Question for the atheist?

My ninja ScoprD. :lol:

The beauty of the mathematical proof.

You have to invalidate my proof first.

And no, that's not what you just did. What you did was attempt to solve the equation another way.

You see, this was the point I posted that in the first place ;)

*waits...*

Gotcha. Ok, how 'bout this:

The base unit or property of Imaginary Numbers is sqrt(-1) or i. The base use or property of Real Numbers is 1. Though the arithmetic is the same for both types of numbers, the fundamental unit is incongruous and, therefore, cannot be solved algebraically. As an example, when performing arithmetic with whole numbers and fractions, one number must be converted to the other:

3/5 + 6 = 3/5 + 30/5

Even though 6 = 30/5, all terms or units within an arithmetic expression must be congruous.

1 + 1 = 1 + sqrt(1) is fundamentally WRONG.
 
Gotcha. Ok, how 'bout this:

The base unit or property of Imaginary Numbers is sqrt(-1) or i. The base use or property of Real Numbers is 1. Though the arithmetic is the same for both types of numbers, the fundamental unit is incongruous and, therefore, cannot be solved algebraically. As an example, when performing arithmetic with whole numbers and fractional, one number must be converted to the other:

3/5 + 6 = 3/5 + 30/5

Even though 6 = 30/5, all terms or units within an arithmetic expression must be congruous.

1 + 1 = 1 + sqrt(1) is fundamentally WRONG.

the fact that he did all of that proves what i say all the time:

die hard jesus juice drinkers always resort to "trickery" or "parables" when they can't find a good enough answer to the question....

then again many nigerians are about the scam/con game....:rolleyes:
 
Open question:

What is the point of this thread . . . seriously? Thus far it appears as an attack on atheists which, even as an atheist, I don't mind or trouble over.

So even after the barbs and innuendo, etc. I'm at a loss as to the POINT(S) being made IF this thread and ANY of opinions/arguments made in herein, are supposed to be substantive or an invitation to elevate discourse.

I mean seriously, I've been attacked for my absence of belief too many times to be bothered by yet another salvo of inconsequence. So real talk, where's the beef? Sean, Rudey, Yawdie . . . Anybody?

If the argument is say, atheist or scientist don't know everything (not that they are one and the same) . . . then WELCOME, ONE AND ALL, TO RINGLING BROS. AND BARNUM & BAILEYS BIG TENT OF OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUS TRUTHS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT!!! :lol:

Spoilers:






























































































Hope no one paid too much for the price of admission. It's a show that's not very interesting.

NOW, if there's a DISCUSSION in the wings on EPISTEMOLOGY, holler back.



JG
 
Open question:

What is the point of this thread . . . seriously? Thus far it appears as an attack on atheists which, even as an atheist, I don't mind or trouble over.

So even after the barbs and innuendo, etc. I'm at a loss as to the POINT(S) being made IF this thread and ANY of opinions/arguments made in herein, are supposed to be substantive or an invitation to elevate discourse.

I mean seriously, I've been attacked for my absence of belief too many times to be bothered by yet another salvo of inconsequence. So real talk, where's the beef? Sean, Rudey, Yawdie . . . Anybody?

If the argument is say, atheist or scientist don't know everything (not that they are one and the same) . . . then WELCOME, ONE AND ALL, TO RINGLING BROS. AND BARNUM & BAILEYS BIG TENT OF OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUS TRUTHS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT!!! :lol:

Spoilers:
Hope no one paid too much for the price of admission. It's a show that's not very interesting.

NOW, if there's a DISCUSSION in the wings on EPISTEMOLOGY, holler back.

JG

EXACTLY...Yet again my brotha we see eye to eye! :cool::yes:

I got a pm from Sean about this thread and how he thought I would have popped into this thread sooner to give my perspective.

I told him that after reading page two or three, I decided that this shit was a lost cause to even muddle in and give my opinion on the matter.

When the OP said that he would choose GOD's side because he would rather play the odds on something he doesn't know for sure but didn't want to go to hell I was done.

The fact that I say I don't know or that I don't believe should be good enough for anyone.

The fact that no one knows for certain is the truth, and anyone who says that they know certainly is an idiot.

I think the OP and those that follow his same train of thought really have never tried to have a conversation with an atheist or even a pragmatist because they would then realize that it's not that atheist feel they know there is no god, but they would rather have verifiable proof that can sustain scrutiny undergoing a battery of tests before they commit to such an inquiry.

It's that simple.
 

EXACTLY...Yet again my brotha we see eye to eye! :cool::yes:

I got a pm from Sean about this thread and how he thought I would have popped into this thread sooner to give my perspective.

I told him that after reading page two or three, I decided that this shit was a lost cause to even muddle in and give my opinion on the matter.

When the OP said that he would choose GOD's side because he would rather play the odds on something he doesn't know for sure but didn't want to go to hell I was done.

