the origins debate.
And what agenda would that be?
And what agenda would that be?
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 3 2009, 07:14 PM)
And I ask you to disprove it. If you can.
Mitch Raemsch
How can you ask me to disprove something that you haven't demonstrated? That's absurd. Its like me asking you to disprove the fact that magic, invisible butterflies cause the wind to blow. Demonstrate something and then I will try and disprove that something.
Mitch Raemsch
How can you ask me to disprove something that you haven't demonstrated? That's absurd. Its like me asking you to disprove the fact that magic, invisible butterflies cause the wind to blow. Demonstrate something and then I will try and disprove that something.
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 3 2009, 08:33 PM)
No. There are things you can't do alex.
Like prove your new math.
Mitch Raemsch
1 + 1 != 3 is NEW MATH?
Like prove your new math.
Mitch Raemsch
1 + 1 != 3 is NEW MATH?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Mar 3 2009, 08:30 PM)
(1(1.5))+(1(1.5))=3
God is who he is. His name is 'I AM'
His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts are higher than our thought's. His ways aren't our ways.
That's just parrot talk. I want a valid definition of God before I take any of this seriously.
God is who he is. His name is 'I AM'
His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts are higher than our thought's. His ways aren't our ways.
That's just parrot talk. I want a valid definition of God before I take any of this seriously.
QUOTE (MickDerry+Mar 3 2009, 03:36 PM)
That's just parrot talk. I want a valid definition of God before I take any of this seriously.
An omnipotent, omniscient, consciousness, responsible for the creation and ordering of the universe.
Do you have a definition you like better?
An omnipotent, omniscient, consciousness, responsible for the creation and ordering of the universe.
Do you have a definition you like better?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Mar 3 2009, 08:18 PM)
Looks like that magazine has an agenda, too bad they can't just not teach the origins debate.
But their agenda is promoting accurracy whatever it might be.
Which is very different than preaching a predetermined agenda.
But their agenda is promoting accurracy whatever it might be.
Which is very different than preaching a predetermined agenda.
QUOTE (MickDerry+Mar 3 2009, 08:36 PM)
That's just parrot talk. I want a valid definition of God before I take any of this seriously.
Thats very funny coming from a plagiarizer who shouldnt be taken seriously.
Thats very funny coming from a plagiarizer who shouldnt be taken seriously.
QUOTE (occidental+Mar 3 2009, 09:13 PM)
Thats very funny coming from a plagiarizer who shouldnt be taken seriously.
No. He's fine.
No. He's fine.
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 3 2009, 08:56 PM)
But their agenda is promoting accurracy whatever it might be.
Which is very different than preaching a predetermined agenda.
Some people reject the knowledge of God. If God did create the world (I personally believe) then because the article writer, dismisses religion (including God) it would see God creating the world as inaccurate. Would it not?
Which is very different than preaching a predetermined agenda.
Some people reject the knowledge of God. If God did create the world (I personally believe) then because the article writer, dismisses religion (including God) it would see God creating the world as inaccurate. Would it not?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Mar 3 2009, 10:10 PM)
Some people reject the knowledge of God. If God did create the world (I personally believe) then because the article writer, dismisses religion (including God) it would see God creating the world as inaccurate. Would it not?
The statement that god created the world is not backed up by ANY evidence, ergo we view it as illogical.
The statement that god created the world is not backed up by ANY evidence, ergo we view it as illogical.
Illogic and faith aren't mutually exclusive, eh? 
QUOTE (TracerTong+Mar 3 2009, 10:10 PM)
Some people reject the knowledge of God. If God did create the world (I personally believe) then because the article writer, dismisses religion (including God) it would see God creating the world as inaccurate. Would it not?
But there is no repeatable verifiable knowledge of God.
If God created the world, then he didn't give us high quality free will,
made various organs with flaws (flaws evolution explains nicely (blind spot on eyes)),
didn't give a verifiable consistent means of knowing him,
etc.
But if there is no God, then people would have to invent one. And different people would invent different Gods.
And it would see God creating the world having no evidence (so far).
But there is no repeatable verifiable knowledge of God.
If God created the world, then he didn't give us high quality free will,
made various organs with flaws (flaws evolution explains nicely (blind spot on eyes)),
didn't give a verifiable consistent means of knowing him,
etc.
But if there is no God, then people would have to invent one. And different people would invent different Gods.
And it would see God creating the world having no evidence (so far).
QUOTE (occidental+Mar 3 2009, 09:13 PM)
Thats very funny coming from a plagiarizer who shouldnt be taken seriously.
