It seems that we have a problem on this forum with maintaining civility in religious discussions (yes, me included). What should the ground rules be? What subjects should be taboo? What would constitute an unfair argument?
Here are some of my ideas (keep in mind that I don't claim to be unbiased):
Taboos:
Mentions of atrocities attributed to religious or a-religious groups
Defining a religious opinion as something other than what adherents would define it as. (e.g. Claiming that Atheism requires faith, which is the opposite of what Atheists is defined as. Also, Claiming that Christians believe in Xenu, which is not what Christians would claim)
Quotations of religious text presented with little or no context.
What are your thoughts?
QUOTE
What are your thoughts?
That in a religious discussion (which shouldn't be taking place on a science forum to begin with) no one is going to pay any attention to ground rules or restrictions.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 9 2009, 07:59 PM)
It seems that we have a problem on this forum with maintaining civility in religious discussions (yes, me included). What should the ground rules be? What subjects should be taboo? What would constitute an unfair argument?
Here are some of my ideas (keep in mind that I don't claim to be unbiased):
Taboos:
Mentions of atrocities attributed to religious or a-religious groups
Defining a religious opinion as something other than what adherents would define it as. (e.g. Claiming that Atheism requires faith, which is the opposite of what Atheists is defined as.
_________________________________________________________
. . .
Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
· The degree of faith a person has that God does not exist is what determines how strong an atheist that person is or is not. Without faith, a person can not be a strong atheist but instead could be a weak atheist or an agnonstic. ·
Here are some of my ideas (keep in mind that I don't claim to be unbiased):
Taboos:
Mentions of atrocities attributed to religious or a-religious groups
Defining a religious opinion as something other than what adherents would define it as. (e.g. Claiming that Atheism requires faith, which is the opposite of what Atheists is defined as.
_________________________________________________________
. . .
Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
· The degree of faith a person has that God does not exist is what determines how strong an atheist that person is or is not. Without faith, a person can not be a strong atheist but instead could be a weak atheist or an agnonstic. ·
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 9 2009, 06:29 PM)
The degree of faith a person has that God does not exist is what determines how strong an atheist that person is or is not. Without faith, a person can not be a strong atheist but instead could be a weak atheist or an agnonstic.
BZZZZZZZZTTT!!! WRONG! You used the word "faith." Please try again.
BZZZZZZZZTTT!!! WRONG! You used the word "faith." Please try again.
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 9 2009, 08:17 PM)
in a religious discussion (which shouldn't be taking place on a science forum to begin with) no one is going to pay any attention to ground rules or restrictions.
All I've ever seen you do is bitch about what's being discussed, without ever having a worthwhile thing to contribute. In keeping with that method you're now bitching about people discussing religious ideas in a forum about creation and evolution .
All I've ever seen you do is bitch about what's being discussed, without ever having a worthwhile thing to contribute. In keeping with that method you're now bitching about people discussing religious ideas in a forum about creation and evolution .
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 9 2009, 11:31 PM)
BZZZZZZZZTTT!!! WRONG! You used the word "faith." Please try again.
You've made it very clear that you're ashamed of your own faith that God does not exist. That much you have shown without question. Now the question has become: Are you ashamed of everything you have faith in, or are there any things you have faith in that you're not ashamed to admit? Can you admit you have faith that if you jump off the Earth you will return quickly to it, or do you want people to believe you don't have such faith but are really afraid you might keep going up out of the atmosphere to die in space?
You've made it very clear that you're ashamed of your own faith that God does not exist. That much you have shown without question. Now the question has become: Are you ashamed of everything you have faith in, or are there any things you have faith in that you're not ashamed to admit? Can you admit you have faith that if you jump off the Earth you will return quickly to it, or do you want people to believe you don't have such faith but are really afraid you might keep going up out of the atmosphere to die in space?
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 9 2009, 06:42 PM)
You've made it very clear that you're ashamed of your own faith that God does not exist. That much you have shown without question. Now the question has become: Are you ashamed of everything you have faith in, or are there any things you have faith in that you're not ashamed to admit? Can you admit you have faith that if you jump off the Earth you will return quickly to it, or do you want people to believe you don't have such faith but are really afraid you might keep going up out of the atmosphere to die in space?
BZZZZZZZZTTT!!! WRONG! You used the word "faith." Please try again.
Hint: Try "confidence."
BZZZZZZZZTTT!!! WRONG! You used the word "faith." Please try again.
Hint: Try "confidence."
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 9 2009, 11:48 PM)
Try "confidence."
I'm not going to encourage your dishonest denial. YOU are the one who has a problem with your own faith, and I find your problem with it to be quite amusing 
. This particular example of absurd denial always reminds me of a kid I knew who claimed that he could fly over the house if he wanted to, but he just didn't want to. Who did he think he was kidding, if anyone? Could he even believe it himself? I doubt it. Who do you think you're kidding, if anyone? Could you even believe it yourself? It's hard to believe you're truly unaware of your own faith in everything that you have faith in, or even in just this one thing.
At this point I usually wonder:
Is it overestimating you to believe you're not really so stupid that you're unaware of your own faith, but instead to believe you are aware of it and are dishonestly trying to deny it?
or:
Is it underestimating you as a person to suspect deliberate dishonesty, even though it gives you credit for being far more intelligent than you would be if you were truly unaware?
Which is it?
I'm not going to encourage your dishonest denial. YOU are the one who has a problem with your own faith, and I find your problem with it to be quite amusing . This particular example of absurd denial always reminds me of a kid I knew who claimed that he could fly over the house if he wanted to, but he just didn't want to. Who did he think he was kidding, if anyone? Could he even believe it himself? I doubt it. Who do you think you're kidding, if anyone? Could you even believe it yourself? It's hard to believe you're truly unaware of your own faith in everything that you have faith in, or even in just this one thing. At this point I usually wonder:
Is it overestimating you to believe you're not really so stupid that you're unaware of your own faith, but instead to believe you are aware of it and are dishonestly trying to deny it?
or:
Is it underestimating you as a person to suspect deliberate dishonesty, even though it gives you credit for being far more intelligent than you would be if you were truly unaware?
Which is it?
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 9 2009, 06:35 PM)
All I've ever seen you do is bitch about what's being discussed, without ever having a worthwhile thing to contribute. You mean aside from pointing out that you play fast and loose with language whenever it suits your purpose, make up your own definitions out of thin air, and have your head firmly planted up your a$$ on multiple threads, all on the same topic?
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 10 2009, 08:41 PM)
You mean aside from pointing out that you play fast and loose with language whenever it suits your purpose, make up your own definitions out of thin air
I don't accept those I consider to be unrealistic or impossible. Why would I?
I don't accept those I consider to be unrealistic or impossible. Why would I?
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 11 2009, 12:04 PM)
I don't accept those I consider to be unrealistic or impossible. Why would I?
So if a definition of a word does not support your idea, you will unilaterally change it to what you wish it to be.
So if a definition of a word does not support your idea, you will unilaterally change it to what you wish it to be.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 11 2009, 12:04 PM)
I don't accept those I consider to be unrealistic or impossible. Why would I?
If you spend all day considering the possibility that you can fly, you won't accomplish anything. The only way to know something like that is to conduct an experiment. What you are suggesting is untestable and therefore pointless.
If you spend all day considering the possibility that you can fly, you won't accomplish anything. The only way to know something like that is to conduct an experiment. What you are suggesting is untestable and therefore pointless.
my experience is that people who have been exposed to a lot of Christianity reject it vehemently because it was pushed on them so hard for so long. When they create enough freedom/distance from it for themselves they will be able to discuss it without bias. But until then their rejection is usually colored by passion instead of pure reason (i.e. dispassionate reason - i.e. reason without insistently decrying things deemed "beyond reason.")
I study religion first as a theologist, and only second as an engaged-spirit. I do not avoid engaging in spiritual exploration of religious/theological ideas - but I also do not insist on disproving them in favor of my faith in physics or anything else I do believe in.
I study religion first as a theologist, and only second as an engaged-spirit. I do not avoid engaging in spiritual exploration of religious/theological ideas - but I also do not insist on disproving them in favor of my faith in physics or anything else I do believe in.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 11 2009, 10:17 PM)
my experience is that people who have been exposed to a lot of Christianity reject it vehemently because it was pushed on them so hard for so long. When they create enough freedom/distance from it for themselves they will be able to discuss it without bias. But until then their rejection is usually colored by passion instead of pure reason (i.e. dispassionate reason - i.e. reason without insistently decrying things deemed "beyond reason.")
Or maybe you should just stop assuming everyone's reasons for rejecting your religion. Could it be that your religion just sucks?
Or maybe you should just stop assuming everyone's reasons for rejecting your religion. Could it be that your religion just sucks?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 11 2009, 10:17 PM)
my experience is that people who have been exposed to a lot of Christianity reject it vehemently because it was pushed on them so hard for so long. When they create enough freedom/distance from it for themselves they will be able to discuss it without bias. But until then their rejection is usually colored by passion instead of pure reason (i.e. dispassionate reason - i.e. reason without insistently decrying things deemed "beyond reason.")
That doesn't explain people born to secular families who vehemently reject religion, and there are many such people.
You make the same mistake that idiots always make when trying to find a cause for a social occurrence: You think there must be a single one.
Well, news flash: There's isn't. People reject religion for just as wide a variety of reasons as they accept religion. Deal with it.
That doesn't explain people born to secular families who vehemently reject religion, and there are many such people.
You make the same mistake that idiots always make when trying to find a cause for a social occurrence: You think there must be a single one.
Well, news flash: There's isn't. People reject religion for just as wide a variety of reasons as they accept religion. Deal with it.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 12 2009, 03:51 AM)
Or maybe you should just stop assuming everyone's reasons for rejecting your religion. Could it be that your religion just sucks?
Or that he's thinking of it like a social club not a belief system?
Or that he's thinking of it like a social club not a belief system?
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 11 2009, 05:09 PM)
So if a definition of a word does not support your idea, you will unilaterally change it to what you wish it to be.
If something seems impossible to me, I try not to attribute it to something I'm considering the possibility of. Since I consider it impossible for God to be an omnipotent though technologically inferior native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years, I don't attribute such things to him even if every other person on the planet wants to.
