This is why. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : This is why.


Gunhaver
07-17-2012, 04:31
http://www.examiner.com/article/why-debate-religion-part-2?cid=db_articles

High-Gear
07-17-2012, 04:57
Good read!

JBnTX
07-17-2012, 05:48
Insulting piece of garbage.

Especially items 1 thru 5.

GreenDrake
07-17-2012, 06:17
Great read, thanks. Like this point - Because religion teaches people to accept ignorance

English
07-17-2012, 06:43
Insulting piece of garbage.

Especially items 1 thru 5.

You demonstrate that you are a prime example of what he is talking and he expresses it in a clear and reasoned way. Without your religion, I don't think you could be half as stupid as you seem.

English

Lone Wolf8634
07-17-2012, 06:46
Insulting piece of garbage.

Especially items 1 thru 5.

Which part insulted you personally?

So it's entirely OK for you to broadcast your....opinions, but anyone who disagrees has written an "Insulting piece of garbage."?

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 07:32
Great read, thanks. Like this point - Because religion teaches people to accept ignorance

I'd disagree. Religion attempts to explain the unknown, and is an attempt to avoid ignorance, right or wrong.

Agnosticism is the acceptance of ignorance. It's not a bad thing to admit you don't know what you don't know.

Gunhaver
07-17-2012, 07:43
I'd disagree. Religion attempts to explain the unknown, and is an attempt to avoid ignorance, right or wrong.

Agnosticism is the acceptance of ignorance. It's not a bad thing to admit you don't know what you don't know.

He's not talking about acceptance as in coming to terms with not knowing. He's talking about acceptance as in we have the answer in this old book so there's no need to look further.

Your job would be very different if we'd just accepted that illnesses were caused by sin or evil spirits.

GreenDrake
07-17-2012, 07:53
I'd disagree. Religion attempts to explain the unknown, and is an attempt to avoid ignorance, right or wrong.

Agnosticism is the acceptance of ignorance. It's not a bad thing to admit you don't know what you don't know.

Religion doesn't attempt to explain the unknown, it masks reality with fairy tales and threats of eternal damnation if you don't join the club. It was the first form of politics and control.

Lone Wolf8634
07-17-2012, 08:09
I'd disagree. Religion attempts to explain the unknown, and is an attempt to avoid ignorance, right or wrong.


So it's anachronistic and ultimately destructive to it's (your) stated objectives?

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 08:19
He's not talking about acceptance as in coming to terms with not knowing. He's talking about acceptance as in we have the answer in this old book so there's no need to look further.

Your job would be very different if we'd just accepted that illnesses were caused by sin or evil spirits.

And yet, look how far we've come with it including the involvement of people with markedly different belief systems.

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 08:21
Religion doesn't attempt to explain the unknown, it masks reality with fairy tales and threats of eternal damnation if you don't join the club. It was the first form of politics and control.

Most people consider the other religious beliefs as fairy tales.

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 08:22
So it's anachronistic and ultimately destructive to it's (your) stated objectives?

Nah, I just accept people make choices, and it's their right to do so.

Lone Wolf8634
07-17-2012, 08:24
Nah, I just accept people make choices, and it's their right to do so.


So whats the price of tea in China?

RC-RAMIE
07-17-2012, 08:28
And yet, look how far we've come with it including the involvement of people with markedly different belief systems.

Who is to say we wouldn't be better without ever having it, we have came far but we might have still been held back. Who knows.

Altaris
07-17-2012, 09:00
I'd disagree. Religion attempts to explain the unknown, and is an attempt to avoid ignorance, right or wrong.

Religion doesn't attempt to explain the unknown. It its eyes there are no unknowns, because it already has all of the answers. If we went off just religion we would still be living in the caves because we wouldn't try to question things or learn anything new.

High-Gear
07-17-2012, 09:12
I'd disagree. Religion attempts to explain the unknown, and is an attempt to avoid ignorance, right or wrong.

Agnosticism is the acceptance of ignorance. It's not a bad thing to admit you don't know what you don't know.

Religion was a first attempt to explain the unknown, much as alchemy was a first attempt at chemistry, and astrology was a first attempt at cosmology. However we have given up on those other failed first attempts, however we still cling to religion...interesting?

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 09:49
So whats the price of tea in China?

I prefer coffee

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 09:50
Religion was a first attempt to explain the unknown, much as alchemy was a first attempt at chemistry, and astrology was a first attempt at cosmology. However we have given up on those other failed first attempts, however we still cling to religion...interesting?

And guns, don't forget the guns.

Geko45
07-17-2012, 15:07
And yet, look how far we've come with it including the involvement of people with markedly different belief systems.

But only in spite of religion, not because of it. Only when we take a leap and step outside the previous, limited understanding do we make progress. Religion has always claimed to have all the answers and discourages people from looking beyond it. Some do anyway and are typically scorned and persecuted for their efforts. Only when the evidence becomes so insurmountable as to overwhelm incredulity does religion finally yield and incorporate a no concept.

Norske
07-17-2012, 15:36
Most people consider the other religious beliefs as fairy tales.

This is what drove me to the conclusion that all religious beliefs were equally fairy tales.

Including the particular brand of fairy tale that my own parents jammed down my throat as a child.

Because their parents jammed that fairy tale down their throats as a child. Because their parents jammed that fairy tale........etc.

Back to the point where some Christian priest convinced my g'g'g'g'g'---whatever grandfather to convert over from his belief in Odin. :upeyes:

Norske
07-17-2012, 15:43
Religion was a first attempt to explain the unknown, much as alchemy was a first attempt at chemistry, and astrology was a first attempt at cosmology. However we have given up on those other failed first attempts, however we still cling to religion...interesting?

Because Clergymen still make their living off the con.

9/11/01 was an exercise in trying to bring us all back under the thumb of Theocratic Dictatorship.

And the control of Priest-Politicians who used religion, to control our thoughts and lives as they did for most of the last 10,000+ years..

Was Pharaoh really a God?

The Egyptians were sure he was. :faint:

Was all the energy and time spent by the peons to build the pyramids wasted on someone who was, in reality, actually only a man? :faint:

If so, is not all the time, treasure, blood and lives that mankind still expends on "religion" just as wasted as all that time, treasure, blood, and lives that went into building the pyramids?

:dunno:

Roering
07-17-2012, 16:47
http://www.examiner.com/article/why-debate-religion-part-2?cid=db_articles

strawman

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 18:14
But only in spite of religion, not because of it. Only when we take a leap and step outside the previous, limited understanding do we make progress. Religion has always claimed to have all the answers and discourages people from looking beyond it. Some do anyway and are typically scorned and persecuted for their efforts. Only when the evidence becomes so insurmountable as to overwhelm incredulity does religion finally yield and incorporate a no concept.

That's an awfully biased view. There were times when religious beliefs hindered and helped increase knowledge. It's hard to see when you already know everything I guess.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Oh the irony.

Sarge1400
07-17-2012, 18:38
That's an awfully biased view. There were times when religious beliefs hindered and helped increase knowledge. It's hard to see when you already know everything I guess.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Oh the irony.

Not ironic, just ridiculous. Science without religion is simply science.

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 19:15
Not ironic, just ridiculous. Science without religion is simply science.

Not according to some of the greatest scientists in history. Not all of them were christian, some were jewish, some believed in Spinoza and other deities, some were atheists.

I find it rather arrogant to assume that science is an achievement of only one religious belief, when it is so obvious that is not true.

Gunhaver
07-17-2012, 19:17
That's an awfully biased view. There were times when religious beliefs hindered and helped increase knowledge. It's hard to see when you already know everything I guess.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Oh the irony.

There were times (most of human history actually)when all scientific research and experimentation was done by religious men because that's the only kind of men there were. That doesn't mean their religion had anything to do with them making any discoveries or that they couldn't have figured anything out without religion.