Your judgement is exceedingly easy to live with.:-) But if you are that sure of your judgement, take it to a real court. Meet you there?
Your judgement is exceedingly easy to live with.:-) But if you are that sure of your judgement, take it to a real court. Meet you there?
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 3 2009, 08:45 PM)
An omnipotent, omniscient, consciousness, responsible for the creation and ordering of the universe.
Do you have a definition you like better?
ooops, didn't realize you had those kind of beliefs AlexG. Where'd you get them from?
And more precisely, how would it be that this force could make 1+1=3?
I don't believe any of the definitions cooked up so far personally. Never trust a blind opinion. Buddhists, for example, don't concern themselves with a definition of a God.
Do you have a definition you like better?
ooops, didn't realize you had those kind of beliefs AlexG. Where'd you get them from?
And more precisely, how would it be that this force could make 1+1=3?
I don't believe any of the definitions cooked up so far personally. Never trust a blind opinion. Buddhists, for example, don't concern themselves with a definition of a God.
QUOTE (MickDerry+Mar 3 2009, 05:45 PM)
ooops, didn't realize you had those kind of beliefs AlexG. Where'd you get them from?
And more precisely, how would it be that this force could make 1+1=3?
I don't believe any of the definitions cooked up so far personally. Never trust a blind opinion. Buddhists, for example, don't concern themselves with a definition of a God.
Ok, so you're sidestepping the issue by playing with words and definitions.
As for my beliefs, I don't believe in God. I find that God is not necessary for the universe to exist, and postulating such an entity complicates everything enormously without any benefit.
And more precisely, how would it be that this force could make 1+1=3?
I don't believe any of the definitions cooked up so far personally. Never trust a blind opinion. Buddhists, for example, don't concern themselves with a definition of a God.
Ok, so you're sidestepping the issue by playing with words and definitions.
As for my beliefs, I don't believe in God. I find that God is not necessary for the universe to exist, and postulating such an entity complicates everything enormously without any benefit.
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 3 2009, 11:05 PM)
Ok, so you're sidestepping the issue by playing with words and definitions.
As for my beliefs, I don't believe in God. I find that God is not necessary for the universe to exist, and postulating such an entity complicates everything enormously without any benefit.
No, actually I wanted to point out that you are the guy playing with words and invalid definitions here. Where is the rationale that you agree with any definition given by others regarding God? You don't agree with these definitions, but yet you use them. You're borrowing human definitions, and then building up your case on it. Basically, you can believe what you choose to.
There is no need for science to believe or disbelieve anything. Science will tell one of the how something is made up.
Like all of us we throw the word God around. You've done it again, when saying you don't believe that God is necessary for the universe to exist. Again you seem to have a clear definition of God, to the extent that you know the universe can exist without this God of your definition. There is nothing you are doing here that is any different to anyone else.
And it doesn't make any difference when calculting all these forces and mathematical equations we're finding.
So no, I find it hard to imagine there exists an entity able to make 1+1=3.
Do I have to believe you when you say you don't believe in God? Do I fully believe myself if I say I do?
What I've seen here is the word "agenda" continually being thrown around. Almost as much as conspiracy theorists suspect eveyone that doesn't agree with them is an agent. Look to yourselves if you want to catch a bit of agenda. An ISM and an IST is agenda driven. Being neutral is the hardest position to take, as any Buddhist would tell you. And like the Buddhists, believing in levels of consciousness that they call a spiritual experience, doesn't have to imply there is a God manifested personally from the availability of any higher level of mind.
As for my beliefs, I don't believe in God. I find that God is not necessary for the universe to exist, and postulating such an entity complicates everything enormously without any benefit.
No, actually I wanted to point out that you are the guy playing with words and invalid definitions here. Where is the rationale that you agree with any definition given by others regarding God? You don't agree with these definitions, but yet you use them. You're borrowing human definitions, and then building up your case on it. Basically, you can believe what you choose to.
There is no need for science to believe or disbelieve anything. Science will tell one of the how something is made up.
Like all of us we throw the word God around. You've done it again, when saying you don't believe that God is necessary for the universe to exist. Again you seem to have a clear definition of God, to the extent that you know the universe can exist without this God of your definition. There is nothing you are doing here that is any different to anyone else.
And it doesn't make any difference when calculting all these forces and mathematical equations we're finding.
So no, I find it hard to imagine there exists an entity able to make 1+1=3.
Do I have to believe you when you say you don't believe in God? Do I fully believe myself if I say I do?