If you can't consider the possibility of God's existence in a realistic way, then you probably can't relate to what I said in regards to that particular topic. But maybe you can relate to it in regards to something you are able to consider in a realistic way, like claims people have made about the sun, or the moon, or Mars....
If something seems impossible to me, I try not to attribute it to something I'm considering the possibility of. Since I consider it impossible for God to be an omnipotent though technologically inferior native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years, I don't attribute such things to him even if every other person on the planet wants to.
If you can't consider the possibility of God's existence in a realistic way, then you probably can't relate to what I said in regards to that particular topic. But maybe you can relate to it in regards to something you are able to consider in a realistic way, like claims people have made about the sun, or the moon, or Mars....
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 11 2009, 05:10 PM)
If you spend all day considering the possibility that you can fly, you won't accomplish anything. The only way to know something like that is to conduct an experiment. What you are suggesting is untestable and therefore pointless.
There are things that have happened in my life that have led me to believe there could be something other than just chance influencing people's lives. Maybe not everyone's? If nothing has encouraged you to believe that then maybe nothing is having influence on you, or at least not any you can appreciate. In fact even if something IS you still can't appreciate it, so there it is. You can't appreciate any such things, whether they are happening or not. From there, you can go nowhere with the idea.
BTW I once knew a guy who disbelieved in God, but believed an aferlife is possible.
Later, I learned there are more people who believe that same idiocy. You're not one of those
are you?
There are things that have happened in my life that have led me to believe there could be something other than just chance influencing people's lives. Maybe not everyone's? If nothing has encouraged you to believe that then maybe nothing is having influence on you, or at least not any you can appreciate. In fact even if something IS you still can't appreciate it, so there it is
. You can't appreciate any such things, whether they are happening or not. From there, you can go nowhere with the idea.BTW I once knew a guy who disbelieved in God, but believed an aferlife is possible.
Later, I learned there are more people who believe that same idiocy. You're not one of those
are you?
nopEda
You should get together with Phillip 714, he knows some aliens, maybe he'll introduce you.
Grumpy
You should get together with Phillip 714, he knows some aliens, maybe he'll introduce you.
Grumpy
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 12 2009, 02:54 PM)
There are things that have happened in my life that have led me to believe there could be something other than just chance influencing people's lives. Maybe not everyone's? If nothing has encouraged you to believe that then maybe nothing is having influence on you, or at least not any you can appreciate. In fact even if something IS you still can't appreciate it, so there it is . You can't appreciate any such things, whether they are happening or not. From there, you can go nowhere with the idea.
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Buddhism does this. Is there a problem with that?
Buddhism does this. Is there a problem with that?
Later, I learned there are more people who believe that same idiocy. You're not one of those are you?
I would be more worried about yourself if I were you.
. You can't appreciate any such things, whether they are happening or not. From there, you can go nowhere with the idea. Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
QUOTE
BTW I once knew a guy who disbelieved in God, but believed an aferlife is possible.
Buddhism does this. Is there a problem with that?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| BTW I once knew a guy who disbelieved in God, but believed an aferlife is possible. |
Buddhism does this. Is there a problem with that?
Later, I learned there are more people who believe that same idiocy. You're not one of those are you?
I would be more worried about yourself if I were you.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 13 2009, 01:24 AM)
There are things that have happened in my life that have led me to believe there could be something other than just chance influencing people's lives.
Not surprising since your posts on this forum show that you are unable to comprehend the simplest ideas. Maybe you should drop all the 'baggage' and start from scratch.
Repeat after me..
First Analyze and then Conclude
First Analyze and then Conclude
First Analyze and then Conclude
First Analyze and then Conclude
..
..
...and not the other way round
Not surprising since your posts on this forum show that you are unable to comprehend the simplest ideas. Maybe you should drop all the 'baggage' and start from scratch.
Repeat after me..
First Analyze and then Conclude
First Analyze and then Conclude
First Analyze and then Conclude
First Analyze and then Conclude
..
..
...and not the other way round
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 12 2009, 07:54 PM)
There are things that have happened in my life that have led me to believe there could be something other than just chance influencing people's lives.
And again I point out it's not the things that have happened in your life that make you think that.
It's the COMBINATION of the things that have happened your life and a extreme ignorance of probability. Not only do you not know probability, you don't even know that you don't know.
To demonstrate your utter ignorance, how many people did you think you needed in a group in order to have a 50/50 chance of at least two people sharing a birthday.
The question is to start you on the road to realizing that you have reached the wrong conclusion to the things that have happened in your life.
And again I point out it's not the things that have happened in your life that make you think that.
It's the COMBINATION of the things that have happened your life and a extreme ignorance of probability. Not only do you not know probability, you don't even know that you don't know.
To demonstrate your utter ignorance, how many people did you think you needed in a group in order to have a 50/50 chance of at least two people sharing a birthday.
The question is to start you on the road to realizing that you have reached the wrong conclusion to the things that have happened in your life.
QUOTE (buttershug continued trying to make use of his party trick+)
To demonstrate your utter ignorance, how many people did you think you needed in a group in order to have a 50/50 chance of at least two people sharing a birthday.
You've blabbered on about that as if you have something significant to contribute with it, but as yet you've given no indication at all that there actually IS anything significant about it. For example you haven't shown how your party trick applies to the possibility of God's existence, or that of other life in the universe, or other life developed enough to broadcast information into space... If you think you've got something you should try to share it already or just shut up about it. That is unless you want to appear as a person who wishes he had something to share, and wants to pretend he does, and want to get people to believe he does even though he does not.
So far that IS how it appears.
You've blabbered on about that as if you have something significant to contribute with it, but as yet you've given no indication at all that there actually IS anything significant about it. For example you haven't shown how your party trick applies to the possibility of God's existence, or that of other life in the universe, or other life developed enough to broadcast information into space... If you think you've got something you should try to share it already or just shut up about it. That is unless you want to appear as a person who wishes he had something to share, and wants to pretend he does, and want to get people to believe he does even though he does not.
So far that IS how it appears.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 13 2009, 12:30 PM)
You've blabbered on about that as if you have something significant to contribute with it, but as yet you've given no indication at all that there actually IS anything significant about it. For example you haven't shown how your party trick applies to the possibility of God's existence, or that of other life in the universe, or other life developed enough to broadcast information into space... If you think you've got something you should try to share it already or just shut up about it. That is unless you want to appear as a person who wishes he had something to share, and wants to pretend he does, and want to get people to believe he does even though he does not.
And yet you still can't do it. Maybe it's because you have no idea how to even approach such a problem? It's no party trick. This problem is presented in many math/statistics classes.
And yet you still can't do it. Maybe it's because you have no idea how to even approach such a problem? It's no party trick. This problem is presented in many math/statistics classes.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 12 2009, 09:10 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
BTW I once knew a guy who disbelieved in God, but believed an aferlife is possible.
Buddhism does this.
Everything I've heard and read about it said it's a philosophy of life that doesn't have a belief about God and the aferlife etc. That's why there can be Hindu Buddhists and Muslim Buddhists and Christian Buddhists etc. Now you're claiming something completely different.
Everything I've heard and read about it said it's a philosophy of life that doesn't have a belief about God and the aferlife etc. That's why there can be Hindu Buddhists and Muslim Buddhists and Christian Buddhists etc. Now you're claiming something completely different.
This is incredibly stupid... Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Their afterlife takes place right here on earth. You cannot be a Christian Buddhist or a Muslim Buddhists, because both of those religions exclude reincarnation from their cosmology.
You are incredibly unimaginative, unintelligent and illogical. An afterlife without a god is an incredibly simple mental construct.
Everything I've heard and read about it said it's a philosophy of life that doesn't have a belief about God and the aferlife etc. That's why there can be Hindu Buddhists and Muslim Buddhists and Christian Buddhists etc. Now you're claiming something completely different.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
Is there a problem with that?
To think that God is impossible but life after death for humans is possible seems idiotic to me for obvious reasons. If you can figure out why then I'd like to see you try to explain it. If you can't, then that says a lot too.
To think that God is impossible but life after death for humans is possible seems idiotic to me for obvious reasons. If you can figure out why then I'd like to see you try to explain it. If you can't, then that says a lot too.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 13 2009, 05:39 PM)
It's no party trick. This problem is presented in many math/statistics classes.
It sure hasn't had any value around here yet...except maybe to change the subject and whatever value that has for anyone.
It sure hasn't had any value around here yet...except maybe to change the subject and whatever value that has for anyone.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 13 2009, 12:39 PM)
Everything I've heard and read about it said it's a philosophy of life that doesn't have a belief about God and the aferlife etc. That's why there can be Hindu Buddhists and Muslim Buddhists and Christian Buddhists etc. Now you're claiming something completely different.
This is incredibly stupid... Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Their afterlife takes place right here on earth. You cannot be a Christian Buddhist or a Muslim Buddhists, because both of those religions exclude reincarnation from their cosmology.
QUOTE
To think that God is impossible but life after death for humans is possible seems idiotic to me for obvious reasons. If you can figure out why then I'd like to see you try to explain it. If you can't, then that says a lot too.
You are incredibly unimaginative, unintelligent and illogical. An afterlife without a god is an incredibly simple mental construct.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 13 2009, 12:39 PM)
Everything I've heard and read about it said it's a philosophy of life that doesn't have a belief about God and the aferlife etc. That's why there can be Hindu Buddhists and Muslim Buddhists and Christian Buddhists etc. Now you're claiming something completely different.
To think that God is impossible but life after death for humans is possible seems idiotic to me for obvious reasons. If you can figure out why then I'd like to see you try to explain it. If you can't, then that says a lot too.
So I'm guessing that you've never heard of reincarnation? Not all Buddhists believe in it, but that is a "type" of afterlife hypothesis.
To think that God is impossible but life after death for humans is possible seems idiotic to me for obvious reasons. If you can figure out why then I'd like to see you try to explain it. If you can't, then that says a lot too.
So I'm guessing that you've never heard of reincarnation? Not all Buddhists believe in it, but that is a "type" of afterlife hypothesis.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 13 2009, 05:44 PM)
This is incredibly stupid... Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Their afterlife takes place right here on earth. You cannot be a Christian Buddhist or a Muslim Buddhists, because both of those religions exclude reincarnation from their cosmology.