Since you like definitions so much I suggest you look up the definition of irony, Allanis.

Sarge1400
07-17-2012, 19:23
Not according to some of the greatest scientists in history. Not all of them were christian, some were jewish, some believed in Spinoza and other deities, some were atheists.

I find it rather arrogant to assume that science is an achievement of only one religious belief, when it is so obvious that is not true.

What you can't grasp is that science is successful in spite of religion, not because of it. Sure, some scientists are religious, doesn't mean it has an impact on their work.

I would also find it arrogant to assume that science is an achievement of only one religious belief, if I could find even one human being who thinks that it is. Up to the strawman tactics again, eh Captain?

Geko45
07-17-2012, 19:25
That's an awfully biased view.

But it's one I hold with ardent fervor.

:tongueout:


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Oh the irony.

Irony indeed.

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Altaris
07-17-2012, 19:38
Not according to some of the greatest scientists in history. Not all of them were christian, some were jewish, some believed in Spinoza and other deities, some were atheists.

I find it rather arrogant to assume that science is an achievement of only one religious belief, when it is so obvious that is not true.

When did anyone mention them all being christians, or that science is an achievement of one religious belief?

As Sarge said, "Science without religion is simply science."

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 19:51
But it's one I hold with ardent fervor.

:tongueout:




Irony indeed.

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

And yet, he was a theist. He didn't believe in a personal deity, but rejected the idea that reality just happened.

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

A little long, but worth the read. It'll help you understand the irony.

Science and Religion
By Albert Einstein

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm

Geko45
07-17-2012, 19:52
When did anyone mention them all being christians, or that science is an achievement of one religious belief?

Yeah, that's a strawman from Doc. The fact that no one religion has contributed significantly more than any other is evidence that none of them have it right. Furthermore, the disproportionate number of atheists in the scientific community as compared against the population at large also reinforces the idea that science does better when separated (protected) from religion.

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 19:54
When did anyone mention them all being christians, or that science is an achievement of one religious belief?

As Sarge said, "Science without religion is simply science."

It might help to understand that he and I have a slightly different opinion on what "without religion" means.

Geko45
07-17-2012, 19:55
And yet, he was a theist. He didn't believe in a personal deity, but rejected the idea that reality just happened.

You are incorrect. Einstein self-identified himself as an agnostic.

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 20:12
You are incorrect. Einstein self-identified himself as an agnostic.

Obviously an amazingly intelligent fellow.



Would it surprise either of us if he held different beliefs at different times.

Maybe some more quotes will help......




"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."



:dunno:

Altaris
07-17-2012, 20:29
Yeah, it is 41min long, and I have posted it before, but it is a good video by Neil deGrasse Tyson. Especially in regards to older generations of scientists and their religious beliefs at that time...

Neil Tyson presentation about intelligent design - YouTube

Sarge1400
07-17-2012, 20:43
It might help to understand that he and I have a slightly different opinion on what "without religion" means.

Allow me to attempt to clarify: I think that "without religion" actually means "without religion", specifically, rejection of the assertion that deities exist.

Cavalry Doc seems to think that "without religion" means "the religion of not having religion".:shocked:

Geko45
07-17-2012, 20:43
Obviously an amazingly intelligent fellow.

I thought you'd like that one, but ultimately Einstein was a man of his time. He couldn't quite make the leap to atheism in much the same way he couldn't quite make the leap to quantum mechanics.

To paraphase Sir Isaac Newton, if I have been able to see further than others it is because I have stood upon the shoulders of giants.

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 20:53
Allow me to attempt to clarify: I think that "without religion" actually means "without religion", specifically, rejection of the assertion that deities exist.

Cavalry Doc seems to think that "without religion" means "the religion of not having religion".:shocked:

Well, that's an awful pretty straw man ya got there mister.

Actually, it's rather simple. There is no evidence proving the existence or absence of a deity in the history of the universe. Quite frankly, none of us know. Some of us choose to believe that no deity has ever existed. It is a choice based solely on faith. But that's an entirely different subject.

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 20:54
I thought you'd like that one, but ultimately Einstein was a man of his time. He couldn't quite make the leap to atheism in much the same way he couldn't quite make the leap to quantum mechanics.

To paraphase Sir Isaac Newton, if I have been able to see further than others it is because I have stood upon the shoulders of giants.

So he just wasn't modern enough to be as clever as you?

Seriously?

Geko45
07-17-2012, 21:00
So he just wasn't modern enough to be as clever as you?

Seriously?

Nah, he covered more ground in his life than I will likely ever be able to in mine, but why would I start anywhere other than where he left off? Should I go backward to theism? Should I assume he got it all wrong? I think not.

You'll have to excuse me, I have to go attend services at the Temple of Science now...

:tongueout:

Gunhaver
07-17-2012, 21:17
Well, that's an awful pretty straw man ya got there mister.

Actually, it's rather simple. There is no evidence proving the existence or absence of a deity in the history of the universe. Quite frankly, none of us know. Some of us choose to believe that no deity has ever existed. It is a choice based solely on faith. But that's an entirely different subject.

I'd be interested in your response to this thread.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1432667

Specifically to the first post and not to the tangent it's run off on by page 2.

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 21:21
Nah, he covered more ground in his life than I will likely ever be able to in mine, but why would I start anywhere other than where he left off? Should I go backward to theism? Should I assume he got it all wrong? I think not.

You'll have to excuse me, I have to go attend services at the Temple of Science now...

:tongueout:

Sure thing. :wavey:

But, just goes to show you, the more you know, the more you realize you don't know.

Nah, you made your choice. You have every right to make it. The ability to be so sure of yourself when there is no evidence either way is illustrative though.

There is a point where pride becomes hubris.

Geko45
07-17-2012, 21:27
There is a point where pride becomes hubris.

You really need to watch Altaris's video if you are interested in identifying hubris.

Sarge1400
07-17-2012, 21:27
Well, that's an awful pretty straw man ya got there mister.

Really? Have I misstated your position? Last I knew, you thought atheism was a religion.

Actually, it's rather simple.

I agree. Why do you keep complicating it?


There is no evidence proving the existence or absence of a deity in the history of the universe. Quite frankly, none of us know. Some of us choose to believe that no deity has ever existed. It is a choice based solely on faith. But that's an entirely different subject.

You keep saying that, but it simply isn't true. Just because there are two possible answers doesn't mean each one carries equal weight.

Let's say a patient presents to you with what appears to be chicken pox. You do your thing, and the evidence appears to point to chicken pox. But, couldn't it also be the curse of a witch doctor? Do you treat it as if it's chicken pox, or as if it's a curse? After all, since you can't prove it isn't a curse, doesn't that possibility carry as much weight as it actually being chicken pox?

Yes, this is a frivolous example, and I know you like to pretend there's some profound difference because of the supposed weightiness you assign to the deity/no deity argument, but that supposed weightiness is meaningless to atheists (well at least to me). I acknowledge that there is no proof that there are no deities, but also that there is an overwhelming lack of evidence they do exist. Therefore, I reject the assertion on those grounds, and do not pretend that both arguments carry equal weight simply because neither can be absolutely proven.

Geko45
07-17-2012, 22:13
The real problem with the proposition that Cavalry Doc puts forward (which Dr. Tyson describes so eloquently in the video posted by Altaris) is that if everyone subscribed to it then all progress on the topic would come to a halt.

Suppose the question of the existence of a supreme deity is solvable, but it will take generations of research and analysis to do so. If we all just throw up our hands and give up because there is no way for us personally to know then noone is working on the problem anymore and those necessary intermediary steps are never achieved.

Like the video describes, we know what we know today about orbital mechanics because Laplace built upon the work of Huygens who built upon the work of Newton who built upon the work of Gallileo and Copernicus, etc, etc. None of them could get there in one step, but if any of them had given up we would not be as far along as we are today in our understanding.