The fact that I say I don't know or that I don't believe should be good enough for anyone.

The fact that no one knows for certain is the truth, and anyone who says that they know certainly is an idiot.

I think the OP and those that follow his same train of thought really have never tried to have a conversation with an atheist or even a pragmatist because they would then realize that it's not that atheist feel they know there is no god, but they would rather have verifiable proof that can sustain scrutiny undergoing a battery of tests before they commit to such an inquiry.

It's that simple.

theres an ongoing misunderstanding of just what that means by believers AND many non believers. This is why we have these discussions on here. Many believers feel as if they are being attacked because of it.

Of course, the comedic jabs coming from non believers don't help:lol::lol:
 
theres an ongoing misunderstanding of just what that means by believers AND many non believers. This is why we have these discussions on here. Many believers feel as if they are being attacked because of it.

No, it's a "discussion" between the rational and the irrational.

Of course, the comedic jabs coming from non believers don't help

There's more evidence that Big Foot exists than a literal (rather than a comfortingly imaginary) GOD. Now that's funny.
 
No, it's a "discussion" between the rational and the irrational.



There's more evidence that Big Foot exists than a literal (rather than a comfortingly imaginary) GOD. Now that's funny.

see that's where I disagree. A non believer can have plenty of irrational thoughts.... I THINK this is the point Sean69 is trying to make (no diss, lemme know if that's what you're saying)
 
theres an ongoing misunderstanding of just what that means by believers AND many non believers. This is why we have these discussions on here. Many believers feel as if they are being attacked because of it.

Of course, the comedic jabs coming from non believers don't help:lol::lol:

see that's where I disagree. A non believer can have plenty of irrational thoughts.... I THINK this is the point Sean69 is trying to make (no diss, lemme know if that's what you're saying)


This is the fundamental question that I want both "believers" and "non-believers" to answer...

What is wrong with saying "I DON'T KNOW"? From there you can go and try to find answers for what you don't know and then bring all of the data together to come to a conclusion where you attempt to make sense out of it by putting it under scrutiny.

What's so hard about that?
 

This is the fundamental question that I want both "believers" and "non-believers" to answer...

What is wrong with saying "I DON'T KNOW"? From there you can go and try to find answers for what you don't know and then bring all of the data together to come to a conclusion where you attempt to make sense out of it by putting it under scrutiny.

What's so hard about that?

because there are too many "untruths" as to religion...


seriously next time gets into it with you about...let's say creation or evolution, ask them where do the dinosaurs fit in that puzzle in both views.
 
What is wrong with saying "I DON'T KNOW"?

What's so hard about that?

Because "I don't know" would put the ridiculous fantasy of GOD on the same footing as rational thought, scientific FACT and logic. That would be admitting that the crazy-ass snake-worshippers might have a point, when they really don't. We do know what our physical world consists of. There's no mystery.

You might as well buy the whole program if you're gonna even entertain the possibilty that the natural world is governed by the [unprovable and unobservable] SUPERnatural. In that case, the sky's the limit of what you believe might be true, based on nothing but a primitive thought that came into someone's head and was written down.
 
Last edited:

This is the fundamental question that I want both "believers" and "non-believers" to answer...

What is wrong with saying "I DON'T KNOW"? From there you can go and try to find answers for what you don't know and then bring all of the data together to come to a conclusion where you attempt to make sense out of it by putting it under scrutiny.

What's so hard about that?


To those that have addressed my above comment, I know I asked a question but it was a rhetorical question...that's why in part I highlighted the key phrases above.

If you take what is nonsensical from both believers and non-believers thought process and put it through the battery of tests that is the scientific method, then you will be able to weed out what is plausible and what is implausible.

As a scientist, I can no better tell you what happened in the events before the Big Bang and the creation of the universe out of the singularity it came out of than a creationist can.

The difference is I realize that I don't know about this event and cannot really give you an answer and the other person believes in an All Knowing creator that has all the answers but won't reveal it to them until they die...:rolleyes:


However I don't discredit those that believe in a "creator" because a creator can be interpreted as being anything...
 
whadup sean...

Also, how does your personal experience of transcendence differ in feeling from a very vivid dream, or hallucination (drug induced or not)?

Interesting that you asked this. The neuroscience of dreams, hallucinations, optical illusions, etc. I will respond to this when I get back. Gotta go play some pick up futbol at Central Park.


:dunno:
 


However I don't discredit those that believe in a "creator" because a creator can be interpreted as being anything...



But wait though O, there isn't any real equivalence here is there?

Consider the trajectory of the development of early man into enlightened man.
WHATEVER the religion or religious like philosophies that were created and adopted, the construction of the concept of gods (polytheism) which came BEFORE god (monotheism) was born from man, primitive or otherwise. And almost all were anthropomorphized constructions mirroring humans, or monsters, or beasts. . . Oh, and the sun as god, or the earth as god.