What I've seen here is the word "agenda" continually being thrown around. Almost as much as conspiracy theorists suspect eveyone that doesn't agree with them is an agent. Look to yourselves if you want to catch a bit of agenda. An ISM and an IST is agenda driven. Being neutral is the hardest position to take, as any Buddhist would tell you. And like the Buddhists, believing in levels of consciousness that they call a spiritual experience, doesn't have to imply there is a God manifested personally from the availability of any higher level of mind.
Thread closed temporarily to increase the signal-to-noise ratio.
Thread reopened after moving the Cusa-is-the-next-Einstein posts, and deleting noise.
MickDerry -- if you'll read you'll see that Cusa made the claim (to the best of our understanding of his terse pontifications) that his God's whim, unconstrained by mortal practicalities, is the only reason that mathematics works on March 2. Thus the question arises what is the moral lesson that we can derive from today's math that 1+1 isn't 3, and is Cusa claiming that tomorrow it could be?
I see that some people have indeed been abusing the edit window of one hour in these rapid back-and-forths. This saddens me.
MickDerry -- if you'll read you'll see that Cusa made the claim (to the best of our understanding of his terse pontifications) that his God's whim, unconstrained by mortal practicalities, is the only reason that mathematics works on March 2. Thus the question arises what is the moral lesson that we can derive from today's math that 1+1 isn't 3, and is Cusa claiming that tomorrow it could be?
I see that some people have indeed been abusing the edit window of one hour in these rapid back-and-forths. This saddens me.
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 4 2009, 10:33 AM)
I see that some people have indeed been abusing the edit window of one hour in these rapid back-and-forths. This saddens me.
Off-topic, but... What is it you deem "abuse" of the edit window?
Off-topic, but... What is it you deem "abuse" of the edit window?
Someone was deleting their entire post after it provoked a response from a second party, and then repeating. It was entirely pointless, since the timestamps make the story clear but the motive was imaginary scoring of points.
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 4 2009, 10:33 AM)
Thread reopened after moving the Cusa-is-the-next-Einstein posts, and deleting noise.
MickDerry -- if you'll read you'll see that Cusa made the claim (to the best of our understanding of his terse pontifications) that his God's whim, unconstrained by mortal practicalities, is the only reason that mathematics works on March 2. Thus the question arises what is the moral lesson that we can derive from today's math that 1+1 isn't 3, and is Cusa claiming that tomorrow it could be?
I see that some people have indeed been abusing the edit window of one hour in these rapid back-and-forths. This saddens me.
I saw a nice program on the BBC a while back regarding certain scientists that held the firm belief that mathematics did lead to the nature of God's mind. I wouldn't know myself. Regardless, such an entity would no doubt be extremely rational of nature, and so there can be no real entity that would have the ability to make 1+1=3, as it is not rational.
MickDerry -- if you'll read you'll see that Cusa made the claim (to the best of our understanding of his terse pontifications) that his God's whim, unconstrained by mortal practicalities, is the only reason that mathematics works on March 2. Thus the question arises what is the moral lesson that we can derive from today's math that 1+1 isn't 3, and is Cusa claiming that tomorrow it could be?
I see that some people have indeed been abusing the edit window of one hour in these rapid back-and-forths. This saddens me.
I saw a nice program on the BBC a while back regarding certain scientists that held the firm belief that mathematics did lead to the nature of God's mind. I wouldn't know myself. Regardless, such an entity would no doubt be extremely rational of nature, and so there can be no real entity that would have the ability to make 1+1=3, as it is not rational.
QUOTE (MickDerry+Mar 4 2009, 01:54 PM)
I saw a nice program on the BBC a while back regarding certain scientists that held the firm belief that mathematics did lead to the nature of God's mind. I wouldn't know myself. Regardless, such an entity would no doubt be extremely rational of nature, and so there can be no real entity that would have the ability to make 1+1=3, as it is not rational.
We can add that to the list of "how to spot a religious agenda".
So rpenner, instead of deleting cusa's posts, are you just going to go around and tell us what they mean? Thats very sad.
We can add that to the list of "how to spot a religious agenda".
So rpenner, instead of deleting cusa's posts, are you just going to go around and tell us what they mean? Thats very sad.
QUOTE (MickDerry+Mar 4 2009, 02:54 PM)
I saw a nice program on the BBC a while back regarding certain scientists that held the firm belief that mathematics did lead to the nature of God's mind. I wouldn't know myself. Regardless, such an entity would no doubt be extremely rational of nature, and so there can be no real entity that would have the ability to make 1+1=3, as it is not rational.