Cavalry Doc proposes that the answer is unsolvable. That is hubris. He has no way of knowing that and by suggesting it he (and others that hold the same position) hinder those among us who actually might be able to.

Gunhaver
07-17-2012, 23:35
The real problem with the proposition that Cavalry Doc puts forward (which Dr. Tyson describes so eloquently in the video posted by Altaris) is that if everyone subscribed to it then all progress on the topic would come to a halt.

Suppose the question of the existence of a supreme deity is solvable, but it will take generations of research and analysis to do so. If we all just throw up our hands and give up because there is no way for us personally to know then noone is working on the problem anymore and those necessary intermediary steps are never achieved.

Like the video describes, we know what we know today about orbital mechanics because Laplace built upon the work of Huygens who built upon the work of Newton who built upon the work of Gallileo and Copernicus, etc, etc. None of them could get there in one step, but if any of them had given up we would not be as far along as we are today in our understanding.

Cavalry Doc proposes that the answer is unsolvable. That is hubris. He has no way of knowing that and by suggesting it he (and others that hold the same position) hinder those among us who actually might be able to.

I think by "unknowable" he means that there's no amount or type of evidence that would convince him. It's a heads I win tails you lose proposition. Even if there was a perfect unified theory of everything that explained it all right back to a point where the math showed how it all began and several quadrillion years of nothingness before that and our FTL telescopes at the edge of the universe confirmed it there would always be those theists like Doc who just needed it to be true so much they will always claim the possibility because you can't show what happened before that quadrillion years.

In fact he would claim it's an equal probability because you can't prove 101% either way.

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 04:49
Really? Have I misstated your position? Last I knew, you thought atheism was a religion.



I agree. Why do you keep complicating it?




You keep saying that, but it simply isn't true. Just because there are two possible answers doesn't mean each one carries equal weight.

Let's say a patient presents to you with what appears to be chicken pox. You do your thing, and the evidence appears to point to chicken pox. But, couldn't it also be the curse of a witch doctor? Do you treat it as if it's chicken pox, or as if it's a curse? After all, since you can't prove it isn't a curse, doesn't that possibility carry as much weight as it actually being chicken pox?

Yes, this is a frivolous example, and I know you like to pretend there's some profound difference because of the supposed weightiness you assign to the deity/no deity argument, but that supposed weightiness is meaningless to atheists (well at least to me). I acknowledge that there is no proof that there are no deities, but also that there is an overwhelming lack of evidence they do exist. Therefore, I reject the assertion on those grounds, and do not pretend that both arguments carry equal weight simply because neither can be absolutely proven.


The analogies are entertaining, but very unnecessary. Obviously, there is nothing quite so profound as the beginning of the answer to the question,"why are we here".

I think if you'll go back, you'll see that you stated your case, and attributed it to me. And yes, quite plainly that was a straw man you built.

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 05:27
The real problem with the proposition that Cavalry Doc puts forward (which Dr. Tyson describes so eloquently in the video posted by Altaris) is that if everyone subscribed to it then all progress on the topic would come to a halt.

Suppose the question of the existence of a supreme deity is solvable, but it will take generations of research and analysis to do so. If we all just throw up our hands and give up because there is no way for us personally to know then noone is working on the problem anymore and those necessary intermediary steps are never achieved.

Like the video describes, we know what we know today about orbital mechanics because Laplace built upon the work of Huygens who built upon the work of Newton who built upon the work of Gallileo and Copernicus, etc, etc. None of them could get there in one step, but if any of them had given up we would not be as far along as we are today in our understanding.

Cavalry Doc proposes that the answer is unsolvable. That is hubris. He has no way of knowing that and by suggesting it he (and others that hold the same position) hinder those among us who actually might be able to.

When have I ever said it was unsolvable? It's currently unknown. Currently, we have know way to know, but that surely has not stopped scientific progress to date? In fact, admitted ignorance has led to huge advances, as people seek the answer. Sometimes, cool stuff is found along the way that you weren't even attempting to find. Penicillin for example.

Even if it is impossible for anyone in my generation to know, that would have absolutely zero effect on most of us wanting to find a cure for cancer, ways to control the weather, etc etc etc....

Admitting you don't know something is sometimes the first step in great discoveries.

Geko45
07-18-2012, 06:41
When have I ever said it was unsolvable? It's currently unknown.

What else are we to take from your statements?. You have gone as far as saying that it is hubris to think we can know this answer. If it is hubris to think that then certainly it is hubris to search for it as well since maybe we'll find it and you've already stated that claiming to know it is hubris.

Your philisophy on this point is an intellectual dead end. It leads to know further answers and I want answers. So, I choose to discard it and keep searching.

Even if it is impossible for anyone in my generation to know, that would have absolutely zero effect on most of us wanting to find a cure for cancer, ways to control the weather, etc etc etc....

You keep changing around what other people say and arguing against that and you still have the nerve to accuse others of strawman arguments?

I wasn't referring to it inhibiting science in general, I was referring it to inhibiting the quest to answer this specific question. Maybe the question of whether god does or does exist is actually knowable. There might be a definite path to a definite answer.

Admitting you don't know now doesn't progress you down that path to an answer. All it does is leave you stumped. If an answer is to be found then it will come from someone(s) that has figured it out and set out on a specific course to prove it. That is where discoveries come from.

Admitting you don't know something is sometimes the first step in great discoveries.

Sometimes happy accidents do occur and someone finds something they are not looking for, but I am not aware of any examples of major discoveries that were found by first admitting that it is unknown (or can't be known). The scientific method starts with someone thinking they know the answer (a hypothesis) and then setting out on a course to either prove or disprove it.

NMG26
07-18-2012, 09:00
Here is a good quote from the artical.

"As Carl Sagan so memorably put it - we are the universe experiencing itself".

The awesomeness of humanity can not be seen, believing that mankind is evil, and the only way this world is going to work out, is by God stepping in and fixing things.
God is not going to step in. It is important to argue against religious thought for this reason, to me.

I also get something spiritual out of testing my own belief against the beliefs of others. I grow.

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 09:52
What else are we to take from your statements?. You have gone as far as saying that it is hubris to think we can know this answer. If it is hubris to think that then certainly it is hubris to search for it as well since maybe we'll find it and you've already stated that claiming to know it is hubris.

Your philisophy on this point is an intellectual dead end. It leads to know further answers and I want answers. So, I choose to discard it and keep searching.


How is it hubris to search for and learn knowledge? I'm certain that you've jumped to the wrong conclusion. It would be hubris to claim to have an answer without sufficient evidence. I've never been against learning more, and must point out that you've misrepresented my position badly.


You keep changing around what other people say and arguing against that and you still have the nerve to accuse others of strawman arguments?

I wasn't referring to it inhibiting science in general, I was referring it to inhibiting the quest to answer this specific question. Maybe the question of whether god does or does exist is actually knowable. There might be a definite path to a definite answer.

And if you care to go back and search, I've said I believe it is possible to know, but that we currently don't know. Not sure how you came to that conclusion about my position either, but we are seeing a trend.


Admitting you don't know now doesn't progress you down that path to an answer. All it does is leave you stumped. If an answer is to be found then it will come from someone(s) that has figured it out and set out on a specific course to prove it. That is where discoveries come from.


Admitting you don't know can just as easily lead to the search for an answer. On this question, what would be your first step?


Sometimes happy accidents do occur and someone finds something they are not looking for, but I am not aware of any examples of major discoveries that were found by first admitting that it is unknown (or can't be known). The scientific method starts with someone thinking they know the answer (a hypothesis) and then setting out on a course to either prove or disprove it.

And how does one come up with a hypothysis? Do they already know the results of experimentation? Nope, on occasion, one is not certain of the outcome, so therefore, actually goes through the process to see what they find.

Are you sure you're familiar with this process? Your steps are not in order, it begins with a question, not a hypothysis.