I could go on, but my point is no matter WHAT iteration of god or creator spiritualists or theist are touting now, they are ALL sourced from early religious movements and thinking, which were created by man, and transformed to some degree over millennia to suit their needs. In ANY case, there has been NOTHING produced to support their claims.


On the other hand, we could simplify the argument and say, the scientific method PRODUCES, ALL OTHER forms (religious or spiritual, whatever that is) DON'T. Unless someone comes forward with another 'testable/usable' method I say that, there can be no equivocation at all between the scientific approach and it's amassed body of knowledge vs. ANYTHING else.


What we know is what we know. What we don't, we don't. Whatever this reality/existence is or isn't, only the scientific method has advanced our understanding. Nothing else has, religious or otherwise. So I don't see equivalence here. Any thoughts. Sorry for the rushed statement and query.

JG

 
Last edited:

But wait though O, there isn't any real equivalence here is there?

Consider the trajectory of the development of early man into enlightened man.
WHATEVER the religion or religious like philosophies that were created and adopted, the construction of the concept of gods (polytheism) which came BEFORE god (monotheism) was born from man, primitive or otherwise. And almost all were anthropomorphized constructions mirroring humans, or monsters, or beasts. . . Oh, and the sun as god, or the earth as god.

I could go on, but my point is no matter WHAT iteration of god or creator spiritualists or theist are touting now, they are ALL sourced from early religious movements and thinking, which were created by man, and transformed to some degree over millennia to suit their needs. In ANY case, there has been NOTHING produced to support their claims.


On the other hand, we could simplify the argument and say, the scientific method PRODUCES, ALL OTHER forms (religious or spiritual, whatever that is) DON'T. Unless someone comes forward with another 'testable/usable' method I say that, there can be no equivocation at all between the scientific approach and it's amassed body of knowledge vs. ANYTHING else.


What we know is what we know. What we don't, we don't. Whatever this reality/existence is or isn't, only the scientific method has advanced our understanding. Nothing else has, religious or otherwise. So I don't see equivalence here. Any thoughts. Sorry for the rushed statement and query.

JG



I agree
 

But wait though O, there isn't any real equivalence here is there?

Consider the trajectory of the development of early man into enlightened man.
WHATEVER the religion or religious like philosophies that were created and adopted, the construction of the concept of gods (polytheism) which came BEFORE god (monotheism) was born from man, primitive or otherwise. And almost all were anthropomorphized constructions mirroring humans, or monsters, or beasts. . . Oh, and the sun as god, or the earth as god.

I could go on, but my point is no matter WHAT iteration of god or creator spiritualists or theist are touting now, they are ALL sourced from early religious movements and thinking, which were created by man, and transformed to some degree over millennia to suit their needs. In ANY case, there has been NOTHING produced to support their claims.


On the other hand, we could simplify the argument and say, the scientific method PRODUCES, ALL OTHER forms (religious or spiritual, whatever that is) DON'T. Unless someone comes forward with another 'testable/usable' method I say that, there can be no equivocation at all between the scientific approach and it's amassed body of knowledge vs. ANYTHING else.


What we know is what we know. What we don't, we don't. Whatever this reality/existence is or isn't, only the scientific method has advanced our understanding. Nothing else has, religious or otherwise. So I don't see equivalence here. Any thoughts. Sorry for the rushed statement and query.

JG


I agree most definitely JG...if you scroll up to the comment I made right after the last one you made that's what I stated.

I'm just saying that if they want to label the chain of events of say theoretically another universe being destroyed and colliding with another one to start this current one we exist in and call that "the creator" then I have no problem with that.

The problem I have is with the method of trying to prove said belief. Now if they say that "the creator" knew that this would happen all along, knew that the existing state of our solar system, the unifying forces, and current biological life on this and other planets was going to form in this exact way and predetermined that creation of life then I have a problem.

Religion was just a predated and flawed method of trying to explain the same things that science tries to explain: Our place in this universe, our existence in this universe, how we got here in this universe, and why this universe was created in the first place.

The only points where they differ is in trying to prove or presupposing that we have a purpose in this universe (religion) that follows a set path by an abstract, and thus far imaginary being.

All that magical and supernatural shit that is apart of religion stems from mythos that was passed down from previous pagan cultures that tried to make sense of the stars and this planet.
 
Gotcha. Ok, how 'bout this:

The base unit or property of Imaginary Numbers is sqrt(-1) or i. The base use or property of Real Numbers is 1. Though the arithmetic is the same for both types of numbers, the fundamental unit is incongruous and, therefore, cannot be solved algebraically. As an example, when performing arithmetic with whole numbers and fractions, one number must be converted to the other:

3/5 + 6 = 3/5 + 30/5

Even though 6 = 30/5, all terms or units within an arithmetic expression must be congruous.