You are incredibly unimaginative, unintelligent and illogical. An afterlife without a god is an incredibly simple mental construct.
Some do. But that's not what Buddha taught.
Buhhah said he was an ordinary man.
He also refused to name a successor because everyone has to find their own way but that didn't stop his"followers" from ignoring him and appointing one themselves.
You are incredibly unimaginative, unintelligent and illogical. An afterlife without a god is an incredibly simple mental construct.
Some do. But that's not what Buddha taught.
Buhhah said he was an ordinary man.
He also refused to name a successor because everyone has to find their own way but that didn't stop his"followers" from ignoring him and appointing one themselves.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 13 2009, 05:30 PM)
QUOTE (buttershug continued trying to make use of his party trick+)
To demonstrate your utter ignorance, how many people did you think you needed in a group in order to have a 50/50 chance of at least two people sharing a birthday.
You've blabbered on about that as if you have something significant to contribute with it, but as yet you've given no indication at all that there actually IS anything significant about it. For example you haven't shown how your party trick applies to the possibility of God's existence, or that of other life in the universe, or other life developed enough to broadcast information into space... If you think you've got something you should try to share it already or just shut up about it. That is unless you want to appear as a person who wishes he had something to share, and wants to pretend he does, and want to get people to believe he does even though he does not.
So far that IS how it appears.
Does being able to walk apply to being able to run?
What makes you think that if you can't do the simple stuff you can handle the complicated stuff?
Do you understand how adding applys to mulitplication?
IT's a party trick that shows people's incompetance at understanding probability.
The question I ask is a simple. The one you think you can ask is a complicated one.
You don't understand Buddhism very well.
Buddhists believe in samsara. Samsara is the cycle of rebirth. We are all born over and over again. This is due to evil.
Buddhists believe that you can make yourself better(in the extreme long term sense)
An afterlife of sorts does exist, and both a negative and positive afterlife exist(heaven and hell so to speak).
Viewing reincarnation as the Buddhist concept of an afterlife is hugely in error. Also, saying that Christianity or Islam explicitly forbids a Buddhist type re-incarnation is a bit craggy too.
Neither Jesus or Muhammed ever said "There is no reincarnation" as far as I know.
You've blabbered on about that as if you have something significant to contribute with it, but as yet you've given no indication at all that there actually IS anything significant about it. For example you haven't shown how your party trick applies to the possibility of God's existence, or that of other life in the universe, or other life developed enough to broadcast information into space... If you think you've got something you should try to share it already or just shut up about it. That is unless you want to appear as a person who wishes he had something to share, and wants to pretend he does, and want to get people to believe he does even though he does not.
So far that IS how it appears.
Does being able to walk apply to being able to run?
What makes you think that if you can't do the simple stuff you can handle the complicated stuff?
Do you understand how adding applys to mulitplication?
IT's a party trick that shows people's incompetance at understanding probability.
The question I ask is a simple. The one you think you can ask is a complicated one.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 13 2009, 05:44 PM)
This is incredibly stupid... Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Their afterlife takes place right here on earth. You cannot be a Christian Buddhist or a Muslim Buddhists, because both of those religions exclude reincarnation from their cosmology.
You are incredibly unimaginative, unintelligent and illogical. An afterlife without a god is an incredibly simple mental construct.
Although you insist on labeling ideas "stupid," you raise a valid issue of afterlife-belief versus reincarnation. In my study of Christianity, I have found that the teachings are not in conflict with reincarnation beliefs. Christianity offers a path to an "eternal life" which may be heavenly, when one accepts the inevitability of sin and the redemption to be found in realizing one's sins and acting to redeem oneself through resisting sin and acting in good faith toward others and oneself; or one's eternal life can be hellish, if one continues down the path of sin and darkness, (self)deceit, manipulation through temptation and seduction, etc. "Heaven" and "Hell" need not be interpreted as states of afterlife. They can be understood as states a living spirit experiences during an "eternal life," the belief in which does not distinguish between life and afterlife as the result of reincarnation or some other form of "rebirth." In other words, heaven and hell can be meaningful concepts whether you imagine them occurring as part of this life, the next, or as an afterlife that doesn't involve reincarnation.
The stories of the bible can be interpreted as physical laws of spirit instead of as legal guidelines for judgement. Many people I talk with look at sin and hell as abstract rules where God is a judge/jury who sentences you to hell for your sins. You can also look at bible stories as warnings from God of inevitable consequences for actions. In other words, God doesn't punish you for sin; sins themselves result in suffering, which inevitably result in suffering for the sinner. This is the same concept as karma, where one is inevitably subject to the consequences of one's actions through being reincarnated into another body or simply finding oneself in a position of receiving actions that one has committed in the past. I might have stolen something as a child and when something gets stolen from me as an old man, I have come to occupy the position of the old man I stole something from as a kid. This is the law of karma, but it may also be a form of "hell" in Christianity, in the sense that ones bad actions condemn one to experiencing their consequences at a later time.
So I think that if you study these religions with an open mind you will discover commonalities despite differences. They are only as compatible or incompatible as their interpretations at a given juncture.
You are incredibly unimaginative, unintelligent and illogical. An afterlife without a god is an incredibly simple mental construct.
Although you insist on labeling ideas "stupid," you raise a valid issue of afterlife-belief versus reincarnation. In my study of Christianity, I have found that the teachings are not in conflict with reincarnation beliefs. Christianity offers a path to an "eternal life" which may be heavenly, when one accepts the inevitability of sin and the redemption to be found in realizing one's sins and acting to redeem oneself through resisting sin and acting in good faith toward others and oneself; or one's eternal life can be hellish, if one continues down the path of sin and darkness, (self)deceit, manipulation through temptation and seduction, etc. "Heaven" and "Hell" need not be interpreted as states of afterlife. They can be understood as states a living spirit experiences during an "eternal life," the belief in which does not distinguish between life and afterlife as the result of reincarnation or some other form of "rebirth." In other words, heaven and hell can be meaningful concepts whether you imagine them occurring as part of this life, the next, or as an afterlife that doesn't involve reincarnation.
The stories of the bible can be interpreted as physical laws of spirit instead of as legal guidelines for judgement. Many people I talk with look at sin and hell as abstract rules where God is a judge/jury who sentences you to hell for your sins. You can also look at bible stories as warnings from God of inevitable consequences for actions. In other words, God doesn't punish you for sin; sins themselves result in suffering, which inevitably result in suffering for the sinner. This is the same concept as karma, where one is inevitably subject to the consequences of one's actions through being reincarnated into another body or simply finding oneself in a position of receiving actions that one has committed in the past. I might have stolen something as a child and when something gets stolen from me as an old man, I have come to occupy the position of the old man I stole something from as a kid. This is the law of karma, but it may also be a form of "hell" in Christianity, in the sense that ones bad actions condemn one to experiencing their consequences at a later time.
So I think that if you study these religions with an open mind you will discover commonalities despite differences. They are only as compatible or incompatible as their interpretations at a given juncture.
Troll.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 13 2009, 05:36 PM)
Although you insist on labeling ideas "stupid," you raise a valid issue of afterlife-belief versus reincarnation. In my study of Christianity, I have found that the teachings are not in conflict with reincarnation beliefs.
Then your 'studies' are ridiculously worthless.
The fact that you even speak of heaven and hell lets me know just how incomplete your knowledge of Christianity is. The afterlife options according to Jesus aren't heaven and hell, but life and death.
Then your 'studies' are ridiculously worthless.
QUOTE
"Heaven" and "Hell" need not be interpreted as states of afterlife.
The fact that you even speak of heaven and hell lets me know just how incomplete your knowledge of Christianity is. The afterlife options according to Jesus aren't heaven and hell, but life and death.
QUOTE
This is incredibly stupid... Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Their afterlife takes place right here on earth. You cannot be a Christian Buddhist or a Muslim Buddhists, because both of those religions exclude reincarnation from their cosmology.
You don't understand Buddhism very well.
Buddhists believe in samsara. Samsara is the cycle of rebirth. We are all born over and over again. This is due to evil.
Buddhists believe that you can make yourself better(in the extreme long term sense)
An afterlife of sorts does exist, and both a negative and positive afterlife exist(heaven and hell so to speak).
Viewing reincarnation as the Buddhist concept of an afterlife is hugely in error. Also, saying that Christianity or Islam explicitly forbids a Buddhist type re-incarnation is a bit craggy too.
Neither Jesus or Muhammed ever said "There is no reincarnation" as far as I know.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 13 2009, 07:17 PM)
Viewing reincarnation as the Buddhist concept of an afterlife is hugely in error.
I must disagree.
Afterlife = life after death
Buddhists believe that there is a life AFTER death, but they also believe that there is an intermediate period where you live again.
Don't think it is a convincing argument?
Do we tell someone who has been resuscitated from a clinical death that they are living in the "after-life"? Why not, it is technically after their death?
The point is, afterlife implies an existence AFTER life. They don't believe that reincarnation takes them to a different state of existence. They believe that they stay in the SAME state of existence. The afterlife comes when they enter a DIFFERENT state of existence after their lives.
Afterlife = life after death
Buddhists believe that there is a life AFTER death, but they also believe that there is an intermediate period where you live again.
Don't think it is a convincing argument?
Do we tell someone who has been resuscitated from a clinical death that they are living in the "after-life"? Why not, it is technically after their death?
The point is, afterlife implies an existence AFTER life. They don't believe that reincarnation takes them to a different state of existence. They believe that they stay in the SAME state of existence. The afterlife comes when they enter a DIFFERENT state of existence after their lives.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 13 2009, 07:44 PM)
I must disagree.
Afterlife = life after death
Buddhists believe that there is a life AFTER death, but they also believe that there is an intermediate period where you live again.
Don't think it is a convincing argument?
Do we tell someone who has been resuscitated from a clinical death that they are living in the "after-life"? Why not, it is technically after their death?
The point is, afterlife implies an existence AFTER life. They don't believe that reincarnation takes them to a different state of existence. They believe that they stay in the SAME state of existence. The afterlife comes when they enter a DIFFERENT state of existence after their lives.
Wow, you seem to be really looking for an argument.
What word would you use to describe both reincarnation and other Western ideas of heaven/hell?
That word.