The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results


Do you think that may be a factor in your previous poor conclusive skills?

Geko45
07-18-2012, 10:36
And how does one come up with a hypothysis?

Are you sure you're familiar with this process?

At least I know how to spell hypothesis.

:tongueout:

Do you think that may be a factor in your previous poor conclusive skills?

Keep playing this way and I'll play this way back.

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 11:03
At least I know how to spell hypothesis.

:tongueout:



Keep playing this way and I'll play this way back.

Tell you what, to be fair I'll take full responsibility for the spelling error, you take full responsibility that your entire line of reasoning was illegitimately based on you misunderstanding the basic principles of how scientific knowledge is acheived.

We'll call it even. :rofl:

Geko45
07-18-2012, 11:46
Tell you what, to be fair I'll take full responsibility for the spelling error, you take full responsibility that your entire line of reasoning was illegitimately based on you misunderstanding the basic principles of how scientific knowledge is acheived.

We'll call it even. :rofl:

Tell you what, I'll concede that my entire line of reasoning was illegitimate if you concede that religion is a scourge on the human race that must be eliminated if we are ever to be truly free.

And then we'll call it... totally lopsided in my favor.

:thumbsup:

Guss
07-18-2012, 11:54
http://diagorasofmelos.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/house_md_religious_en_1015.jpg

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 12:56
Tell you what, I'll concede that my entire line of reasoning was illegitimate if you concede that religion is a scourge on the human race that must be eliminated if we are ever to be truly free.

And then we'll call it... totally lopsided in my favor.

:thumbsup:

You are correct about one thing, that would be lopsided.

Sorta embarrassing when you make those kinds of mistakes, but I thought you would be reasonable about it. Sorry, my mistake. You are clearly motivated by your agenda.

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 12:57
http://diagorasofmelos.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/house_md_religious_en_1015.jpg

Quotes by fictitious characters don't usually play well here.

Geko45
07-18-2012, 13:11
You are correct about one thing, that would be lopsided.

Sorta embarrassing when you make those kinds of mistakes, but I thought you would be reasonable about it. Sorry, my mistake. You are clearly motivated by your agenda.

You seriously think you've stumbled onto a meaningful point, don't you? Every atheist in this thread has already accomplished the first two steps long ago. We are here testing our hypothesis. So far, I've never seen a believer bring any sort of credible argument. Therefore, it remains intact.

CD, you are either having to much fun pulling people's strings or you are to blinded by your "agnosticism" to be able to carry on a rational conversation.

Altaris
07-18-2012, 13:17
CD, you are either having to much fun pulling people's strings are you are to blinded by your "agnosticism" to be able to carry on a rational conversation.

I have been trying to figure that out too. Is my troll radar just failing me and I am just falling victim to one, or does he really believe everything he is typing. :dunno:

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 13:26
You seriously think you've stumbled onto a meaningful point, don't you? Every atheist in this thread has already accomplished the first two steps long ago. We are here testing our hypothesis. So far, I've never seen a believer bring any sort of credible argument. Therefore, it remains intact.

CD, you are either having to much fun pulling people's strings are you are to blinded by your "agnosticism" to be able to carry on a rational conversation.

You based your theory that agnosticism leads to an intelectual dead end on your belief that "The scientific method starts with someone thinking they know the answer (a hypothesis)".

Considering that is demontrably incorrect, it seems that you are not reaching your conclusions using correct processes or information. Yep, that's pretty significant. If your methods aren't solid, the conclusions are suspect.

It begins with a question, one that the scientist doesn't necessarily know the answer. So, it would seem that agnosticism isn't an intellectual dead end, but we could discuss whether a dogmatic approach with a clearly stated biased agenda does. What do you think?

Sarge1400
07-18-2012, 13:50
The analogies are entertaining, but very unnecessary.

They are necessary in order to try to get you to understand. They are also a waste of time, as you continually demonstrate.

Obviously, there is nothing quite so profound as the beginning of the answer to the question,"why are we here".

Why is that profound? Because you declare it to be? The principles are the same, regardless of any level of profoundness you prescribe to the situation.

I think if you'll go back, you'll see that you stated your case, and attributed it to me. And yes, quite plainly that was a straw man you built.

If you'll go back, you'll notice that my scenario asked a lot of questions. Questions are not statements. I was asking how you would respond to the scenario, not stating how you would.

Just stay on that path to irrelevancy, Captain Strawman. You're almost there!

Bren
07-18-2012, 14:03
Most people consider the other religious beliefs as fairy tales.

And everybody, as far as I can tell, considers most religions to be fairytales - even the strongest pro-religion debaters on this forum. We only differ very slightly, in that most of you accept 1 or 2 religions, out of hundreds, while the atheists accept 0.

Geko45
07-18-2012, 14:04
What do you think?

I think it is irrelevant. The first two steps are implied, and forming a hypothesis is still in integral part of the method (where serious research begins). You're clinging to this minor point is more of an "Ah ha! Gotcha!" than any sort of meaningful revelation. You are trying to win an argument. You are not trying to make your point of view understood.

At any rate, point CD if it makes you happy. Doesn't really change the debate at all, but congratulations none the less.

void *
07-18-2012, 15:03
Quotes by fictitious characters don't usually play well here.

Rejecting a statement merely because it was written for a fictitious character is invalid. A statement is true or false whether or not it was written for a fictitious character.

“How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.” -- Winston Smith.

Guss
07-18-2012, 15:23
Quotes by fictitious characters don't usually play well here.
You probably don't appreciate the wisdom of Shakespeare or Voltaire either.

Norske
07-18-2012, 15:45
'IT STILL MOVES!"

Galileo, after being convicted of heresy and sentenced to life home imprisonment for violation of Roman Catholic Dogma of the time.

The violation being an assertion that the Moons of Jupiter revolved around Jupiter and not around the Earth.

The fact that anyone, including his Priest-Judges, could look through a telescope and see the truth was not an adequate defense.

Smacktard
07-18-2012, 15:45
You based your theory that agnosticism leads to an intelectual dead end on your belief that "The scientific method starts with someone thinking they know the answer (a hypothesis)".

Considering that is demontrably incorrect, it seems that you are not reaching your conclusions using correct processes or information. Yep, that's pretty significant. If your methods aren't solid, the conclusions are suspect.

It begins with a question, one that the scientist doesn't necessarily know the answer. So, it would seem that agnosticism isn't an intellectual dead end, but we could discuss whether a dogmatic approach with a clearly stated biased agenda does. What do you think?


God hugger!


...

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 18:14
You probably don't appreciate the wisdom of Shakespeare or Voltaire either.

Wisdom? Or adeptness at drama?

It's different.

Bren
07-18-2012, 18:17
Wisdom? Or adeptness at drama?

It's different.

Once again, I have to agree with you.

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 18:22
They are necessary in order to try to get you to understand. They are also a waste of time, as you continually demonstrate.



Why is that profound? Because you declare it to be? The principles are the same, regardless of any level of profoundness you prescribe to the situation.



If you'll go back, you'll notice that my scenario asked a lot of questions. Questions are not statements. I was asking how you would respond to the scenario, not stating how you would.

Just stay on that path to irrelevancy, Captain Strawman. You're almost there!

Sarge (a term of endearment, and the name of my first dog, a valued and sorely missed friend, and yes, I used to be an NCO too),

We are all irrelevant to most, liked by a fair amount, admired by few, and loved by a very select minority of the earth's inhabitants.

It's the human condition. I'm cool with that.

Yes, I do consider whether we were designed, or happened by random events to be a little bit profound. Sue me.

If you have questions about what I think, you can ask directly, without all the smoke and mirrors, with my permission.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 18:22
God hugger!


...

pedophile!

Just as accurate (or at least I hope not :faint:)

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 18:23
Once again, I have to agree with you.