1 + 1 = 1 + sqrt(1) is fundamentally WRONG.

Fair enough. You are right. Your first attempted argument against my proof was wrong. This is the point I was trying to make in the first place and why I said that you had to invalidate my proof after your first attempt. Which you rightfully did.
Even the seemingly self-evident mathematical expression, 1+1=2 isn't exempt from proof and even the simplest arithmetic is incapable of expressing an ABSOLUTE truth.
I'm sure you're familiar with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems?



the fact that he did all of that proves what i say all the time:
die hard jesus juice drinkers always resort to "trickery" or "parables" when they can't find a good enough answer to the question....
then again many nigerians are about the scam/con game....:rolleyes:
And typical of a blind faith fundamentalist like yourself to only now show up after the you've been bailed out by and ADULT who actually knows what he's saying and can attest to it without the elusive childish insults. :rolleyes:




Open question:

What is the point of this thread . . . seriously? Thus far it appears as an attack on atheists which, even as an atheist, I don't mind or trouble over.

So even after the barbs and innuendo, etc. I'm at a loss as to the POINT(S) being made IF this thread and ANY of opinions/arguments made in herein, are supposed to be substantive or an invitation to elevate discourse.

I mean seriously, I've been attacked for my absence of belief too many times to be bothered by yet another salvo of inconsequence. So real talk, where's the beef? Sean, Rudey, Yawdie . . . Anybody?

If the argument is say, atheist or scientist don't know everything (not that they are one and the same) . . . then WELCOME, ONE AND ALL, TO RINGLING BROS. AND BARNUM & BAILEYS BIG TENT OF OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUS TRUTHS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT!!! :lol:

Spoilers:
Hope no one paid too much for the price of admission. It's a show that's not very interesting.

NOW, if there's a DISCUSSION in the wings on EPISTEMOLOGY, holler back.

JG
Same question I've been asking.
My posts in this thread have barely been as an attack on atheists. Just questioning/challenging some of the assertions and logic in here. Clearly folks with insecurity issues (who aren't even sure of what they believe in in the first place and just tow the line) will take offense.
So yeah. Good question. What's the beef??






This is the fundamental question that I want both "believers" and "non-believers" to answer...

What is wrong with saying "I DON'T KNOW"? From there you can go and try to find answers for what you don't know and then bring all of the data together to come to a conclusion where you attempt to make sense out of it by putting it under scrutiny.

What's so hard about that?
Answer: The ego.
 
theres an ongoing misunderstanding of just what that means by believers AND many non believers. This is why we have these discussions on here. Many believers feel as if they are being attacked because of it.
Of course, the comedic jabs coming from non believers don't help:lol::lol:
see that's where I disagree. A non believer can have plenty of irrational thoughts.... I THINK this is the point Sean69 is trying to make (no diss, lemme know if that's what you're saying)
Thank you. This is exactly the what i've been trying to expose in this thread and other threads like this. It's not and has never been my intention to cast conflict between science and religion as 'right' and 'wrong'. This is the simple lazy egoist perspective some people like to take and it's frankly because they're misinformed and/or don't have all the information.

Like this for example ...



because there are too many "untruths" as to religion...
seriously next time gets into it with you about...let's say creation or evolution, ask them where do the dinosaurs fit in that puzzle in both views.
See? Creation or Evolution. Seriously?
Apples or oranges? Mashed potatoes or coleslaw? :smh:

Now abiogenesis vs creationism would be a less stupid place to start. :smh:




whadup sean...
Also, how does your personal experience of transcendence differ in feeling from a very vivid dream, or hallucination (drug induced or not)?

Interesting that you asked this. The neuroscience of dreams, hallucinations, optical illusions, etc. I will respond to this when I get back. Gotta go play some pick up futbol at Central Park. :dunno:

Differ in feeling? I don't know how to explain that. I've never hallucinated before and as for dreams, I've had all kinds of them from the ridiculously weird to those i'd rather not discuss. LOL. I frankly can't describe how my dreams feel. Can you?

Why do you ask?

Here's a preemptive quote from though:

"Whatever I have accepted until now as most true has come to me through my senses. But occasionally I have found that they have deceived me, and it is unwise to trust completely those who have deceived us even once."
—René Descartes
 
Last edited:
Sean, my beef with you is that you tend to put creationism on par with evolution. One of them is absolute, no question about it.


The other can be if it is contorted politically, but it is acknowledged as imperfect.

One claims to be complete. The other gets flipped on it's head with new evidence all the time.

I notice that you bring different scientific theories and controversies in quite a bit. Do you do the same with biblical quotes or from the Koran?

I myself would fight against any dogmatic thinking and I appreciate skeptical inquiry. I don't deny that it is possible in secular thought, but I find that to be not as prevalent in the upper strata of scientific circles.