If God is entirely logical then God is likely understandable and expressable in the language of Mathematics/Logic.
If God cannot make 1+1=3, then God is not omnipotent. Omnipotency is a widely believed necessary quality of God, as I understand it.
If God is entirely logical then God is likely understandable and expressable in the language of Mathematics/Logic.
If God cannot make 1+1=3, then God is not omnipotent. Omnipotency is a widely believed necessary quality of God, as I understand it.
QUOTE (bm1957+Mar 4 2009, 02:04 PM)
If God is entirely logical then God is likely understandable and expressable in the language of Mathematics/Logic.
If God cannot make 1+1=3, then God is not omnipotent. Omnipotency is a widely believed necessary quality of God, as I understand it.
I agree fully with your first paragraph. Just looked up Omnipotence on Wiki, and this is the list they provide (I trust it's ok to post it here):
1 and 4 seem plausible to me.
If God cannot make 1+1=3, then God is not omnipotent. Omnipotency is a widely believed necessary quality of God, as I understand it.
I agree fully with your first paragraph. Just looked up Omnipotence on Wiki, and this is the list they provide (I trust it's ok to post it here):
QUOTE
Between people of different faiths, or indeed between people of the same faith, the term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. A deity is able to do anything that is logically possible for it to do[1].
2. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do[2].
3. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
4. Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[3]
5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan
6. A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent
1. A deity is able to do anything that is logically possible for it to do[1].
2. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do[2].
3. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
4. Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[3]
5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan
6. A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent
1 and 4 seem plausible to me.
QUOTE (MickDerry+Mar 4 2009, 03:36 PM)
1 and 4 seem plausible to me.
2 and 6 are fair definitions of the word, the others are weasel definitions by religious zealots trying to avoid the all-powerful vs all-good paradox.
You are correct, 2 and 6 are not plausible and this is borne out by my statement that if God cannot make 1+1=3 then God is not omnipotent.
2 and 6 are fair definitions of the word, the others are weasel definitions by religious zealots trying to avoid the all-powerful vs all-good paradox.
You are correct, 2 and 6 are not plausible and this is borne out by my statement that if God cannot make 1+1=3 then God is not omnipotent.
QUOTE
2 and 6 are fair definitions of the word, the others are weasel definitions by religious zealots trying to avoid the all-powerful vs all-good paradox.
I beg to differ here. 2 and 6 would more likely to be a "zealots" view, who would be scoffing that their God can do anything with his magic wand.
I'll stick to 1 and 3 as the plausible ones, because a definition of all-powerful to me would be within the confines of natural laws as we know them today and will come to know them in the future. There are non religious thinkers that support such views, such as Walter Russell, who criticized religion in the same way Einstein did, but believed that nature was the expression of God, and that there was nothing beyond.
1 + 1 = 3 could be rendered true by public opinion. All it takes is changing the meaning of the symbols and their associated words. If it became generally accepted that 1 + 1 = 3 and 1 + 1 + 1 = 2 then the meanings of the symbols would simply have been switched. The general idea never changes but the symbols could change meaninglessly at any time. That fact makes this a sticky issue, I have run into problems with it when attempting to use examples based on simple mathematics to demonstrate the absurdity of ID.
QUOTE (MickDerry+Mar 4 2009, 04:43 PM)
I beg to differ here. 2 and 6 would more likely to be a "zealots" view, who would be scoffing that their God can do anything with his magic wand.
I'll stick to 1 and 3 as the plausible ones, because a definition of all-powerful to me would be within the confines of natural laws as we know them today and will come to know them in the future. There are non religious thinkers that support such views, such as Walter Russell, who criticized religion in the same way Einstein did, but believed that nature was the expression of God, and that there was nothing beyond.
So the Supreme Being can do anything it wants to as long as it doesn't want to do something it can't?
1 and 3 are open ended and meaningless unless details are given.
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 4 2009, 04:58 PM)
So the Supreme Being can do anything it wants to as long as it doesn't want to do something it can't?
1 and 3 are open ended and meaningless unless details are given.
One issue is the personification of God. This is at the heart of theism, and apparently atheism too when it comes to contemplating. I'm more drawn to the Buddhist thinkers, who would argue the Supreme state of Being, or Nirvana:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana
Issues about this "person" God don't come into it for Buddhists generally.