Dude, don't admit that here... It's bad for your rep. http://fc01.deviantart.net/images/i/2002/33/c/3/shhhh.gif

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 18:26
'IT STILL MOVES!"

Galileo, after being convicted of heresy and sentenced to life home imprisonment for violation of Roman Catholic Dogma of the time.

The violation being an assertion that the Moons of Jupiter revolved around Jupiter and not around the Earth.

The fact that anyone, including his Priest-Judges, could look through a telescope and see the truth was not an adequate defense.

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

It was an odd time.

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 18:31
Rejecting a statement merely because it was written for a fictitious character is invalid. A statement is true or false whether or not it was written for a fictitious character.

“How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.” -- Winston Smith.

Did I say it was false? I'd agree with it mostly, but to put that into context, would resurrect an old debate that most consider at least as offensive as heresy, if not, more likely, as heresy.



http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19210716#post19210716

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 18:42
I think it is irrelevant. The first two steps are implied, and forming a hypothesis is still in integral part of the method (where serious research begins). You're clinging to this minor point is more of an "Ah ha! Gotcha!" than any sort of meaningful revelation. You are trying to win an argument. You are not trying to make your point of view understood.

At any rate, point CD if it makes you happy. Doesn't really change the debate at all, but congratulations none the less.

Sorry bub, I cannot let you wiggle free that easily. You went on a very articulate and deliberate rant about how agnosticism was an intellectual dead end based on your own personal ignorance of how the scientific method (an oft lauded and sacred method) worked.

You were ignorant of the actual steps of the scientific method. Your argument fails as deeply as you are willing to keep digging at the bottom of the hole you are in.

Just a tip. When found to be completely wrong about something, admit it, apologize, learn from it, and move on. Then so will everyone else. That is the path toward both enlightenment, and respect.

Repeated refusal to admit ignorance where it exists, leads to a very real intellectual dead end, as well as a dead end to maturity and achievement of wisdom. We all make errors, we all screw up. It happens, even to me. But I'm man enough to admit when I am wrong, and I hope that I am a better person for it.


Think about that for a while before you respond. It'll be better that way.

Your friend in ignorance,

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

Sarge1400
07-18-2012, 18:42
Sarge (a term of endearment, and the name of my first dog, a valued and sorely missed friend, and yes, I used to be an NCO too),
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

Maybe I misjudged you. Some of the finest officers I've known were prior enlisted. And the ONLY 2nd Lts I met that knew anything were PE. All our docs and PAs commissioned as O-3 or above; knew one who came in as a full bird. He didn't know ****** about the military, but man was he a blast to be around.

I'm rambling, carry on.:usaf:

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 18:58
I have been trying to figure that out too. Is my troll radar just failing me and I am just falling victim to one, or does he really believe everything he is typing. :dunno:

And we have a winner. :patriot:


Yes, I am actually being as honest as I can be here. I have a different perspective than most people. I am where I claim to be in my own personal beliefs. I have seen wonderful things and despicable things that people do. I see people at their absolute best, and their absolute worst. I've witnessed misery and joy. I've witnessed acts of selfless sacrifice that included the giving of one's own life for another, and evil carnage that led to the end of life by despicable creatures. I have been present at the beginning of life, and the end of it. I've been the instrument of both. I've been to war more than a couple times, voluntarily, and I am who I claim to be.


Anybody else need this soap box????http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs6/i/2005/088/b/3/My_First_Emot_by_Woodraven.gif


Bottom line, in the immortal words of Popeye the Sailor, I yam what I yam.

:wavey:

soflasmg
07-18-2012, 19:04
The interesting thing is that the God hating trolls on this thread will all be believers shortly.

Altaris
07-18-2012, 19:07
The interesting thing is that the God hating trolls on this thread will all be believers shortly.

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

Sarge1400
07-18-2012, 19:07
The interesting thing is that the God hating trolls on this thread will all be believers shortly.

You gotta do better than that. Do you hate the Easter Bunny?

Lone Wolf8634
07-18-2012, 19:09
The interesting thing is that the God hating trolls on this thread will all be believers shortly.

Speaking strictly for myself, I wouldn't hold my breath , were I you.:wavey:

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 19:12
Maybe I misjudged you. Some of the finest officers I've known were prior enlisted. And the ONLY 2nd Lts I met that knew anything were PE. All our docs and PAs commissioned as O-3 or above; knew one who came in as a full bird. He didn't know ****** about the military, but man was he a blast to be around.

I'm rambling, carry on.:usaf:

Physicians are commissioned as O-3, PA's have the unfortunate disability of being commissioned as 2LT. I can tell you that there is no rank that is quite as miserable to hold, as 2LT after being a NCO.

Guess I should preface this by pointing out that there is a difference between fairy tales, and war stories. Fair tales begin with "Once upon a time.....", war stories begin with "No $#!T, there I was....."

So, No $#!T, there I was, buying my unit crest for my ear plug case at clothing sales, Just after reporting to my duty station after graduating from PA School. This Major walks up to me and says: "EXCUSE me young second lieutenant, but I believe that patch should be on your LEFT shoulder. I turned to him, and in held up both arms, each with a 1st Cav patch on them, and said in an innocent voice, "But they sell them in packs of two".

The Army vets will get that.:supergrin:

Anyway, he commenced to chewing my backside furiously, in a LOUD voice in the middle of clothing sales, including calling me EVERYTHING but a white boy, dropping the "F" bomb at least three times, and calling into question the marital status of my parents at the time of my birth, and alleging several closed head injuries... I started laughing, which made it worse.

End of the story is it that it took me a couple of minutes to calm him down, and I found out that I had him on time in service by three months.

I did have to promise to never play that joke again on anyone that outranked me.

Geko45
07-18-2012, 19:24
Physicians are commissioned as O-3, PA's have the unfortunate disability of being commissioned as 2LT. I can tell you that there is no rank that is quite as miserable to hold, as 2LT after being a NCO.

Q. What's the difference between a butter bar and an airman basic?

A. The airman knows he has no authority.

SGT Geko45

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 19:28
Q. What's the difference between a butter bar and an airman basic?

A. The airman knows he has no authority.

SGT Geko45

The Army version:

Q: What is the difference between a 2LT, and a PV2.

A: The private has been promoted once.

Sarge1400
07-18-2012, 19:32
Physicians are commissioned as O-3, PA's have the unfortunate disability of being commissioned as 2LT. I can tell you that there is no rank that is quite as miserable to hold, as 2LT after being a NCO.

It could be that our PAs came in as O-1 as well, that was a long time ago. We treated our prior enlisted like gold, knowing they had BTDT. I hear what your saying though; gotta be tough being a 30-something butter bar!

Geko45
07-18-2012, 20:12
You went on a very articulate and deliberate rant about how agnosticism was an intellectual dead end based on your own personal ignorance of how the scientific method (an oft lauded and sacred method) worked.

Actually, I went on a very articulate and deliberate rant about how your position was an intellectual dead end, not agnosticism. You characterize yourself as agnostic, but your beliefs aren't really consistent with that position which is why I put agnosticism in quotes when I referred to them.

You were ignorant of the actual steps of the scientific method.

Not ignorant at all, just beginning at the first relevant step to this discussion. You would suggest that asking the question is the first step, but your position is that the question can't be (at least currently) known. Therefore, you would never arrive at step 3 (hypothesis) which is where discovery begins. All you have down is point out a couple of steps that I glossed over (my error on that part). The core aspect of my argument is still fully intact as you have still not addressed it.

Just a tip. When found to be completely wrong about something, admit it, apologize, learn from it, and move on. Then so will everyone else. That is the path toward both enlightenment, and respect.

I agree and I am ready to hear your apology for...

But I'm man enough to admit when I am wrong, and I hope that I am a better person for it.

...being mistaken about characterizing Einstein's beliefs as "theist" when he himself identified as agnostic.