My religious upbringing taught me to never even truly learn the first step of what evolution even is, and many of my religious friends balk at the thought of it.


"I don't come from no damn monkey!!"


I think if we were allowed to really examine these things, we'd understand what the term theory really means, stay open to new info, and be wary of absolutes. It's an immature concept.

Some of what you're presenting might be a bit beyond the Convo in this thread. Plus sometimes you run to some esoteric concept when proven wrong on one level.
 
So yeah. Good question. What's the beef??

The beef is between those who know SOMETHING definitive about their existence (and continue to learn more) versus those who know NOTHING (beyond fairytales) and are totally at peace with that.
 

Differ in feeling? I don't know how to explain that. I've never hallucinated before and as for dreams, I've had all kinds of them from the ridiculously weird to those i'd rather not discuss. LOL. I frankly can't describe how my dreams feel. Can you?

Why do you ask?

Here's a preemptive quote from though:

"Whatever I have accepted until now as most true has come to me through my senses. But occasionally I have found that they have deceived me, and it is unwise to trust completely those who have deceived us even once."
—René Descartes


I was just curious as to how were you convinced that what you felt during your transcendent state was more than just a product of your brain unlike the most vivid dreams and actually reflected another reality? Doesn't the quote from Descartes apply to you transcendent state as well?
 

But wait though O, there isn't any real equivalence here is there?

Consider the trajectory of the development of early man into enlightened man.
WHATEVER the religion or religious like philosophies that were created and adopted, the construction of the concept of gods (polytheism) which came BEFORE god (monotheism) was born from man, primitive or otherwise. And almost all were anthropomorphized constructions mirroring humans, or monsters, or beasts. . . Oh, and the sun as god, or the earth as god.

I could go on, but my point is no matter WHAT iteration of god or creator spiritualists or theist are touting now, they are ALL sourced from early religious movements and thinking, which were created by man, and transformed to some degree over millennia to suit their needs. In ANY case, there has been NOTHING produced to support their claims.
JG, I respect these views and while I agree that religious doctrine come from anthropomorphic thinking, this way of thinking about the world was inevitable, necessary and instrumental in the development of organized societies and human civilization.
In the development of early man into enlightened man religious 'thought' played a role in the development of the scientific 'thought'. Pre-16th century Natural Philosophy was the precursor to what we now call science and in it's own right evolved, not in the preconceived linear iterative way that most people think, but through paradigm shifts influenced by economics and politics both of which "suited the needs of man". I gave a few examples of this in this thread which were ignored. Not suprised.

The popular romantic view of the battle between science and religion (oppositions to heliocentrism, Galileo's death, etc) makes for good banter but it's far from the full picture. See popularized misconceptions like The Myth of the Flat Earth for example. Or the chapter "Late Birth of the Flat Earth" in Sthephen J. Gould's "Dinosaur in a Haystack". In fact, religion at times played a nurturing role in the early development of science. I am by no mean down-playing the obstructive role that institutional religiosity has played in the progress of science (stem-cell research debate as a present example) All I'm saying is that folks should consider all the facts and history when formulating making arguments.

You can say that religious dogma impedes skepticism and inquiry, and you can argue the the detrimental socio-geo-political-whatever correlates of "silly religion". Fair game. But, these are all proximal issues. Ultimately, science and religion present two distinct ways of approaching EXPERIENCE. As interpretations of experience, science is descriptive while religion is prescriptive. They address themselves to different issues and since both INSTITUTIONS are formulated under two very distinct conceptual frameworks, does it even make sense to pit one against the other? To try and reconcile claims posed by either? Or is is just because scientific claims are available to our intuitive senses?

What about quantum mechanics? (if you want to discuss the epistemological consequences of the interpretations of QM here or in another thread that's fine too)
I recall someone on this board once saying in a similar thread that:

"Science is about the knowledge of outer space. Religion is about the knowledge of inner space."
For me, that elegantly sums it up.

IMO, the issue arises only when science and religion both try to swap their descriptive and prescriptive roles.

Now if your argument is essentially about "equivalence" then I guess we'd have to decide on a universal benchmark or calibration standard. But, I guess it's gonna have to be acknowledged by every single person on the planet ... individually. Being that experience is a critical parameter.




On the other hand, we could simplify the argument and say, the scientific method PRODUCES, ALL OTHER forms (religious or spiritual, whatever that is) DON'T. Unless someone comes forward with another 'testable/usable' method I say that, there can be no equivocation at all between the scientific approach and it's amassed body of knowledge vs. ANYTHING else.
What we know is what we know. What we don't, we don't. Whatever this reality/existence is or isn't, only the scientific method has advanced our understanding. Nothing else has, religious or otherwise. So I don't see equivalence here. Any thoughts. Sorry for the rushed statement and query.