Afterlife = life after death
Buddhists believe that there is a life AFTER death, but they also believe that there is an intermediate period where you live again.
Don't think it is a convincing argument?
Do we tell someone who has been resuscitated from a clinical death that they are living in the "after-life"? Why not, it is technically after their death?
The point is, afterlife implies an existence AFTER life. They don't believe that reincarnation takes them to a different state of existence. They believe that they stay in the SAME state of existence. The afterlife comes when they enter a DIFFERENT state of existence after their lives.
Wow, you seem to be really looking for an argument.
What word would you use to describe both reincarnation and other Western ideas of heaven/hell?
That word.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 13 2009, 07:17 PM)
You don't understand Buddhism very well.
...
An afterlife of sorts does exist, and both a negative and positive afterlife exist(heaven and hell so to speak).
Jesus fuсking christ, what's wrong with you? You're going to tell me I'm wrong, then rephrase the same damn claim I just made? Pull your head out of your aѕѕ and pay attention, dumbass.
This is where you get really stupid. Not only do you tell me I'm wrong, then repeat what I've said, you then go on to explicitly state that the position we've both taken is "hugely in error." You're contradicting yourself, dumbass.
This is where you get really stupid. Not only do you tell me I'm wrong, then repeat what I've said, you then go on to explicitly state that the position we've both taken is "hugely in error." You're contradicting yourself, dumbass.
Also, saying that Christianity or Islam explicitly forbids a Buddhist type re-incarnation is a bit craggy too.
Do you even know what the word "excluded" means? I didn't say that Christianity or Islam explicitly forbids anything. I said that it was excluded from their cosmology.
If you can't comprehend the difference or understand why it's exclusion is a major factor, I'm not going to explain it to you.
I wouldn't use one word to describe both of them. They are intrinsically different concepts.
What one word would you use to describe a broken arm and ovarian cancer?
The point I was making is that Buddhists(at least some Buddhists) still believe in a higher state of existence than this existence which we are all currently experiencing. Comparing heaven/hell to reincarnation is a bit confusing. There is nothing in the doctrine of reincarnation that prevents heaven and hell from existing.
I wouldn't use one word to describe both of them. They are intrinsically different concepts.
What one word would you use to describe a broken arm and ovarian cancer?
The point I was making is that Buddhists(at least some Buddhists) still believe in a higher state of existence than this existence which we are all currently experiencing. Comparing heaven/hell to reincarnation is a bit confusing. There is nothing in the doctrine of reincarnation that prevents heaven and hell from existing.
Wow, you seem to be really looking for an argument.
Hello, I am Puck
I don't believe we have met
...
An afterlife of sorts does exist, and both a negative and positive afterlife exist(heaven and hell so to speak).
Jesus fuсking christ, what's wrong with you? You're going to tell me I'm wrong, then rephrase the same damn claim I just made? Pull your head out of your aѕѕ and pay attention, dumbass.
QUOTE
Viewing reincarnation as the Buddhist concept of an afterlife is hugely in error.
This is where you get really stupid. Not only do you tell me I'm wrong, then repeat what I've said, you then go on to explicitly state that the position we've both taken is "hugely in error." You're contradicting yourself, dumbass.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Viewing reincarnation as the Buddhist concept of an afterlife is hugely in error. |
This is where you get really stupid. Not only do you tell me I'm wrong, then repeat what I've said, you then go on to explicitly state that the position we've both taken is "hugely in error." You're contradicting yourself, dumbass.
Also, saying that Christianity or Islam explicitly forbids a Buddhist type re-incarnation is a bit craggy too.
Do you even know what the word "excluded" means? I didn't say that Christianity or Islam explicitly forbids anything. I said that it was excluded from their cosmology.
If you can't comprehend the difference or understand why it's exclusion is a major factor, I'm not going to explain it to you.
QUOTE
What word would you use to describe both reincarnation and other Western ideas of heaven/hell?
That word.
That word.
I wouldn't use one word to describe both of them. They are intrinsically different concepts.
What one word would you use to describe a broken arm and ovarian cancer?
The point I was making is that Buddhists(at least some Buddhists) still believe in a higher state of existence than this existence which we are all currently experiencing. Comparing heaven/hell to reincarnation is a bit confusing. There is nothing in the doctrine of reincarnation that prevents heaven and hell from existing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What word would you use to describe both reincarnation and other Western ideas of heaven/hell? That word. |
I wouldn't use one word to describe both of them. They are intrinsically different concepts.
What one word would you use to describe a broken arm and ovarian cancer?
The point I was making is that Buddhists(at least some Buddhists) still believe in a higher state of existence than this existence which we are all currently experiencing. Comparing heaven/hell to reincarnation is a bit confusing. There is nothing in the doctrine of reincarnation that prevents heaven and hell from existing.
Wow, you seem to be really looking for an argument.
Hello, I am Puck
I don't believe we have met
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 13 2009, 07:55 PM)
I wouldn't use one word to describe both of them. They are intrinsically different concepts.
What one word would you use to describe a broken arm and ovarian cancer?
Not in good health.
Afterlife pretty clearly means that there is something, instead of nothing after death.
As an atheist, I don't believe in anything after death because I don't believe in an afterlife. At the same time, I can't accept reincarnation (as nice as it would be if it were true) because it's just another form of existence after death.
That said, if I could pick from any religion's idea of existence after death, I would probably choose Buddhism's concept of reincarnation over the Judeo-Christian heaven any day.
What one word would you use to describe a broken arm and ovarian cancer?
Not in good health.
QUOTE
The point I was making is that Buddhists(at least some Buddhists) still believe in a higher state of existence than this existence which we are all currently experiencing. Comparing heaven/hell to reincarnation is a bit confusing. There is nothing in the doctrine of reincarnation that prevents heaven and hell from existing.
Afterlife pretty clearly means that there is something, instead of nothing after death.
As an atheist, I don't believe in anything after death because I don't believe in an afterlife. At the same time, I can't accept reincarnation (as nice as it would be if it were true) because it's just another form of existence after death.
That said, if I could pick from any religion's idea of existence after death, I would probably choose Buddhism's concept of reincarnation over the Judeo-Christian heaven any day.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 13 2009, 07:55 PM)
I wouldn't use one word to describe both of them. They are intrinsically different concepts.
What one word would you use to describe a broken arm and ovarian cancer?
"Illness."
Straw man #1. I never said that all Buddhists believe any one specific thing, Nor did I claim that all rebirths happen on this material plane. Although I admit that my phrasing could be seen as implying such, I was merely making a generalization.
Straw man #1. I never said that all Buddhists believe any one specific thing, Nor did I claim that all rebirths happen on this material plane. Although I admit that my phrasing could be seen as implying such, I was merely making a generalization.
There is nothing in the doctrine of reincarnation that prevents heaven and hell from existing.
Straw man #2. I never said that Buddhism prohibits heaven or hell or any other plain of existence.
What one word would you use to describe a broken arm and ovarian cancer?
"Illness."
QUOTE
The point I was making is that Buddhists(at least some Buddhists) still believe in a higher state of existence than this existence which we are all currently experiencing.
Straw man #1. I never said that all Buddhists believe any one specific thing, Nor did I claim that all rebirths happen on this material plane. Although I admit that my phrasing could be seen as implying such, I was merely making a generalization.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The point I was making is that Buddhists(at least some Buddhists) still believe in a higher state of existence than this existence which we are all currently experiencing. |
Straw man #1. I never said that all Buddhists believe any one specific thing, Nor did I claim that all rebirths happen on this material plane. Although I admit that my phrasing could be seen as implying such, I was merely making a generalization.
There is nothing in the doctrine of reincarnation that prevents heaven and hell from existing.
Straw man #2. I never said that Buddhism prohibits heaven or hell or any other plain of existence.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Straw man #2. I never said that Buddhism prohibits heaven or hell or any other plain of existence.
But you said
But you said
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
This is incredibly stupid... Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Their afterlife takes place right here on earth
Buddhists believe you can reach a deity-level of enlightenment(Deva), which exists above and beyond this current world and this current existence.
So their "afterlife" occurs beyond this earth.
Their current lives occur on this earth
Its ok, we will teach you about other religions.
P.S.
Illness describes a broken arm?
illness=disease. A broken arm is not a disease.
Buddhists believe you can reach a deity-level of enlightenment(Deva), which exists above and beyond this current world and this current existence.
So their "afterlife" occurs beyond this earth.
Their current lives occur on this earth
Its ok, we will teach you about other religions.
P.S.
Illness describes a broken arm?
illness=disease. A broken arm is not a disease.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 13 2009, 09:45 PM)
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Straw man #2. I never said that Buddhism prohibits heaven or hell or any other plain of existence.
But you said
But you said
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
This is incredibly stupid... Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Their afterlife takes place right here on earth
Buddhists believe you can reach a deity-level of enlightenment(Deva), which exists above and beyond this current world and this current existence.
So their "afterlife" occurs beyond this earth.
Their current lives occur on this earth
Ahh, so every rebirth happens on a higher plane? And here I was under the impression that most happen on this plane... Silly me...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IllnessIllness (sometimes referred to as ill-health or ail) can be defined as a state of poor health.
...
Sometimes the term is used broadly to include injuries, disabilities, syndromes, infections, symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts these may be considered distinguishable categories.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender...14&blobtype=pdf
I suppose a person with a broken arm or ovarian cancer is in good heath?
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender...21&blobtype=pdf
This paper uses "illness" in a method not synonymous with "disease".
Buddhists believe you can reach a deity-level of enlightenment(Deva), which exists above and beyond this current world and this current existence.
So their "afterlife" occurs beyond this earth.
Their current lives occur on this earth
Ahh, so every rebirth happens on a higher plane? And here I was under the impression that most happen on this plane... Silly me...
QUOTE
P.S. Illness describes a broken arm? illness=disease. A broken arm is not a disease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illness
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| P.S. Illness describes a broken arm? illness=disease. A broken arm is not a disease. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IllnessIllness (sometimes referred to as ill-health or ail) can be defined as a state of poor health.
...
Sometimes the term is used broadly to include injuries, disabilities, syndromes, infections, symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts these may be considered distinguishable categories.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender...14&blobtype=pdf
QUOTE
Subjectively experienced phenomena are "illnesses", which, according to Jennings, are the opposite of "health".