Even in the event of a personification of a supreme state of being , so that others on the outside call it God, I am still of the view that the attempt to make 1+1=3 would be a highly illogical wish in such a state of being.
1 and 3 are open ended and meaningless unless details are given.
One issue is the personification of God. This is at the heart of theism, and apparently atheism too when it comes to contemplating. I'm more drawn to the Buddhist thinkers, who would argue the Supreme state of Being, or Nirvana:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana
Issues about this "person" God don't come into it for Buddhists generally.
Even in the event of a personification of a supreme state of being , so that others on the outside call it God, I am still of the view that the attempt to make 1+1=3 would be a highly illogical wish in such a state of being.
QUOTE (MickDerry+Mar 4 2009, 05:09 PM)
One issue is the personification of God. This is at the heart of theism, and apparently atheism too when it comes to contemplating. I'm more drawn to the Buddhist thinkers, who would argue the Supreme state of Being, or Nirvana:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana
Issues about this "person" God don't come into it for Buddhists generally.
Even in the event of a personification of a supreme state of being , so that others on the outside call it God, I am still of the view that the attempt to make 1+1=3 would be a highly illogical wish in such a state of being.
So you reduce God down to not being a being?
How far will you whittle away at God before you realize you have nothing left?
AFAIK Budda believed in no God.
But then again AFAIK he refused to name a successor saying everyone has to find their own way but his followers would have none of it and named a successor anyways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana
Issues about this "person" God don't come into it for Buddhists generally.
Even in the event of a personification of a supreme state of being , so that others on the outside call it God, I am still of the view that the attempt to make 1+1=3 would be a highly illogical wish in such a state of being.
So you reduce God down to not being a being?
How far will you whittle away at God before you realize you have nothing left?
AFAIK Budda believed in no God.
But then again AFAIK he refused to name a successor saying everyone has to find their own way but his followers would have none of it and named a successor anyways.
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 4 2009, 05:20 PM)
So you reduce God down to not being a being?
How far will you whittle away at God before you realize you have nothing left?
AFAIK Budda believed in no God.
But then again AFAIK he refused to name a successor saying everyone has to find their own way but his followers would have none of it and named a successor anyways.
I'm not whittling away at anything. Didn't I just mention that Buddhists don't believe in God?
The truth of the matter, from what I see is that theists and atheists are the ones really wasting their time creating this person called God. if one wants to progress in matters of mind and spiritual practices according to Buddhist approaches, it is up to them. Don't practice, don't experience. Some people say that Buddhism is close to Atheism. I can't see that personally, in terms of charachteristics of each individual.
Theists create a God so they can kneel down to it, and Atheists seem to go along with that so they can throw rotten eggs at it.
So if I believe the universe has meaning and purpose, it shouldn't be assumed I also believe there's this guy out there that can conjure up a 1+1=3. It's all philosophy isn't it. Because there's no scientific interest nor definition of this God anyway.
If you want to whittle away, have a chat with a theist.
Because there's plenty left when one drops the illusion of personifying an outside manifestation of something that can only be experienced within.
And this dropping of iconic worship is catching on this part of the world. That's why the churches are empty, but people still persue spiritual practices. Obviously atheism wasn't the only alternative.
How far will you whittle away at God before you realize you have nothing left?
AFAIK Budda believed in no God.
But then again AFAIK he refused to name a successor saying everyone has to find their own way but his followers would have none of it and named a successor anyways.
I'm not whittling away at anything. Didn't I just mention that Buddhists don't believe in God?
The truth of the matter, from what I see is that theists and atheists are the ones really wasting their time creating this person called God. if one wants to progress in matters of mind and spiritual practices according to Buddhist approaches, it is up to them. Don't practice, don't experience. Some people say that Buddhism is close to Atheism. I can't see that personally, in terms of charachteristics of each individual.
Theists create a God so they can kneel down to it, and Atheists seem to go along with that so they can throw rotten eggs at it.
So if I believe the universe has meaning and purpose, it shouldn't be assumed I also believe there's this guy out there that can conjure up a 1+1=3. It's all philosophy isn't it. Because there's no scientific interest nor definition of this God anyway.
If you want to whittle away, have a chat with a theist.
Because there's plenty left when one drops the illusion of personifying an outside manifestation of something that can only be experienced within.
And this dropping of iconic worship is catching on this part of the world. That's why the churches are empty, but people still persue spiritual practices. Obviously atheism wasn't the only alternative.
QUOTE (MickDerry+Mar 4 2009, 01:54 PM)
certain scientists that held the firm belief that mathematics did lead to the nature of God's mind.