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 20:16
It could be that our PAs came in as O-1 as well, that was a long time ago. We treated our prior enlisted like gold, knowing they had BTDT. I hear what your saying though; gotta be tough being a 30-something butter bar!

IIRC, I was about 28 at the beginning of being a butter bar, and about 30 when I colored it in with a sharpie. I looked a lot younger than I was then... Enlisted at 18, about 20 days after High School, had 9 years 8 months at the time of commission.

Miss it every day, but it's a younger man's game. Retired just over 6 years ago at 38, should only be another 15 years before I get used to being a "civilian".

Geko45
07-18-2012, 20:20
Miss it every day, but it's a younger man's game. Retired just over 6 years ago at 38, should only be another 15 years before I get used to being a "civilian".

Despite being wrong about nearly everything else, you are right on this. I've been out longer than you and I'm still not fully acclimated.

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 20:36
Actually, I went on a very articulate and deliberate rant about how your position was an intellectual dead end, not agnosticism. You characterize yourself as agnostic, but your beliefs aren't really consistent with that position which is why I put agnosticism in quotes when I referred to it.

I believe I do not know whether a deity or deities have ever existed. What is inconsistent with that?



Not ignorant at all, just beginning at the first relevant step to this discussion. You would suggest that asking the question is the first step, but your position is that the question can't be (at least currently) known. Therefore, you would never arrive at step 3 (hypothesis) which is where discovery begins. All you have down is point out a couple of steps that I glossed over (my error on that part). The core aspect of my argument is still fully intact as you have still not addressed it.

Really, you are missing it.....

It may be possible to know, but I do not know, and have seen nothing that would lead me to believe me or others do know for sure. Maybe someone out there does know, but hasn't shown up on GTRI to let us in on their proof. :dunno:

I'll be perfectly honest, I would not even know where to begin. Where do you look for proof that a deity or deities had a hand in creation? We can show the complexity of life, and explain the human genome, and show that particles can gain mass, and what??? The universe is an amazing place, but where would you look for the fingerprints of a deity? Maybe it was designed, maybe it all just happened. Until I see actual evidence one way or the other, that's where I am. I see nothing wrong with that. Others do. I can't help that.


I agree and I am ready to hear your apology for...


It was a true statement. When I am wrong, I do admit it. I apologize, and move on. I've only got a couple of posts here on GlockTalk that will show that, I know it is a miniscule amount of posts, but if you'll search, that is the way I go. When I truly believe I am not wrong, I stick to what I believe.


...being mistaken about characterizing Einstein's beliefs as "theist" when he himself identified as agnostic.

Well, he did say:

"I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

And I believe I pointed out that neither of us should be surprised if he had different views at different times of his life. It appears that some of his quotes support a belief in an intelligent design.

But that is a misdirection from the act of personal growth you should be working on right about now.

I don't know about the rest, but I'll think more highly of you for it.

It only stings a little the first few times you admit you aren't perfect. It gets easier and easier each time you do it. I can tell you after several hundred times, it's a piece of cake. :supergrin:

nmk
07-18-2012, 20:43
Well, that's an awful pretty straw man ya got there mister.

Actually, it's rather simple. There is no evidence proving the existence or absence of a deity in the history of the universe. Quite frankly, none of us know. Some of us choose to believe that no deity has ever existed. It is a choice based solely on faith. But that's an entirely different subject.

I sincerely mean this...you are so much smarter than what you posted here.

A. There is no evidence proving the existence or absence...
B. It is a choice based solely on faith...

I know you see the problem. Don't you think it's time?

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 20:43
Despite being wrong about nearly everything else, you are right on this. I've been out longer than you and I'm still not fully acclimated.

Don't be too hasty to judge.

If we were to sit down and have a few beers at the hunting ranch, you'd probably find out that we agree on much more than we disagree. Unless you are one of those gun grabbin' tree huggin' vegetarians that don't believe AR-10's have a legitimate sporting use, then we'd have to have harsh words. :whistling:

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 20:47
I sincerely mean this...you are so much smarter than what you posted here.

A. There is no evidence proving the existence or absence...
B. It is a choice based solely on faith...

I know you see the problem. Don't you think it's time?

Guess you are right, I should have inserted the word "convincing" in there somewhere. And limited it to current knowledge of mankind that I am aware of.

I personally, am unaware of any convincing evidence to sway me toward a certain belief on whether a deity or deities exists, or have ever existed.

I don't know, and in this, I'm cool with it.

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 20:53
You gotta do better than that. Do you hate the Easter Bunny?

Not sure about Easter bunny, but December bunnies taste pretty good.

http://images.pictureshunt.com/pics/e/elmer_fudd-5181.jpg

Geko45
07-18-2012, 20:53
I'll be perfectly honest, I would not even know where to begin. Where do you look for proof that a deity or deities had a hand in creation?

Seriously? You are to good at this (debate) for me to believe your colloquial attempt to portray yourself as a simple person that does not have a postion on, this, perhaps the most important question we all contemplate.

It was a true statement. When I am wrong, I do admit it. I apologize, and move on. I've only got a couple of posts here on GlockTalk that will show that, I know it is a miniscule amount of posts, but if you'll search, that is the way I go. When I truly believe I am not wrong, I stick to what I believe.

Likewise, if you search on my previous posts then you will find at least a few instances where I admit I was wrong. I do, in fact, admit to glossing over the first two steps you have identified, but my position is that my original point is still valid. Your position does not lead to a testable hypothesis and therefore arrives only at an intellectual dead end. Your attempt at diversion does not change this.

Well, he did say:

He also said:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

But that is a misdirection from the act of personal growth you should be working on right about now.

No, this is a misdirection by you from the core premise of my statement on the ultimate conclusion. As far as smoke and mirror arguments go, it is quite clever as I am convinced that you will never come back around to address my point.

I don't know about the rest, but I'll think more highly of you for it.

How about this, we agree to not make this personal?

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 21:13
Seriously? You are to good at this (debate) for me to believe your colloquial attempt to portray yourself as a simple person that does not have a postion on, this, perhaps the most important question we all contemplate.


Then maybe you need to expand your own horizons. I am only a man. I've met better and worse than me. I don't know everything, but I'm pretty confident in what I believe.
I'm pretty sure we have not explained everything, as a species. If we have, we can shut down all research right now. But we haven't learned all there is to know.


Likewise, if you search on my previous posts then you will find at least a few instances where I admit I was wrong. I do, in fact, admit to glossing over the first two steps you have identified, but my position is that my original point is still valid. Your position does not lead to a testable hypothesis and therefore arrives only at an intellectual dead end. Your attempt at diversion does not change this.


Only a few??? Heck, I have dozens of such examples. I've learned at least a little bit about reality, and myself in each instance.

I don't know everything, but I'm perfectly willing to admit what I don't now. I will probably die not knowing everything. That is a burden that I am willing to at least admit I bear. Some people aren't encumbered with that burden. :whistling:


He also said:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Pay special attention to this quote. I believe he is speaking of you in this, and since I respect the man, I'd ask you to do the same.

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

It's subtle, if you missed it, read it again, look real close, and consider the meaning of each word, and it will most likely be evident.




No, this is a misdirection by you from the core premise of my statement on the ultimate conclusion. As far as smoke and mirror arguments go, it is quite clever as I am convinced that you will never come back around to address my point.

Please concisely and precisely make your point, and I'll address it. :popcorn:



How about this, we agree to not make this personal?

That's the most ironic part. It's never been personal for me. It's just a discussion, mostly about what I believe we don't really know, but believe. Even though some of us come to those beliefs though faith, and hold to them with ardor. Some embark on virtual crusades against other beliefs, and that is sad. We all believe something, or lack belief. We are all going to experience the next several years on the planet together. Those that don't mean any harm, and are willing to allow personal liberties, I'm cool with. Those that want to subjugate, or eliminate others based on their beliefs, I have a small problem with. Small does not mean insignificant though.