I suppose a person with a broken arm or ovarian cancer is in good heath?
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender...21&blobtype=pdf
This paper uses "illness" in a method not synonymous with "disease".
Ok, just find me a mention of a broken arm as illness...
Still struggling with your ignorance of Buddhism?
Don't worry, Christians are typically woefully ignorant of other religions.
Still struggling with your ignorance of Buddhism?
Don't worry, Christians are typically woefully ignorant of other religions.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 13 2009, 10:04 PM)
Ok, just find me a mention of a broken arm as illness...
Still struggling with your ignorance of Buddhism?
Don't worry, Christians are typically woefully ignorant of other religions.
Dude, just stop. You're beating a dead horse.
Still struggling with your ignorance of Buddhism?
Don't worry, Christians are typically woefully ignorant of other religions.
Dude, just stop. You're beating a dead horse.
Of course I am beating a dead horse. What kind of immoral *** would beat a live horse?
Dont worry, I am just warming up.
This is what I do though. I just am a bit rusty.
Oh...and not nearly drunk enough
Dont worry, I am just warming up.
This is what I do though. I just am a bit rusty.
Oh...and not nearly drunk enough
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 13 2009, 10:12 PM)
Oh...and not nearly drunk enough
I think I might have to start.
I think I might have to start.
I just have a couple of requirements. Always declare the level of your intoxication. I feel it is only fair.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 13 2009, 10:04 PM)
Ok, just find me a mention of a broken arm as illness...
A couple of doctors writing about it in peer-reviewed journals isn't good enough for you?
That's really pathetic...
You think I'm a Christian?
You just get funnier with each post!!!
A couple of doctors writing about it in peer-reviewed journals isn't good enough for you?
That's really pathetic...
QUOTE
Still struggling with your ignorance of Buddhism?
Don't worry, Christians are typically woefully ignorant of other religions.
Don't worry, Christians are typically woefully ignorant of other religions.
You think I'm a Christian?
You just get funnier with each post!!!
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 13 2009, 05:44 PM)
This is incredibly stupid... Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Their afterlife takes place right here on earth. You cannot be a Christian Buddhist or a Muslim Buddhists, because both of those religions exclude reincarnation from their cosmology.
_________________________________________________________
This the part of my site is for those concerned about the similarities and differences between Christianity and Buddhism.
I am a Christian Buddhist and others who use this page might identify themselves the same or perhaps as Buddhist Christians, Unitarian Universalists, spiritualists, seekers, non-sectarian, New-Agers, or just open minded people on an undefined spiritual path.
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/6198...anbuddhist.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
This the part of my site is for those concerned about the similarities and differences between Christianity and Buddhism.
I am a Christian Buddhist and others who use this page might identify themselves the same or perhaps as Buddhist Christians, Unitarian Universalists, spiritualists, seekers, non-sectarian, New-Agers, or just open minded people on an undefined spiritual path.
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/6198...anbuddhist.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
To think that God is impossible but life after death for humans is possible seems idiotic to me for obvious reasons. If you can figure out why then I'd like to see you try to explain it. If you can't, then that says a lot too.
Im sorry, did I miss something?
I clicked on those links...and I didn't find any reference to fractured bones.
Also, even Wikipedia said
"Sometimes the term is used broadly to include injuries, disabilities, syndromes, infections, symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts these may be considered distinguishable categories."
Sometimes, it is BROADLY used. It doesn't mean that it is the appropriate usage of the term.
The M18 Hellcat is sometimes called a tank. It isn't a tank, but it is sometimes called a tank and generally resembles a tank
Im sorry, did I miss something?
I clicked on those links...and I didn't find any reference to fractured bones.
Also, even Wikipedia said
"Sometimes the term is used broadly to include injuries, disabilities, syndromes, infections, symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts these may be considered distinguishable categories."
Sometimes, it is BROADLY used. It doesn't mean that it is the appropriate usage of the term.
The M18 Hellcat is sometimes called a tank. It isn't a tank, but it is sometimes called a tank and generally resembles a tank
You think I'm a Christian?
laugh.gif laugh.gif
You just get funnier with each post!!!
If you think you are an atheist, you are one of the most woefully uneducated atheists I have ever met.
You are incredibly unimaginative, unintelligent and illogical. An afterlife without a god is an incredibly simple mental construct.
Try explaining how there could be afterlife for humans if it's impossible for God to exist. Even if you explain how there can be life after death without God having anything to do with it, you still need to explain how it would be impossible for God to exist. I predict you will fail completely, but would like to see you try.
Try explaining how there could be afterlife for humans if it's impossible for God to exist. Even if you explain how there can be life after death without God having anything to do with it, you still need to explain how it would be impossible for God to exist. I predict you will fail completely, but would like to see you try.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 13 2009, 11:49 PM)
The fact that you even speak of heaven and hell lets me know just how incomplete your knowledge of Christianity is. The afterlife options according to Jesus aren't heaven and hell, but life and death.
Revelation 20
13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.
14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.
15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Revelation 20
13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.
14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.
15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
QUOTE
A couple of doctors writing about it in peer-reviewed journals isn't good enough for you? laugh.gif laugh.gif
That's really pathetic...
That's really pathetic...
Im sorry, did I miss something?
I clicked on those links...and I didn't find any reference to fractured bones.
Also, even Wikipedia said
"Sometimes the term is used broadly to include injuries, disabilities, syndromes, infections, symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts these may be considered distinguishable categories."
Sometimes, it is BROADLY used. It doesn't mean that it is the appropriate usage of the term.
The M18 Hellcat is sometimes called a tank. It isn't a tank, but it is sometimes called a tank and generally resembles a tank
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A couple of doctors writing about it in peer-reviewed journals isn't good enough for you? laugh.gif laugh.gif That's really pathetic... |
Im sorry, did I miss something?
I clicked on those links...and I didn't find any reference to fractured bones.
Also, even Wikipedia said
"Sometimes the term is used broadly to include injuries, disabilities, syndromes, infections, symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts these may be considered distinguishable categories."
Sometimes, it is BROADLY used. It doesn't mean that it is the appropriate usage of the term.
The M18 Hellcat is sometimes called a tank. It isn't a tank, but it is sometimes called a tank and generally resembles a tank
You think I'm a Christian?
laugh.gif laugh.gif
You just get funnier with each post!!!
If you think you are an atheist, you are one of the most woefully uneducated atheists I have ever met.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 14 2009, 06:32 PM)
Im sorry, did I miss something?
I clicked on those links...and I didn't find any reference to fractured bones.
Yes. You missed the bright blue quote I provided you.
Are you saying that the pain and lack of mobility of a broken arm isn't a "subjectively experienced phenomenon"? Or that a person with a broken arm has good health?
Are you saying that the pain and lack of mobility of a broken arm isn't a "subjectively experienced phenomenon"? Or that a person with a broken arm has good health?
Also, even Wikipedia said "Sometimes the term is used broadly to include injuries, disabilities, syndromes, infections, symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts these may be considered distinguishable categories." Sometimes, it is BROADLY used. It doesn't mean that it is the appropriate usage of the term.
Who said anything about strict, technical meanings?
Sometimes the term is used to describe injuries. It has no strict, technical definition. Therefore, I can validly use it to describe injuries.
What part of that do you not understand?
Not to mention the fact that your original argument was a weak analogy (which is a fallacy, by the way), and even if it wasn't, is easily defeated by the terms "Medical issue," "Physiological abnormality," "Health Problem," and a whole host of others.
There is a huge difference between misusing a term and using a term in it's broadest sense. There is a strict, technical definition of a tank, which basically boils down to: A heavily armored and versatile fighting vehicle which functions as a mobile hardened fighting position.
There is a huge difference between misusing a term and using a term in it's broadest sense. There is a strict, technical definition of a tank, which basically boils down to: A heavily armored and versatile fighting vehicle which functions as a mobile hardened fighting position.
If you think you are an atheist, you are one of the most woefully uneducated atheists I have ever met.
Quoth the man who implies that all rebirths in Buddhism happen on a higher plane of existence.
Quoth the man who can't argue a point without resorting to fallacy after fallacy.
Quoth the man who claims to be an expert in all things alcohol, yet didn't know that the watering down of wine was a common occurrence in historic Israel.
Quoth the man who apparently doesn't understand that there are more options than "Christian" or "Atheist". (Or is dishonest enough to present a false dilemma, perhaps?)
Quoth the man who commonly attempts to debate others on philosophical matters, yet doesn't know the definition of a "straw man fallacy" or a "tautology".
I may, in fact be poorly educated, but in the last few days, I've proven several times over that I'm better educated than you.
I clicked on those links...and I didn't find any reference to fractured bones.
Yes. You missed the bright blue quote I provided you.
QUOTE
Subjectively experienced phenomena are "illnesses", which, according to Jennings, are the opposite of "health".
Are you saying that the pain and lack of mobility of a broken arm isn't a "subjectively experienced phenomenon"? Or that a person with a broken arm has good health?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Subjectively experienced phenomena are "illnesses", which, according to Jennings, are the opposite of "health". |
Are you saying that the pain and lack of mobility of a broken arm isn't a "subjectively experienced phenomenon"? Or that a person with a broken arm has good health?
Also, even Wikipedia said "Sometimes the term is used broadly to include injuries, disabilities, syndromes, infections, symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts these may be considered distinguishable categories." Sometimes, it is BROADLY used. It doesn't mean that it is the appropriate usage of the term.
Who said anything about strict, technical meanings?
Sometimes the term is used to describe injuries. It has no strict, technical definition. Therefore, I can validly use it to describe injuries.
What part of that do you not understand?
Not to mention the fact that your original argument was a weak analogy (which is a fallacy, by the way), and even if it wasn't, is easily defeated by the terms "Medical issue," "Physiological abnormality," "Health Problem," and a whole host of others.
QUOTE
The M18 Hellcat is sometimes called a tank. It isn't a tank, but it is sometimes called a tank and generally resembles a tank
There is a huge difference between misusing a term and using a term in it's broadest sense. There is a strict, technical definition of a tank, which basically boils down to: A heavily armored and versatile fighting vehicle which functions as a mobile hardened fighting position.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The M18 Hellcat is sometimes called a tank. It isn't a tank, but it is sometimes called a tank and generally resembles a tank |
There is a huge difference between misusing a term and using a term in it's broadest sense. There is a strict, technical definition of a tank, which basically boils down to: A heavily armored and versatile fighting vehicle which functions as a mobile hardened fighting position.