This is approximately the opposite inference, however, from Cusa's claim.
You are saying some believe that "Maths --Leads-To-Knowledge-Of--> God" while Cusa wrote "God --Leads-To-Existence-Of--> Maths".
This is approximately the opposite inference, however, from Cusa's claim.
You are saying some believe that "Maths --Leads-To-Knowledge-Of--> God" while Cusa wrote "God --Leads-To-Existence-Of--> Maths".
QUOTE (MickDerry+Mar 4 2009, 05:58 PM)
I'm not whittling away at anything.
You whittled away the personification of God a while I go I would guess.
You whittled away 2 and 6 on the list.
You whittled away the personification of God a while I go I would guess.
You whittled away 2 and 6 on the list.
QUOTE
Do I have to believe you when you say you don't believe in God?
Do I care? No.
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 4 2009, 06:20 PM)
This is approximately the opposite inference, however, from Cusa's claim.
You are saying some believe that "Maths --Leads-To-Knowledge-Of--> God" while Cusa wrote "God --Leads-To-Existence-Of--> Maths".
CUSA would have to provide his own reasoning for his own beliefs, that's true.
It's illogical to me that God is a persona. Made out of what? If it doesn't include all the substance within the universe then there is something missing. Whereas the potential of mind as related to the universe is much more logical to me, and that would have to include mathematical principles.
Buttershug
That's true. In the event that I'm wrong about God, I would dismiss 2 and 6 for now, and still view 1 and 3 as plausible choices.
AlexG
That's true. In the event that I'm wrong about God, I would dismiss 2 and 6 for now, and still view 1 and 3 as plausible choices.
AlexG
Do I care? No.
I'm Shocked
Couldn't help this one. Who is saying that?
One is inferring from the use of the word omnipotent that anything that is that can also make 1+1=3 or else it isn't omnipotent. Furry muff (I use that expression all the time btw, you must be English).
I prefer to think that the word doesn't break from natural laws. Universal power would be where I would draw the line. Is there a universal power that can make 1+1=3?
That is the question.
You appear to say yes but then say no?
If the answer is no then there is no "God".
(And either English or North American with your mind in the gutter.)
You are saying some believe that "Maths --Leads-To-Knowledge-Of--> God" while Cusa wrote "God --Leads-To-Existence-Of--> Maths".
CUSA would have to provide his own reasoning for his own beliefs, that's true.
It's illogical to me that God is a persona. Made out of what? If it doesn't include all the substance within the universe then there is something missing. Whereas the potential of mind as related to the universe is much more logical to me, and that would have to include mathematical principles.
Buttershug
QUOTE
You whittled away the personification of God a while I go I would guess.
You whittled away 2 and 6 on the list.
You whittled away 2 and 6 on the list.
That's true. In the event that I'm wrong about God, I would dismiss 2 and 6 for now, and still view 1 and 3 as plausible choices.
AlexG
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You whittled away the personification of God a while I go I would guess. You whittled away 2 and 6 on the list. |
That's true. In the event that I'm wrong about God, I would dismiss 2 and 6 for now, and still view 1 and 3 as plausible choices.
AlexG
Do I care? No.
I'm Shocked
QUOTE (MickDerry+Mar 4 2009, 05:43 PM)
I beg to differ here. 2 and 6 would more likely to be a "zealots" view, who would be scoffing that their God can do anything with his magic wand.
Why are you relating this to God? I'm talking about what the word means, not what religious types mean when they use the word.
The word 'omnipotent' means 'all-powerful'. This is similar in meaning to 2 and 6. 1 and 3 are not representative of what the word means and are twisted so that someone can use the word omnipotent to mean something other than what omnipotent means.
You'll stick to ignorance and place arbitrary constraints on the meaning of words because you feel like it?
Furry muff.
Why are you relating this to God? I'm talking about what the word means, not what religious types mean when they use the word.
The word 'omnipotent' means 'all-powerful'. This is similar in meaning to 2 and 6. 1 and 3 are not representative of what the word means and are twisted so that someone can use the word omnipotent to mean something other than what omnipotent means.
QUOTE
I'll stick to 1 and 3 as the plausible ones, because a definition of all-powerful to me would be within the confines of natural laws as we know them today and will come to know them in the future.
You'll stick to ignorance and place arbitrary constraints on the meaning of words because you feel like it?
Furry muff.
QUOTE (MickDerry+Mar 4 2009, 12:42 PM)
It's illogical to me that God is a persona.