I'm not a hater.

Geko45
07-18-2012, 21:25
That's the most ironic part. It's never been personal for me.

Perhaps not, but until you drop language about personal "horizons" and "growth" then we are done on this topic.

Only a few??? Heck, I have dozens of such examples.

I thought you said there were only "a couple of posts here on GlockTalk that will show that"? And yet, when I try to offer an olive branch and suggest there are a few examples of me being wrong as well on this forum, you immediately move to one up me in humility (ironic) with your "dozens of such examples".

Hubris.

I'm not a hater.

Perhaps not, but you are more concerned with winning than you are with honest debate.

Syclone538
07-18-2012, 21:27
The interesting thing is that the God hating trolls on this thread will all be believers shortly.

Anyone that says atheists hate a god doesn't know what atheist means, or they are just lying.

Geko45
07-18-2012, 22:13
Anyone that says atheists hate a god doesn't know what atheist means, or they are just lying.

Exactly, how can someone hate that which does not exist?

Cavalry Doc
07-19-2012, 04:38
Perhaps not, but until you drop language about personal "horizons" and "growth" then we are done on this topic.



I thought you said there were only "a couple of posts here on GlockTalk that will show that"? And yet, when I try to offer an olive branch and suggest there are a few examples of me being wrong as well on this forum, you immediately move to one up me in humility (ironic) with your "dozens of such examples".

Hubris.



Perhaps not, but you are more concerned with winning than you are with honest debate.

There are times when I push a little hard, say things "tongue in cheek" and forget to add the smiley, or say things in a way that is less polite than I should have.

I was trying to firmly nail you down on the point about what is and is not an intellectual dead end, and how you got there, but anything I said about expanding horizons was advice given without malice.

There are a lot of people that are firmly in the middle in some points. And believe it or not, discussing where I am theologically on GTRI, has actually strengthened my personal belief that it's perfectly OK not to know everything.

Cavalry Doc
07-19-2012, 04:46
Anyone that says atheists hate a god doesn't know what atheist means, or they are just lying.

Well, generally speaking, generalizing is bad. Saying that ALL of a large group shares a particular trait is the path toward bigotry.

But to be fair, there are some that do. Often through a personal tragedy, they become angry and lash out, which logically, is not pure. No names, but I've met a couple that have expressed anger at god around here, which seems odd, if they didn't really believe, but IIRC, after hearing what tragedy got them there, I didn't feel like pushing them on it.

Geko45
07-19-2012, 05:04
Pay special attention to this quote. I believe he is speaking of you in this, and since I respect the man, I'd ask you to do the same.

It's subtle, if you missed it, read it again, look real close, and consider the meaning of each word, and it will most likely be evident.

Your tone is very condescending here, but I will remind you that you were the first to quote Einstein in support of your position. I only quoted him as a rebuttal to your mischaracterization of his beliefs (that he was a theist). You had him wrong and you still have not acknowledged it. If anything, these quotes are in reference to people like you. I have only ever said that he was exactly what he himself claimed to be. An agnostic.

Cavalry Doc
07-19-2012, 05:43
Your tone is very condescending here, but I will remind you that you were the first to quote Einstein in support of your position. I only quoted him as a rebuttal to your mischaracterization of his beliefs (that he was a theist). You had him wrong and you still have not acknowledged it. If anything, these quotes are in reference to people like you. I have only ever said that he was exactly what he himself claimed to be. An agnostic.

Well, maybe just a little.

Well, he did say:

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
(Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? 2001, chapter 3.)

But spinozism isn't a traditional monotheistic belief, as the god of spinoza does not have a personal relationship with man, and is indifferent. It basically holds that god is all around us in nature. But it still looks like it qualifies as a theistic belief.

I'm sure, as I have pointed out before, and most on this board have admitted also, that people have different beliefs at different times in their life, and Albert Einstein probably did too. The only thing we can be fairly certain of, is that he was who he was.

But he never, that I have heard of, ranted against agnostics.......
Wonder why he singled out the atheists?

Geko45
07-19-2012, 06:52
Well, maybe just a little.

And you evade your error once again.

Well, he did say

You accuse me of disrespecting Einstein, but you are the one that keeps invoking (and distorting) his statements.

It basically holds that god is all around us in nature. But it still looks like it qualifies as a theistic belief.

Since you like going to the dictionary so much. Let's just look up theism.

theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

Nope, not the same thing at all. Spinoza's god was more pantheistic in nature. But it is interesting that you bring him up as he was considered an athiest in his own time as he did not subscribe to the idea that "god" even possessed a conscious mind.

Wonder why he singled out the atheists?

As I have shown, he also "singled out" theists. You are being disingenuous again. The only fair conclusion is that he didn't want his name used in support of either position. So why won't you respect the man's wishes?

Cavalry Doc
07-19-2012, 07:34
And you evade your error once again.



You accuse me of disrespecting Einstein, but you are the one that keeps invoking (and distorting) his statements.



Since you like going to the dictionary so much. Let's just look up theism.



Nope, not the same thing at all. Spinoza's god was more pantheistic in nature. But it is interesting that you bring him up as he was considered an athiest in his own time as he did not subscribe to the idea that "god" even possessed a conscious mind.



As I have shown, he also "singled out" theists. You are being disingenuous again. The only fair conclusion is that he didn't want his name used in support of either position. So why won't you respect the man's wishes?

Now, let's not pretend that you have been meek and polite the whole time either. Playing the victim card is a bit deceptive on your part. Let's not forget you have yet to acknowledge your lack of understanding of the scientific method, that you used to make a rather accusatory point.

Wouldn't pantheistic still fall under the larger term of theistic?

He was a self reported agnostic that believed in a god, sort of. Would you agree that is accurately described as a theistic agnostic? Or would you say he was a middle of the road agnostic. I'd probably have to talk to him personally for a while to be sure myself. And as is the case, trying to nail down his exact belief system based in quotes that others felt interesting enough to publish is probably not fair to him.

Syclone538
07-19-2012, 07:53
Well, generally speaking, generalizing is bad. Saying that ALL of a large group shares a particular trait is the path toward bigotry.

But to be fair, there are some that do. Often through a personal tragedy, they become angry and lash out, which logically, is not pure. No names, but I've met a couple that have expressed anger at god around here, which seems odd, if they didn't really believe, but IIRC, after hearing what tragedy got them there, I didn't feel like pushing them on it.

I stand by my statement. You can't not believe in a god and be angry at it, that wouldn't make any sense.

Now something I never thought of until reading your post, you could be angry at religion, or a religion, or some religious people, or a religious person, and that might be indistinguishable to others from being angry at a god.

Geko45
07-19-2012, 07:58
Let's not forget you have yet to acknowledge your lack of understanding of the scientific method, that you used to make a rather accusatory point.

I already did acknowledge it, but it was an error that was only incidental to my core point that one must make a hypothesis in order to make scientific progress. Which you have never acknowledged is still valid. So, chalk one up for CD, but not one that advances your position in any way.

Wouldn't pantheistic still fall under the larger term of theistic?

I would say that the definition speaks for itself.

And as us the case, trying to nail down his exact belief system based in quotes that others felt interesting enough to publish us probably not fair to him.

I'm just still waiting for you to acknowledge that you were wrong to originally characterize his beliefs as theist. You obviously have no idea what he did or did not believe.

Cavalry Doc
07-19-2012, 08:04
I stand by my statement. You can't not believe in a god and be angry at it, that wouldn't make any sense.

Now something I never thought of until reading your post, you could be angry at religion, or a religion, or some religious people, or a religious person, and that might be indistinguishable to others from being angry at a god.

I've found that anger frequently leads people to be illogical and sometimes irrational positions. Like I said, I don't remember challenging them much on it.

Cavalry Doc
07-19-2012, 08:08
I already did acknowledge it, but it was an error that was only incidental to my core point that one must make a hypothesis in order to make scientific progress. Which you have never acknowledged is still valid. So, chalk one up for CD, but not one that advances your position in any way.