If you think you are an atheist, you are one of the most woefully uneducated atheists I have ever met.
Quoth the man who implies that all rebirths in Buddhism happen on a higher plane of existence.
Quoth the man who can't argue a point without resorting to fallacy after fallacy.
Quoth the man who claims to be an expert in all things alcohol, yet didn't know that the watering down of wine was a common occurrence in historic Israel.
Quoth the man who apparently doesn't understand that there are more options than "Christian" or "Atheist". (Or is dishonest enough to present a false dilemma, perhaps?)
Quoth the man who commonly attempts to debate others on philosophical matters, yet doesn't know the definition of a "straw man fallacy" or a "tautology".
I may, in fact be poorly educated, but in the last few days, I've proven several times over that I'm better educated than you.
Ummm...what are we discussing?
I think I just took a shot at your misunderstanding of Buddhism.
I don't think we were having a formal debate. You keep mentioning fallacies, which must make you a riot during dinner conversation.
I can see it now, you sitting at a table shouting "fallacy" "fallacy"
You are trying to say that you have proven that you are more knowledgeable, not better educated. If you were proving that you were better educated, I would need to see some academic credentials.
I think I just took a shot at your misunderstanding of Buddhism.
I don't think we were having a formal debate. You keep mentioning fallacies, which must make you a riot during dinner conversation.
I can see it now, you sitting at a table shouting "fallacy" "fallacy"
QUOTE
I may, in fact be poorly educated, but in the last few days, I've proven several times over that I'm better educated than you.
You are trying to say that you have proven that you are more knowledgeable, not better educated. If you were proving that you were better educated, I would need to see some academic credentials.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 14 2009, 07:14 PM)
Try explaining how there could be afterlife for humans if it's impossible for God to exist. Even if you explain how there can be life after death without God having anything to do with it, you still need to explain how it would be impossible for God to exist. I predict you will fail completely, but would like to see you try.
You should look up the theory of "eternal return" derived from classical Greek philosophy and popularized by more contemporary Nietzche and his followers. The principle relates the probability of reincarnation to the postulate that time is infinity whereas the number of possible configurations of matter and energy in the universe are finite. Therefore it is hypothesized that the same configurations, events, etc. will repeat eventually, even if it takes a long long time. They say that this means that your soul or body or whatever will eventually repeat, possibly multiple times in slightly varied configurations.
I'm not explaining this very well, but it's interesting enough to deserve googling, and it might get you deeper into your exploration of the possibility of life after death without God being involved.
You should look up the theory of "eternal return" derived from classical Greek philosophy and popularized by more contemporary Nietzche and his followers. The principle relates the probability of reincarnation to the postulate that time is infinity whereas the number of possible configurations of matter and energy in the universe are finite. Therefore it is hypothesized that the same configurations, events, etc. will repeat eventually, even if it takes a long long time. They say that this means that your soul or body or whatever will eventually repeat, possibly multiple times in slightly varied configurations.
I'm not explaining this very well, but it's interesting enough to deserve googling, and it might get you deeper into your exploration of the possibility of life after death without God being involved.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 15 2009, 07:43 PM)
You should look up the theory of "eternal return" derived from classical Greek philosophy and popularized by more contemporary Nietzche and his followers. The principle relates the probability of reincarnation to the postulate that time is infinity whereas the number of possible configurations of matter and energy in the universe are finite. Therefore it is hypothesized that the same configurations, events, etc. will repeat eventually, even if it takes a long long time. They say that this means that your soul or body or whatever will eventually repeat, possibly multiple times in slightly varied configurations.
That should also argue that given so much time, gods should exist in the universe. In contrast to that sort of thinking, there are those in this forum who appear to want to believe that Earth is the only place where life exists in the universe.
That should also argue that given so much time, gods should exist in the universe. In contrast to that sort of thinking, there are those in this forum who appear to want to believe that Earth is the only place where life exists in the universe.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+)
I'm not explaining this very well, but it's interesting enough to deserve googling, and it might get you deeper into your exploration of the possibility of life after death without God being involved.
The concept I'm referring to isn't just about God being "involved". The concept is that God is impossible, but life after death is not. THAT combination of ideas is the idiocy.
The concept I'm referring to isn't just about God being "involved". The concept is that God is impossible, but life after death is not. THAT combination of ideas is the idiocy.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 17 2009, 04:03 PM)
That should also argue that given so much time, gods should exist in the universe. In contrast to that sort of thinking, there are those in this forum who appear to want to believe that Earth is the only place where life exists in the universe.
Who?
I haven't seen anyone suggest that.
I suggest that we could only have lived on a planet with life.
Others have suggested we simply don't have enough information to make a good guess about life on other planets.
And I think for most people the choice is clear when we have to decide, a) did space aliens save you or you have no concept of even simple probabilty.
Who?
I haven't seen anyone suggest that.
I suggest that we could only have lived on a planet with life.
Others have suggested we simply don't have enough information to make a good guess about life on other planets.
And I think for most people the choice is clear when we have to decide, a) did space aliens save you or
you have no concept of even simple probabilty.QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 15 2009, 10:23 AM)
I think I just took a shot at your misunderstanding of Buddhism.
My "misunderstanding" of Buddhism? I made a valid point using a generalization. You attempted to counter this point by implying a false claim about Buddhism.
Of the two of us, you show the greater misunderstanding.
Debate is debate, and a fallacy is a fallacy. If you cannot argue without resorting to fallacies, you prove only that you are either incapable of defending your position and rather dishonest, or that you are not intelligent enough to see these fallacies for what they are. Or maybe you're siply trying to piss me off. If so, good luck with that.
Debate is debate, and a fallacy is a fallacy. If you cannot argue without resorting to fallacies, you prove only that you are either incapable of defending your position and rather dishonest, or that you are not intelligent enough to see these fallacies for what they are. Or maybe you're siply trying to piss me off. If so, good luck with that.
You keep mentioning fallacies, which must make you a riot during dinner conversation.
I can see it now, you sitting at a table shouting "fallacy" "fallacy"
You think honesty is laughable?
Generally I don't count and name fallacies in real life, I simply point out what's wrong with them, or use them against the person I'm arguing with. However, my overall point with every exchange I've had with you is that you're less concerned with the truth than with 'winning' an argument with me, or showing me up. Every time I point out one of your fallacies, I expose evidence which supports this point.
What's funny about this, is that you generally hold most of the same basic views on the subjects we've argued about as I do. But you squirm and make stupid and erroneous claims in order to have something to disagree with me about. The only logical conclusion is that your attacks on me in several threads are motivated entirely by a personal vendetta, which is where the heart of the humor is: The fact that you take me so seriously that I've actually managed to piss you off.
1. To compare with what? With no evidence of your own education, any evidence of my own would say absolutely nothing.
2. Education is education, whether it be academic or practical, formal or informal. Even if I've never gone to school a day in my life, I have still shown that I have received a better education at my own hands than you have at the hands of whatever institutions of learning you've attended.
Physfan
Though I'm not entirely sure what was the point of your question.
Physfan
No, I expected you could not. Your inability to do so shows your own ignorance , and my challenge to you was to successfully reveal that inability .
It's like asking someone claiming to be able to play pro bball to show they can dribble.
Would you agree that if someone could not dribble a basket ball they probably can't play professional basketball?
Hmm...isn't this in itself a fallacy?
Argument from Fallacy.
Ad hominem
False Dilemna
Seems you can make fallacious statements just like me. Amazing.
Pointing out fallacies is only helpful if I am making a formal argument or we are engaged in formal debate. Casual conversation is full of comments that are fallacious. If you are going to make such a big deal out of fallacies, you should at least be good enough not to commit them yourself
****************FULL ADMISSION********************
I have had a few Tripels tonight.
My "misunderstanding" of Buddhism? I made a valid point using a generalization. You attempted to counter this point by implying a false claim about Buddhism.
Of the two of us, you show the greater misunderstanding.
QUOTE
I don't think we were having a formal debate.
Debate is debate, and a fallacy is a fallacy. If you cannot argue without resorting to fallacies, you prove only that you are either incapable of defending your position and rather dishonest, or that you are not intelligent enough to see these fallacies for what they are. Or maybe you're siply trying to piss me off. If so, good luck with that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't think we were having a formal debate. |
Debate is debate, and a fallacy is a fallacy. If you cannot argue without resorting to fallacies, you prove only that you are either incapable of defending your position and rather dishonest, or that you are not intelligent enough to see these fallacies for what they are. Or maybe you're siply trying to piss me off. If so, good luck with that.
You keep mentioning fallacies, which must make you a riot during dinner conversation.
I can see it now, you sitting at a table shouting "fallacy" "fallacy"
You think honesty is laughable? Generally I don't count and name fallacies in real life, I simply point out what's wrong with them, or use them against the person I'm arguing with. However, my overall point with every exchange I've had with you is that you're less concerned with the truth than with 'winning' an argument with me, or showing me up. Every time I point out one of your fallacies, I expose evidence which supports this point.
What's funny about this, is that you generally hold most of the same basic views on the subjects we've argued about as I do. But you squirm and make stupid and erroneous claims in order to have something to disagree with me about. The only logical conclusion is that your attacks on me in several threads are motivated entirely by a personal vendetta, which is where the heart of the humor is: The fact that you take me so seriously that I've actually managed to piss you off.
QUOTE
You are trying to say that you have proven that you are more knowledgeable, not better educated. If you were proving that you were better educated, I would need to see some academic credentials.
1. To compare with what? With no evidence of your own education, any evidence of my own would say absolutely nothing.
2. Education is education, whether it be academic or practical, formal or informal. Even if I've never gone to school a day in my life, I have still shown that I have received a better education at my own hands than you have at the hands of whatever institutions of learning you've attended.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 17 2009, 04:35 PM)
I think for most people the choice is clear when we have to decide, a) did space aliens save you or you have no concept of even simple probabilty.