JG
This is the Logical Positivist view of only stuff that can be physically tested and recorded (and in some cases, interpreted) bare any epistemological meaning or utility. But i'm sure you know the classic logical pit-fall of this philosophical position right?

JG, are you familiar with Feyerabend's work? Who challenges the popular notion of science being this autonomous form of reasoning and that it's inseparable from the larger body of human thought and inquiry. As such, not everything is available to empirical vindication.


02sept15_powellnbcmeetthepressreiraq.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sean, my beef with you is that you tend to put creationism on par with evolution. One of them is absolute, no question about it.

REALLY? THIS IS YOUR BEEF?PLEASE SHOW WHERE I'VE PUT CREATIONISM BEFORE EVOLUTION OR EVEN LOOSELY IMPLIED THIS. A QUOTE WOULD SUFFICE. FROM THIS THREAD OR ANY OTHER THREAD ON THIS BOARD YOU WANT. MATTER OF FACT, QUOTE ANYWHERE IN THIS THREAD I'VE TYPED THE WORD CREATIONISM OR EVOLUTION. I'M REALLY CURIOUS NOW...



The other can be if it is contorted politically, but it is acknowledged as imperfect.

One claims to be complete. The other gets flipped on it's head with new evidence all the time.

I notice that you bring different scientific theories and controversies in quite a bit. Do you do the same with biblical quotes or from the Koran?

FIRSTLY, SPECIFICALLY, WHAT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES AND CONTROVERSIES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
SECONDLY, MOST RELIGIOUS TEXT (LIKE THE BIBLE) ARE LOADED WITH MYTHOLOGY. THAT ALONE INTRODUCES ENOUGH CONTROVERSY FOR A 25 PAGE BGOL THREAD.

BUT WHAT DOES BRINGING UP CONTROVERSIES IN RELIGIOUS TEXT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING I'VE BEEN SAYING IN HERE?
I'M REALLY STARTING TO GET CONVINCED THAT YOU'RE NOT READING MY POSTS. OR YOU'RE JUST MENTALLY TRANS-MORPHING IT TO SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH.
CAN SOMEONE ELSE IN THIS THREAD EXPLAIN THIS TO ME? :confused:




I myself would fight against any dogmatic thinking and I appreciate skeptical inquiry. I don't deny that it is possible in secular thought, but I find that to be not as prevalent in the upper strata of scientific circles.

WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU DEFINE AS THE UPPER STRATA OF SCIENTIFIC CIRCLES?
THEORETICAL PHYSICISTS LIKE STRING THEORIST PERHAPS?




My religious upbringing taught me to never even truly learn the first step of what evolution even is, and many of my religious friends balk at the thought of it.
"I don't come from no damn monkey!!"

SORRY, BUT MANY OF YOUR RELIGIOUS FRIENDS ARE MISINFORMED. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION HAS NEVER CLAIMED THAT MAN CAME FROM MONKEYS. ALL IT CLAIMS IS COMMON ANCESTRY. SEE, THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING FROM JUMP ABOUT MISINFORMATION.



I think if we were allowed to really examine these things, we'd understand what the term theory really means, stay open to new info, and be wary of absolutes. It's an immature concept.

I AGREE. A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS ONLY AS GOOD AS IT'S PREDICTIVE POWER AND ROBUST AS IT'S ABILITY TO BE FALSIFIED.


Some of what you're presenting might be a bit beyond the Convo in this thread. Plus sometimes you run to some esoteric concept when proven wrong on one level.

WHAT ESOTERIC CONCEPT HAVE I RUN TO? SPECIFIC EXAMPLE PLEASE. THANKS.

I DON'T THINK I'M TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING BEYOND THIS CONVO. THREADS LIKE THIS NO MATTER THE INITIATING POST ALWAYS DIVERGE INTO SCIENCE VERSUS RELIGION AND THEN ALL KINDS OF BS START SPEWING. ALL I'M DOING IS CHALLENGING SOME OF THEM. WHEN I GET TO A DEAD END I SAY I DON'T KNOW. SHIT, I'M HOPING TO LEARN SOMETHING NEW IN HERE TOO. THAT'S WHY I COME INTO (SOME) OF THESE THREADS. :dunno:
.....
 
:lol::lol:

^^^


Dawg, you just made some mathamatical equation and went on some long tangent about how science and math doesn't prove anything. Then when you're proven wrong, you say, "oh, but you just went about the equation another way", so dude puts it in a way that is straight to the point and shows you how you're fundamentally wrong. Then you resort to quoting some deeper math theory. It's like you're overthinking shit sometimes. On one level, I'm all for it, many of my friends say the same about me, but I'm just pointing it out.

As for the creationism/evolution thing, my bad- I truly read that wrong.I didn't say that you put it ahead, I thought you were putting them on equal footing. And true, abiogenesis would be a less stupid place to start.