Then calling it "God" just confuses people, because to most of the human race the word "god" refers to a deity (i.e.- a personality) - especially when spelled with a capital G.
Then calling it "God" just confuses people, because to most of the human race the word "god" refers to a deity (i.e.- a personality) - especially when spelled with a capital G.
QUOTE (MickDerry+Mar 4 2009, 05:58 PM)
...
The truth of the matter, from what I see is that theists and atheists are the ones really wasting their time creating this person called God
Sometimes theists don't study God... atheism.... It can work both ways... Theist being indoctrinated with atheism
Benefit of Homeschooling #184:
If you discover that your kid is using textbooks that read like propaganda, the only person to blame is yourself.
The truth of the matter, from what I see is that theists and atheists are the ones really wasting their time creating this person called God
Sometimes theists don't study God... atheism.... It can work both ways... Theist being indoctrinated with atheism
Benefit of Homeschooling #184:
If you discover that your kid is using textbooks that read like propaganda, the only person to blame is yourself.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Mar 4 2009, 09:45 PM)
Sometimes theists don't study God... atheism.... It can work both ways... Theist being indoctrinated with atheism
Benefit of Homeschooling #184:
If you discover that your kid is using textbooks that read like propaganda, the only person to blame is yourself.
You should only stay unbiased untill you see evidence.
Once you see evidence then it would be biased not to go with it.
For example all evidence so far shows evolution as non-directed by an intelligence.
To not say that is to be biased. And saying it only sounds like propaganda to those that are biased before evidence.
Benefit of Homeschooling #184:
If you discover that your kid is using textbooks that read like propaganda, the only person to blame is yourself.
You should only stay unbiased untill you see evidence.
Once you see evidence then it would be biased not to go with it.
For example all evidence so far shows evolution as non-directed by an intelligence.
To not say that is to be biased. And saying it only sounds like propaganda to those that are biased before evidence.
QUOTE
Cusa-is-the-next-Einstein posts?
Couldn't help this one. Who is saying that?
QUOTE (bm1957+Mar 4 2009, 08:36 PM)
Why are you relating this to God? I'm talking about what the word means, not what religious types mean when they use the word.
The word 'omnipotent' means 'all-powerful'. This is similar in meaning to 2 and 6. 1 and 3 are not representative of what the word means and are twisted so that someone can use the word omnipotent to mean something other than what omnipotent means.
One is inferring from the use of the word omnipotent that anything that is that can also make 1+1=3 or else it isn't omnipotent. Furry muff (I use that expression all the time btw, you must be English).
I prefer to think that the word doesn't break from natural laws. Universal power would be where I would draw the line. Is there a universal power that can make 1+1=3?
The word 'omnipotent' means 'all-powerful'. This is similar in meaning to 2 and 6. 1 and 3 are not representative of what the word means and are twisted so that someone can use the word omnipotent to mean something other than what omnipotent means.
QUOTE
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipotent
All-Powerful:-Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipotent
All-Powerful:-Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
One is inferring from the use of the word omnipotent that anything that is that can also make 1+1=3 or else it isn't omnipotent. Furry muff (I use that expression all the time btw, you must be English).
I prefer to think that the word doesn't break from natural laws. Universal power would be where I would draw the line. Is there a universal power that can make 1+1=3?
QUOTE (MickDerry+Mar 4 2009, 10:42 PM)
One is inferring from the use of the word omnipotent that anything that is that can also make 1+1=3 or else it isn't omnipotent. Furry muff (I use that expression all the time btw, you must be English).
I prefer to think that the word doesn't break from natural laws. Universal power would be where I would draw the line. Is there a universal power that can make 1+1=3?
That is the question.
You appear to say yes but then say no?
If the answer is no then there is no "God".
(And either English or North American with your mind in the gutter.)
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 4 2009, 10:46 PM)
That is the question.
You appear to say yes but then say no?
If the answer is no then there is no "God".
(And either English or North American with your mind in the gutter.)
I'm saying nothing more than 1+1=3 is as illogical coming from a person that can't add up as it is to the idea of omnipotence. If there is something in this universe where 1+1=3, then it would be covered by the word. I seriously doubt there is such logic in this universe.
I don't understand that last comment of yours.
You appear to say yes but then say no?
If the answer is no then there is no "God".
(And either English or North American with your mind in the gutter.)
I'm saying nothing more than 1+1=3 is as illogical coming from a person that can't add up as it is to the idea of omnipotence. If there is something in this universe where 1+1=3, then it would be covered by the word. I seriously doubt there is such logic in this universe.