Why don't you give us an example by figuring up the probability of life using the birthday trick? Since one out of 8 planets in this system contain life, let's say that an average of one out of 20 contain life in general. So using the birthday trick, how do you estimate the number that contain life in this galaxy?
you have no concept of even simple probabilty.Why don't you give us an example by figuring up the probability of life using the birthday trick? Since one out of 8 planets in this system contain life, let's say that an average of one out of 20 contain life in general. So using the birthday trick, how do you estimate the number that contain life in this galaxy?
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 17 2009, 08:16 PM)
Why don't you give us an example by figuring up the probability of life using the birthday trick? Since one out of 8 planets in this system contain life, let's say that an average of one out of 20 contain life in general. So using the birthday trick, how do you estimate the number that contain life in this galaxy?
There are two ways of handling the probability of life on other planets.
1)Pulling a number out of the appropriate body orifice.
2)The other way is to say, we don't have enough information and accepting the reality of the situation.
The birthday thing is merely to show your ignorance.
I have not tried to use it for any other purpose.
There are two ways of handling the probability of life on other planets.
1)Pulling a number out of the appropriate body orifice.
2)The other way is to say, we don't have enough information and accepting the reality of the situation.
The birthday thing is merely to show your ignorance.
I have not tried to use it for any other purpose.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Since one out of 8 planets in this system contain life
Why 1 out of 8?
Why 1 out of 8?
QUOTE
Why 1 out of 8?
Pluto was demoted, a planet no more! Just a large rock, smaller than our moon.Physfan
knobeda
You can't just take some one else's religion and warp it to your own ends. Their god was manufactured in their heads and it isn't right that you steal it out of their craniums and then change it. Where is your respect for other peoples' superstitions and fairy of choice?
Physfan 
QUOTE
I am a Christian Buddhist and others who use this page might identify themselves the same or perhaps as Buddhist Christians, Unitarian Universalists, spiritualists, seekers, non-sectarian, New-Agers, or just open minded people on an undefined spiritual path.
A what? Open minded? You are quite funny!You can't just take some one else's religion and warp it to your own ends. Their god was manufactured in their heads and it isn't right that you steal it out of their craniums and then change it. Where is your respect for other peoples' superstitions and fairy of choice?
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Aug 18 2009, 08:40 AM)
Pluto was demoted, a planet no more! Just a large rock, smaller than our moon.
Physfan
I am not entirely sure that's the reason nopEda said 1 out of 8.
Physfan
I am not entirely sure that's the reason nopEda said 1 out of 8.
QUOTE
I am not entirely sure that's the reason nopEda said 1 out of 8.
It is hard to know with him/her, but I reread his/her post and it doesn't make any logical sense. The logic is flawed, if he/she/it understands what logic is.Though I'm not entirely sure what was the point of your question.
Physfan
QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 18 2009, 07:22 AM)
I am not entirely sure that's the reason nopEda said 1 out of 8.
Though it's very obvious since we're now said to be one of 8 planets, I suppose it's no suprise that you still have a problem with it. I catching on that this is probably the special ed "physics" forum...
Though it's very obvious since we're now said to be one of 8 planets, I suppose it's no suprise that you still have a problem with it. I catching on that this is probably the special ed "physics" forum...
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 17 2009, 08:37 PM)
The birthday thing is merely to show your ignorance.
I have not tried to use it for any other purpose.
No, I expected you could not. Your inability to do so shows your own ignorance , and my challenge to you was to successfully reveal that inability .
I have not tried to use it for any other purpose.
No, I expected you could not. Your inability to do so shows your own ignorance
, and my challenge to you was to successfully reveal that inability .
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 18 2009, 08:33 PM)
No, I expected you could not. Your inability to do so shows your own ignorance
, and my challenge to you was to successfully reveal that inability . It's like asking someone claiming to be able to play pro bball to show they can dribble.
Would you agree that if someone could not dribble a basket ball they probably can't play professional basketball?
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 19 2009, 01:56 AM)
Though it's very obvious since we're now said to be one of 8 planets, I suppose it's no suprise that you still have a problem with it. I catching on that this is probably the special ed "physics" forum...
Nope...I don't have a problem with it.
On another note, do you know 1+2=3?
Nope...I don't have a problem with it.
On another note, do you know 1+2=3?
QUOTE
Debate is debate, and a fallacy is a fallacy. If you cannot argue without resorting to fallacies, you prove only that you are either incapable of defending your position and rather dishonest, or that you are not intelligent enough to see these fallacies for what they are. Or maybe you're siply trying to piss me off. If so, good luck with that.
Hmm...isn't this in itself a fallacy?
Argument from Fallacy.
Ad hominem
False Dilemna
Seems you can make fallacious statements just like me. Amazing.
Pointing out fallacies is only helpful if I am making a formal argument or we are engaged in formal debate. Casual conversation is full of comments that are fallacious. If you are going to make such a big deal out of fallacies, you should at least be good enough not to commit them yourself
****************FULL ADMISSION********************
I have had a few Tripels tonight.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 18 2009, 08:41 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda pointed out+)
my challenge to you was to successfully reveal that inability
User posted image: User posted image
Oh...I do something much better
It's like asking someone claiming to be able to play pro bball to show they can dribble.
Would you agree that if someone could not dribble a basket ball they probably can't play professional basketball?
I've never suspected that any of you might actually get paid for anything to do with physics. And really I expected that you could NOT use the birthday trick to back up whatever point you think you're trying to make in regards to the likelyhood of other life in the universe, much MUCH less in regards to the likelyhood of God. I'm clearly pointing out that the supposed criticizm about me not using the birthday trick to back up my argument, ALSO applies to the rest of you who don't use it to back up yours.
Would you agree that if someone could not dribble a basket ball they probably can't play professional basketball?
I've never suspected that any of you might actually get paid for anything to do with physics. And really I expected that you could NOT use the birthday trick to back up whatever point you think you're trying to make in regards to the likelyhood of other life in the universe, much MUCH less
in regards to the likelyhood of God. I'm clearly pointing out that the supposed criticizm about me not using the birthday trick to back up my argument, ALSO applies to the rest of you who don't use it to back up yours.
Do we know how many days in a year?
Do we know how birthdays are distributed?
Yes
Do you know how many planets there are in the Universe?
Do you know what per cent of planets have life?
No.
I wonder if you understand why the birthday thing would not work at a Leap Year babies convention.
O and I originally raised the issue when discussing your belief that things so strange happened to you that they must have been caused by extraterriestrials.
Which is interesting because when strange things happened to Newguy he thought that they meant that King Jimmy wrote what God was thinking.
Do we know how birthdays are distributed?
Yes
Do you know how many planets there are in the Universe?
Do you know what per cent of planets have life?
No.
I wonder if you understand why the birthday thing would not work at a Leap Year babies convention.
O and I originally raised the issue when discussing your belief that things so strange happened to you that they must have been caused by extraterriestrials.
Which is interesting because when strange things happened to Newguy he thought that they meant that King Jimmy wrote what God was thinking.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 18 2009, 08:29 PM)
I've never suspected that any of you might actually get paid for anything to do with physics. And really I expected that you could NOT use the birthday trick to back up whatever point you think you're trying to make in regards to the likelyhood of other life in the universe, much MUCH less in regards to the likelyhood of God. I'm clearly pointing out that the supposed criticizm about me not using the birthday trick to back up my argument, ALSO applies to the rest of you who don't use it to back up yours.
BEHOLD! The retard who thinks he's a genius! Don't laugh. It's just sad.
in regards to the likelyhood of God. I'm clearly pointing out that the supposed criticizm about me not using the birthday trick to back up my argument, ALSO applies to the rest of you who don't use it to back up yours. BEHOLD! The retard who thinks he's a genius! Don't laugh. It's just sad.
QUOTE
I've never suspected that any of you might actually get paid for anything to do with physics.
User posted image: User posted image
Oh...I do something much better
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 18 2009, 08:00 PM)
Hmm...isn't this in itself a fallacy?
No.
Utterly inapplicable. You obviously don't know what an argument from fallacy is.
Utterly inapplicable. You obviously don't know what an argument from fallacy is.
Ad hominem
Utterly inapplicable. You obviously don't know what an ad hominem is.
This one is better, however...
The dilemma is neither false, nor are you limited to only the options I listed. I gave a "maybe it's..." implying that you could, as well.
However, that's all moot, because the only plausible options are those I listed. If you think I'm wrong, give me a plausible explanation. You could possibly claim you're just screwing with me to try to get under my skin, but all that does is prove that you're a failure at a fairly simple task.
This one is better, however...
The dilemma is neither false, nor are you limited to only the options I listed. I gave a "maybe it's..." implying that you could, as well.
However, that's all moot, because the only plausible options are those I listed. If you think I'm wrong, give me a plausible explanation. You could possibly claim you're just screwing with me to try to get under my skin, but all that does is prove that you're a failure at a fairly simple task.
Seems you can make fallacious statements just like me.
Amazing.
Only when you misunderstand what constitutes a fallacy and mischaracterize my statements to make them fit.
(Psst: That's a fallacy, too. )
I don't engage in casual conversations with people who make up the most retarded excuses to disagree with me. Casual conversation happens between friends, or occasionally between two strangers who wish to pass the time. Casual conversation also does not attempt to prove a point. Since we're not friends or trying to pass the time, and since we've both been trying to prove a point (only one of us with any success, but still), it stands to reason that this is not a casual conversation.
I don't engage in casual conversations with people who make up the most retarded excuses to disagree with me. Casual conversation happens between friends, or occasionally between two strangers who wish to pass the time. Casual conversation also does not attempt to prove a point. Since we're not friends or trying to pass the time, and since we've both been trying to prove a point (only one of us with any success, but still), it stands to reason that this is not a casual conversation.
If you are going to make such a big deal out of fallacies, you should at least be good enough not to commit them yourself
I am, dumbass.
It shows.
No.
QUOTE
Argument from Fallacy.
Utterly inapplicable. You obviously don't know what an argument from fallacy is.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Argument from Fallacy. |
Utterly inapplicable. You obviously don't know what an argument from fallacy is.
Ad hominem
Utterly inapplicable. You obviously don't know what an ad hominem is.
QUOTE
False Dilemna
This one is better, however...