I will attempt to copy your stream of debate

Poster:1+1=2


YOU: ah yes, but can you really PROVE it? YOU, my friend are JUST LIKE THE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE YOU CLAIM TO HATE

Post:not on an abstract level, but on a level that is USEFUL to us as human, I CAN. And what I can prove on this level is much different is held to a much different burden of proof than say, a claim of the supernatural.See? two apples, I'm eating them right now. want one?

YOU: I could eat one, but would I REALLY be eating it? Surely you've heard of the Newtonian principles of apple eating.. if I eat the apple then it would cease to exist, and we would no longer have TWO



I agree with something you said in another post about anthropomorphism being a logical step in earlier days, sometimes you just lose me. I actually look to support your arguments, but I swear in your zeal to be middle of the road, you tend to come off as just another religious defender.

And cmon man, you can make a post about evolution RIGHT here on this freethinking friendly board (well, fairly anyway), and you will get loads of people coming in here with that ape bullshit. It aint just my friends. I'll bet you money, you got friends or fam on that same bullshit.


I didn't feel like quoting you, I paraphrased
 
I read page 1 and that was enough.

Maybe somebody have said this already but you ever notice these so-called atheists always cry for GOD when they are in pain and trouble!

btw since atheist dispel every notions about GOD existence, can any of you explain why/how life exist on Earth?

a baby does not cry to God, until it learns the words on how to. Matter of fact, it learns how to say Mama or Daddy before GOD.

Shouting "oh God!" for one reason or another is just a figure of speech- I've often hollered "oh shit!" when in trouble, you think I expect a piece of shit to come help me?

As far as how life exists on earth, you should google some things, but honestly, atheists aren't the ones who claim to know all of these things, YOU DO.
 
a baby does not cry to God, until it learns the words on how to. Matter of fact, it learns how to say Mama or Daddy before GOD.

Shouting "oh God!" for one reason or another is just a figure of speech- I've often hollered "oh shit!" when in trouble, you think I expect a piece of shit to come help me?

As far as how life exists on earth, you should google some things, but honestly, atheists aren't the ones who claim to know all of these things, YOU DO.

I almost spat out my fuckin drink:lol:
 
:lol::lol:

^^^
Dawg, you just made some mathamatical equation and went on some long tangent about how science and math doesn't prove anything. Then when you're proven wrong, you say, "oh, but you just went about the equation another way", so dude puts it in a way that is straight to the point and shows you how you're fundamentally wrong. Then you resort to quoting some deeper math theory. It's like you're overthinking shit sometimes. On one level, I'm all for it, many of my friends say the same about me, but I'm just pointing it out.

Trust me i'm not over thinking. Everything I type is well thought out. I promise you.

I said that there's no proof in science.

I NEVER SAID MATH DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING. Again, quote where i've said this. I'll type it in caps again: QUOTE WHERE I SAID THAT THERE's NO PROOF IN MATH.

It appears you keep accusing me of shit that you never back up. I've asked you several times to quote some of the shit you've accused me of and I get crickets.

His first attempt to disprove it was WRONG (incomplete at best). His second attempt, WHICH HAD ABSOLUTELY NO RELATION to the first attempt was right. And I acknowledged it. And like I said in a previous post (which you clearly overlooked, as usual) that was the whole point of my posting that 1+1= 0 'proof' in the first place!

What deeper math theory? Gödel's Incompleteness Theory? If you're not familiar with it why don't you look it up? Google it. Skeptical inquiry, right? Or you're just gonna dismiss it as bullshit without investigation? Like the blind religious folks?
Or just because you're not familiar with it all of the sudden it's a "deep math theory?":confused:
Or is it possible that i'm not "over thinking it" and you're just under thinking it?:confused:




As for the creationism/evolution thing, my bad- I truly read that wrong.I didn't say that you put it ahead, I thought you were putting them on equal footing. And true, abiogenesis would be a less stupid place to start.

OK.



I will attempt to copy your stream of debate

Poster:1+1=2


YOU: ah yes, but can you really PROVE it? YOU, my friend are JUST LIKE THE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE YOU CLAIM TO HATE

Post:not on an abstract level, but on a level that is USEFUL to us as human, I CAN. And what I can prove on this level is much different is held to a much different burden of proof than say, a claim of the supernatural.See? two apples, I'm eating them right now. want one?

No. not so fast. :lol: I see an apple and an apricot. LOL. Don't you notice that your statement: "And what I can prove on this level is much different is held to a much different burden of proof than say, a claim of the supernatural." suggests that scientific claims and religious claims shouldn't be held to the same standard?
Admit it man, you're selectively reading my posts.

OK. I'll ask you this question directly since everyone else keeps dodging it. How can you qualitatively and quantitatively scientifically 'prove' (or verify, whatever) a very REAL life phenomena like, how much you love your mother?"