I don't understand that last comment of yours.
Alex invented that math.
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 4 2009, 10:27 PM)
You should only stay unbiased untill you see evidence.
Once you see evidence then it would be biased not to go with it.
For example all evidence so far shows evolution as non-directed by an intelligence.
To not say that is to be biased. And saying it only sounds like propaganda to those that are biased before evidence.
Bias? What do you mean by that? Everyone is biased except for God. We all have a unique worldview - how we view the world. So all atheist, truth seekers are unbias? I need to do more work and less talk. Keep on seeking His rightousness. To be as accurate as Him.
Once you see evidence then it would be biased not to go with it.
For example all evidence so far shows evolution as non-directed by an intelligence.
To not say that is to be biased. And saying it only sounds like propaganda to those that are biased before evidence.
Bias? What do you mean by that? Everyone is biased except for God. We all have a unique worldview - how we view the world. So all atheist, truth seekers are unbias? I need to do more work and less talk. Keep on seeking His rightousness. To be as accurate as Him.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Mar 4 2009, 11:09 PM)
Bias? What do you mean by that? Everyone is biased except for God. We all have a unique worldview - how we view the world. So all atheist, truth seekers are unbias? I need to do more work and less talk. Keep on seeking His rightousness. To be as accurate as Him.
I thought earlier you had said that science should be unbiased.
Maybe it was someone else.
But you should be unbiased before evidence and biased afterwards.
I would not say that all Atheists are unbiased but I suspect most unbiased truth seekers wonder about the diversity amoung those that have "found" God.
You still havn't really addressed that issue.
Seeking his rightousness will only work if he exists. And to be unbiased means to not believe one way or the other untill evidence comes in.
I thought earlier you had said that science should be unbiased.
Maybe it was someone else.
But you should be unbiased before evidence and biased afterwards.
I would not say that all Atheists are unbiased but I suspect most unbiased truth seekers wonder about the diversity amoung those that have "found" God.
You still havn't really addressed that issue.
Seeking his rightousness will only work if he exists. And to be unbiased means to not believe one way or the other untill evidence comes in.
QUOTE (MickDerry+Mar 4 2009, 11:42 PM)
One is inferring from the use of the word omnipotent that anything that is that can also make 1+1=3 or else it isn't omnipotent. Furry muff (I use that expression all the time btw, you must be English).
Yes. Omnipotency implies the ability to subvert logic in a way which is not self-contradictory, IMO.
I think that one should either believe that God can do this, or relinquish the adjective of 'omnipotent'. Using the word 'omnipotent' but with many caveats is just propaganda.
If you use that description instead of the word omnipotent, then fine. But you are no longer describing omnipotency. I don't believe there is any universal power that can make 1+1=3 (using the commonly accepted definitions and axioms), however, without universal knowledge, I cannot know this for certain!!!
Yes. Omnipotency implies the ability to subvert logic in a way which is not self-contradictory, IMO.
I think that one should either believe that God can do this, or relinquish the adjective of 'omnipotent'. Using the word 'omnipotent' but with many caveats is just propaganda.
QUOTE
I prefer to think that the word doesn't break from natural laws. Universal power would be where I would draw the line. Is there a universal power that can make 1+1=3?
If you use that description instead of the word omnipotent, then fine. But you are no longer describing omnipotency. I don't believe there is any universal power that can make 1+1=3 (using the commonly accepted definitions and axioms), however, without universal knowledge, I cannot know this for certain!!!
QUOTE (newguy+Mar 1 2009, 04:24 PM)
No, rather, I'm genuinely concerned about your mental condition. Quite frankly, I wonder if you're not schizophrenic...one minute deriding Christianity...the next minute embracing it through an alter ego.
While DuzmA seems fine with laughing this off, we frown on medical diagnoses on this board especially because we are incapable of verifying credentials as well as real M.D.s would never engage in such behavior. But your assertion also fails by the standards of Occam's razor. Even if this Bringer-of-Light was the same person as DuzmA -- a matter of apparently ancient history -- the cited inconsistent behavior is far from making a case for any mental abnormality.
While DuzmA seems fine with laughing this off, we frown on medical diagnoses on this board especially because we are incapable of verifying credentials as well as real M.D.s would never engage in such behavior. But your assertion also fails by the standards of Occam's razor. Even if this Bringer-of-Light was the same person as DuzmA -- a matter of apparently ancient history -- the cited inconsistent behavior is far from making a case for any mental abnormality.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.