The dilemma is neither false, nor are you limited to only the options I listed. I gave a "maybe it's..." implying that you could, as well.
However, that's all moot, because the only plausible options are those I listed. If you think I'm wrong, give me a plausible explanation. You could possibly claim you're just screwing with me to try to get under my skin, but all that does is prove that you're a failure at a fairly simple task.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| False Dilemna |
This one is better, however...
The dilemma is neither false, nor are you limited to only the options I listed. I gave a "maybe it's..." implying that you could, as well.
However, that's all moot, because the only plausible options are those I listed. If you think I'm wrong, give me a plausible explanation. You could possibly claim you're just screwing with me to try to get under my skin, but all that does is prove that you're a failure at a fairly simple task.
Seems you can make fallacious statements just like me.
Amazing.
Only when you misunderstand what constitutes a fallacy and mischaracterize my statements to make them fit.
(Psst: That's a fallacy, too. )
QUOTE
Pointing out fallacies is only helpful if I am making a formal argument or we are engaged in formal debate. Casual conversation is full of comments that are fallacious.
I don't engage in casual conversations with people who make up the most retarded excuses to disagree with me. Casual conversation happens between friends, or occasionally between two strangers who wish to pass the time. Casual conversation also does not attempt to prove a point. Since we're not friends or trying to pass the time, and since we've both been trying to prove a point (only one of us with any success, but still), it stands to reason that this is not a casual conversation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Pointing out fallacies is only helpful if I am making a formal argument or we are engaged in formal debate. Casual conversation is full of comments that are fallacious. |
I don't engage in casual conversations with people who make up the most retarded excuses to disagree with me. Casual conversation happens between friends, or occasionally between two strangers who wish to pass the time. Casual conversation also does not attempt to prove a point. Since we're not friends or trying to pass the time, and since we've both been trying to prove a point (only one of us with any success, but still), it stands to reason that this is not a casual conversation.
If you are going to make such a big deal out of fallacies, you should at least be good enough not to commit them yourself
I am, dumbass.
QUOTE
I have had a few Tripels tonight.
It shows.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 19 2009, 01:29 AM)
applies to the rest of you who don't use it to back up yours.
The point is we understand it, you don't.
It's like me asking "what shape is the Earth"?
Hmm I wonder if you can answer that question.
The point is we understand it, you don't.
It's like me asking "what shape is the Earth"?
Hmm I wonder if you can answer that question.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 19 2009, 11:05 AM)
The point is we understand it
As yet there isn't the slightest bit of evidence that's true for one thing, and for another even if it is none of you appear able to make use of it in any way that's significant to whatever you think your argument is about other life or gods in the universe, or even in the galaxy.
As yet there isn't the slightest bit of evidence that's true
for one thing, and for another even if it is none of you appear able to make use of it in any way that's significant to whatever you think your argument is about other life or gods in the universe, or even in the galaxy.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 19 2009, 03:08 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
...get paid...
That in a religious discussion (which shouldn't be taking place on a science forum to begin with) no one is going to pay any attention to ground rules or restrictions.
nonphysical is not the same as nonscience -- Example: time, logic, intelligence, ...
. We could have stickies with guidelines...(your probably right)[please excuse my crankyness I'm tired] We could have more moderat... cough cough
Completely nonsensical as well as nonphysical.
I do something much better
"There are only two kinds of science: physics and butterfly collecting." - Lord Ernest Rutherford
"There are only two kinds of science: physics and butterfly collecting." - Lord Ernest Rutherford
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 9 2009, 08:17 PM)
That in a religious discussion (which shouldn't be taking place on a science forum to begin with) no one is going to pay any attention to ground rules or restrictions.
nonphysical is not the same as nonscience -- Example: time, logic, intelligence, ...
. We could have stickies with guidelines...(your probably right)[please excuse my crankyness I'm tired] We could have more moderat... cough cough
Ask not for whom the bell tolls... the bell tolls for thee!
*CUE LIGHTNING*
*CUE LIGHTNING*
QUOTE (TracerTong+Sep 2 2009, 12:02 AM)
nonphysical is not the same as nonscience -- Example: time, logic, intelligence, ...
. We could have stickies with guidelines...(your probably right)[please excuse my crankyness I'm tired] We could have more moderat... cough cough
I've only seen the word "nonphysical" used to mean nonscience.
But no definition has been given. It seems to be an attempt to give credibility to the spiritual.
. We could have stickies with guidelines...(your probably right)[please excuse my crankyness I'm tired] We could have more moderat... cough cough
I've only seen the word "nonphysical" used to mean nonscience.
But no definition has been given. It seems to be an attempt to give credibility to the spiritual.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 2 2009, 10:42 AM)
I've only seen the word "nonphysical" used to mean nonscience.
But no definition has been given. It seems to be an attempt to give credibility to the spiritual.
I tried to explain it, maybe someone else can do better, another example is time. Also truth is proof of God (also nonphysical)
But no definition has been given. It seems to be an attempt to give credibility to the spiritual.
I tried to explain it, maybe someone else can do better, another example is time. Also truth is proof of God (also nonphysical)
QUOTE
Also truth is proof of God (also nonphysical)
Completely nonsensical as well as nonphysical.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Sep 2 2009, 05:15 PM)
I tried to explain it, maybe someone else can do better, another example is time. Also truth is proof of God (also nonphysical)
But time is measureable.
You should stop talking about nonphsyical. It does not get the point across you mean. I think what you mean is nonquantifiable.
Truth is only proof of God if you start with God. That is circular logic.
Newguy and QC have complained about people not sincerely looking for God. But if you have to start with the conclusion to reach the conclusion then that is circular logic.
If you have to be sincere in your search for God then being sincere in searching for the truth won't find God. If sincerly searching for the Truth lead to God, then you would not have to seach for God.
I don't think QC understands that the way to search for truth is to look for contradictions.
But time is measureable.
You should stop talking about nonphsyical. It does not get the point across you mean. I think what you mean is nonquantifiable.
Truth is only proof of God if you start with God. That is circular logic.
Newguy and QC have complained about people not sincerely looking for God. But if you have to start with the conclusion to reach the conclusion then that is circular logic.
If you have to be sincere in your search for God then being sincere in searching for the truth won't find God. If sincerly searching for the Truth lead to God, then you would not have to seach for God.
I don't think QC understands that the way to search for truth is to look for contradictions.
QUOTE (Aug. 13+)
"Heaven" and "Hell" need not be interpreted as states of afterlife. They can be understood as states a living spirit experiences during an "eternal life,"
BUDDHISTS
By David Brooks
New York Times
May 13, 2008
In 1996, Tom Wolfe wrote a brilliant essay called Sorry, but Your Soul Just Died, in which he captured the militant materialism of some modern scientists.
To these self-confident researchers, the idea that the spirit might exist apart from the body is just ridiculous. Instead, everything arises from atoms. Genes shape temperament. Brain chemicals shape behavior. Assemblies of neurons create consciousness. Free will is an illusion. Human beings are hard-wired to do this or that. Religion is an accident.
In this materialist view, people perceive Gods existence because their brains have evolved to confabulate...
Over the past several years, the momentum has shifted away from hard-core materialism. The brain seems less like a cold machine. It does not operate like a computer. ...
Even the rag "New Scientist" can't stop the momentum, in fact it seems to be leading the parade as it marches somewhere near the TRUTH.
Artificial Intelligence Results 1 - 3 of about 3 for "live forever by 2045". (0.32 seconds)
Noel Sharkey: AI is a dangerous dream - 26 August 2009 - New Scientist Aug 26, 2009 ... The inventor Ray Kurzweil says humans will merge with machines and live forever by 2045. To me these are just fairy tales. ...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2032...rous-dream.html - 57k - Cached - Similar pages
Dad2059's Webzine of Science Fiction, Science Fact and Esoterica The inventor Ray Kurzweil says humans will merge with machines and live forever by 2045. To me these are just fairy tales. I don't see any sign of it ...
http://dad2059.wordpress.com/ - Similar pages
Jeremy's Weblog of Paranormal & Metaphysical Interests and News
The inventor Ray Kurzweil says humans will merge with machines and live forever by 2045. To me these are just fairy tales. I don't see any sign of it ...
http://jbullfrog74.wordpress.com/ - Similar pages
BUDDHISTS
By David Brooks
New York Times
May 13, 2008
In 1996, Tom Wolfe wrote a brilliant essay called Sorry, but Your Soul Just Died, in which he captured the militant materialism of some modern scientists.
To these self-confident researchers, the idea that the spirit might exist apart from the body is just ridiculous. Instead, everything arises from atoms. Genes shape temperament. Brain chemicals shape behavior. Assemblies of neurons create consciousness. Free will is an illusion. Human beings are hard-wired to do this or that. Religion is an accident.
In this materialist view, people perceive Gods existence because their brains have evolved to confabulate...
Over the past several years, the momentum has shifted away from hard-core materialism. The brain seems less like a cold machine. It does not operate like a computer. ...
Even the rag "New Scientist" can't stop the momentum, in fact it seems to be leading the parade as it marches somewhere near the TRUTH.
Artificial Intelligence Results 1 - 3 of about 3 for "live forever by 2045". (0.32 seconds)
Noel Sharkey: AI is a dangerous dream - 26 August 2009 - New Scientist Aug 26, 2009 ... The inventor Ray Kurzweil says humans will merge with machines and live forever by 2045. To me these are just fairy tales. ...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2032...rous-dream.html - 57k - Cached - Similar pages
Dad2059's Webzine of Science Fiction, Science Fact and Esoterica The inventor Ray Kurzweil says humans will merge with machines and live forever by 2045. To me these are just fairy tales. I don't see any sign of it ...
http://dad2059.wordpress.com/ - Similar pages
Jeremy's Weblog of Paranormal & Metaphysical Interests and News
The inventor Ray Kurzweil says humans will merge with machines and live forever by 2045. To me these are just fairy tales. I don't see any sign of it ...
http://jbullfrog74.wordpress.com/ - Similar pages
Sorry but your brain just died.
Well.. figuratively.
Anyhoo... again a bunch of op ed without a shred of evidence or even any kind of rational.
Well.. figuratively.
Anyhoo... again a bunch of op ed without a shred of evidence or even any kind of rational.
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 youll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.