YOU: I could eat one, but would I REALLY be eating it? Surely you've heard of the Newtonian principles of apple eating.. if I eat the apple then it would cease to exist, and we would no longer have TWO



:confused::confused::confused: da fuck?

Yeah. Ok, so uhm, we've gotten to that classic threshold point of discussions like this where ambiguous figuratives take over. Yeah. We're about done. :lol: At least we can agree to disagree on some issues. Good discussion. :yes:




I agree with something you said in another post about anthropomorphism being a logical step in earlier days, sometimes you just lose me. I actually look to support your arguments, but I swear in your zeal to be middle of the road, you tend to come off as just another religious defender.

:lol: @ religious defender. Like St. Michael huh.

Why are you so scared of the middle of the road? Not being facetious here, i'm really curious. What's so threatening about this?

And athropomorphism hasn't disappeared. In a sense, it's still as innate and intuitive 20,000 years ago as it is today. Just in a different form.




And cmon man, you can make a post about evolution RIGHT here on this freethinking friendly board (well, fairly anyway), and you will get loads of people coming in here with that ape bullshit. It aint just my friends. I'll bet you money, you got friends or fam on that same bullshit.

Hey, you're right. And I never said it's just your friends. I know mad people who think evolution means man came from apes. Shit, this interpretation is more popular than you'd think. My mom thinks it.



I didn't feel like quoting you, I paraphrased

OK.
.....
 
Last edited:
I read page 1 and that was enough.

Maybe somebody have said this already but you ever notice these so-called atheists always cry for GOD when they are in pain and trouble!

btw since atheist dispel every notions about GOD existence, can any of you explain why/how life exist on Earth?
a baby does not cry to God, until it learns the words on how to. Matter of fact, it learns how to say Mama or Daddy before GOD.

Shouting "oh God!" for one reason or another is just a figure of speech- I've often hollered "oh shit!" when in trouble, you think I expect a piece of shit to come help me?

As far as how life exists on earth, you should google some things, but honestly, atheists aren't the ones who claim to know all of these things, YOU DO.

Exactly. Dude's argument is weak. Some people cry "Oh Shit!" when they're in mortal danger. Does this mean their god is poop? :confused:
 
Some of you guys type so much to the point you all start confuse yourself.

How silly and naive to think that when I say atheists cry for GOD when they are in trouble I was referring to some 1 sec random outburst.

Anyway carry on.....
 
you got around to my latest question bruh?


Oh shit. My bad. I missed that.

OK. I thought as much that this was where you were going with this that's why I put out that Descartes quote which essentially says that our senses can't be trusted - even to give us a 'real' or 'accurate' description of our physical environment.

The short answer. First, I never suggested that it wasn't a product of my brain. Secondly, for me, I don't know about others but I'd suspect it would be the same, when i'm asleep and dreaming (except for lucid dreams) that dream state in my reality. Lots of weird shit can happen in that dream that don't happen my waking reality. And I only know that I was dreaming in the first place if AFTER I wake up and remember some stuff the weird stuff that went on in the dream.

There isn't much difference during (my) meditation. I'm just more sensitive to 'strong stimuli' because, for lack of better word, i'm in a quasi-waking state. I'd suspect the same would be the case for folks that get high. Although I think the 'return to reality' from a chemical high is limited by how long it takes for the chemical to wear off.
 
I was just curious as to how were you convinced that what you felt during your transcendent state was more than just a product of your brain unlike the most vivid dreams and actually reflected another reality? Doesn't the quote from Descartes apply to you transcendent state as well?

Question:
In an optical illusion where you 'see' several things for one image/object, which one is real?
 
Oh shit. My bad. I missed that.

OK. I thought as much that this was where you were going with this that's why I put out that Descartes quote which essentially says that our senses can't be trusted - even to give us a 'real' or 'accurate' description of our physical environment.

The short answer. First, I never suggested that it wasn't a product of my brain. Secondly, for me, I don't know about others but I'd suspect it would be the same, when i'm asleep and dreaming (except for lucid dreams) that dream state in my reality. Lots of weird shit can happen in that dream that don't happen my waking reality. And I only know that I was dreaming in the first place if AFTER I wake up and remember some stuff the weird stuff that went on in the dream.

There isn't much difference during (my) meditation. I'm just more sensitive to 'strong stimuli' because, for lack of better word, i'm in a quasi-waking state. I'd suspect the same would be the case for folks that get high. Although I think the 'return to reality' from a chemical high is limited by how long it takes for the chemical to wear off.

aite:cool: so you think that dreams are a glimpse into alternate realities?

Question:
In an optical illusion where you 'see' several things for one image/object, which one is real?

I would guess that they're all 'real' or at least one image that the brain is tricked/unable to process as such so they get split up. Kinda like when someone's drunk and sees two of everything...
 
Back
Top