I would say that the definition speaks for itself.



I'm just still waiting for you to acknowledge that you were wrong to originally characterize his beliefs as theist. You obviously have no idea what he did or did not believe.

Read the last sentence of the post you replied to. It's there.

Geko45
07-19-2012, 08:10
Read the last sentence of the post you replied to.

So, that is as close as you are willing to come to conceding you were wrong?

How about how you were again wrong on the definition of theism? But, I guess that shouldn't surprise me since you were wrong on the meaning of its antonym as well.

High-Gear
07-19-2012, 08:25
Well, maybe just a little.

Well, he did say:



But spinozism isn't a traditional monotheistic belief, as the god of spinoza does not have a personal relationship with man, and is indifferent. It basically holds that god is all around us in nature. But it still looks like it qualifies as a theistic belief.

I'm sure, as I have pointed out before, and most on this board have admitted also, that people have different beliefs at different times in their life, and Albert Einstein probably did too. The only thing we can be fairly certain of, is that he was who he was.

But he never, that I have heard of, ranted against agnostics.......
Wonder why he singled out the atheists?

Spinoza's god is a god of pantheism, which is really sexed up atheism. God is nature, god is energy, etc. it is not an omnipotent, omniscient, god who talks to you or cares about you, or a god in the traditional sense. I would not call it a theism.

Cavalry Doc
07-19-2012, 08:39
Spinoza's god is a god of pantheism, which is really sexed up atheism. God is nature, god is energy, etc. it is not an omnipotene, omniscient, god who talks to you or cares about you, or a god in the traditional sense. I would not call it a theism.

It was a bit controversial.

Main article: Pantheism controversy
In 1785, Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi published a condemnation of Spinoza's pantheism, after Lessing was thought to have confessed on his deathbed to being a "Spinozist", which was the equivalent in his time of being called an atheist. Jacobi claimed that Spinoza's doctrine was pure materialism, because all Nature and God are said to be nothing but extended substance. This, for Jacobi, was the result of Enlightenment rationalism and it would finally end in absolute atheism. Moses Mendelssohn disagreed with Jacobi, saying that there is no actual difference between theism and pantheism. The entire issue became a major intellectual and religious concern for European civilization at the time, which Immanuel Kant rejected, as he thought that attempts to conceive of transcendent reality would lead to antinomies (statements that could be proven both right and wrong) in thought.

The attraction of Spinoza's philosophy to late eighteenth-century Europeans was that it provided an alternative to materialism, atheism, and deism. Three of Spinoza's ideas strongly appealed to them:

the unity of all that exists;
the regularity of all that happens; and
the identity of spirit and nature.

Cavalry Doc
07-19-2012, 08:41
So, that is as close as you are willing to come to conceding you were wrong?

How about how you were again wrong on the definition of theism? But, I guess that shouldn't surprise me since you were wrong on the meaning of its antonym as well.

Who is obsessed with "winning" again?

:rofl:

Geko45
07-19-2012, 08:45
Who is obsessed with "winning" again?

:rofl:

I told you I could play this game as well as you.

:thumbsup:

Cavalry Doc
07-19-2012, 08:50
I told you I could play this game as well as you.

:thumbsup:

That remains to be seen. So far it looks more like concentrating on minutiae, manufactured "gotcha" moments and attempts to play the victim card to distract from your larger mistakes in reasoning.

But hey, you have to use the tools you have I guess. The path to enlightenment begins frequently with a question, not a hypothesis that already supports a specific dogma.

Geko45
07-19-2012, 09:02
That remains to be seen. So far it looks more like concentrating on minutiae, manufactured "gotcha" moments and attempts to play the victim card to distract from your larger mistakes in reasoning.

And where in this conversation has that come up before? hmmm...

:animlol:

Cavalry Doc
07-19-2012, 15:02
And where in this conversation has that come up before? hmmm...

:animlol:

Darn, I forgot something, thanks for reminding me, and the trivialization of your mistaken understanding of how science works.

Thanks, I almost let that go unsaid.

Geko45
07-19-2012, 15:39
Darn, I forgot something, thanks for reminding me, and the trivialization of your mistaken understanding of how science works.

Thanks, I almost let that go unsaid.

Kinda overshadowed by you not even knowing the definition of theism. Which is especially entertaining since you tried so hard to beat everyone over the head with your misinterpretation of atheism.

Cavalry Doc
07-19-2012, 16:10
Kinda overshadowed by you not even knowing the definition of theism. Which is especially entertaining since you tried so hard to beat everyone over the head with your misinterpretation of atheism.

You do know that other people can read the thread too, these aren't PM's.

The deflections aren't working.

High-Gear
07-19-2012, 16:31
It was a bit controversial.

It could be controversial, however I don't think either of us would argue Einstein did not believe in god as an intelligent, creative, caring, personal entity which would be identified as a theistic god by a modern interpretation. If one sees the regularity of the way crystals grow, or the beauty in nature and want to call it god, so be it but that does not make it a religion.

Cavalry Doc
07-19-2012, 17:05
It could be controversial, however I don't think either of us would argue Einstein did not believe in god as an intelligent, creative, caring, personal entity which would be identified as a theistic god by a modern interpretation. If one sees the regularity of the way crystals grow, or the beauty in nature and want to call it god, so be it but that does not make it a religion.

To be fair, we'd have to ask him. But as far as spinozism in general terms, which in at least one quote, he said he believed in, could be thought of as many things. Even if it is pantheism, it is sorta still theism. There is belief in a god, but not the kind of god most people think of though.

I see the differences you are pointing out also. I think it's gonna fall on a matter of opinion. Some will think it is theism, some atheism, and some agnosticism, and we could all disagree, or just agree that it is spinozism.

It does seem from reading about it that it was quite popular. I haven't heard of Spinoza prior to this thread, so only know what I've been able to find on search engines.
It is certainly theocratic philosophical belief system, and I would say it appears to have been a religious movement.

Like I said though, I would expect others to have different opinions.

Woofie
07-19-2012, 17:17
The god of Spinoza sounds more like a deist god than a theist one.

Either way, as smart as Einstein was, he had no more knowledge about the afterlife than anybody else does.

High-Gear
07-19-2012, 17:24
To be fair, we'd have to ask him. But as far as spinozism in general terms, which in at least one quote, he said he believed in, could be thought of as many things. Even if it is pantheism, it is sorta still theism. There is belief in a god, but not the kind of god most people think of though.

I see the differences you are pointing out also. I think it's gonna fall on a matter of opinion. Some will think it is theism, some atheism, and some agnosticism, and we could all disagree, or just agree that it is spinozism.

It does seem from reading about it that it was quite popular. I haven't heard of Spinoza prior to this thread, so only know what I've been able to find on search engines.
It is certainly theocratic philosophical belief system, and I would say it appears to have been a religious movement.

Like I said though, I would expect others to have different opinions.

I think it is like what was pointed out in your quote, pantheism was branded by its detractors as Atheism. From what I have read it was a way for a person to say they believed in god (socially acceptable) while not truly believing in a deity. It is kind of like the people who today remark,"well, at least they believe in something."

Cavalry Doc
07-19-2012, 17:32
I think it is like what was pointed out in your quote, pantheism was branded by its detractors as Atheism. From what I have read it was a way for a person to say they believed in god (socially acceptable) while not truly believing in a deity. It is kind of like the people who today remark,"well, at least they believe in something."

In the same time, pantheism was also called theism. It was controversial as I said before.

Wonder what every happened to the movement?

High-Gear
07-19-2012, 17:45
From the Pantheist Movement website:

Are you searching for a path which focuses on Earth in the Cosmos, rather than some imaginary beyond? Are you more concerned with saving the planet than*saving your eternal soul? With making the best of your one life here, rather than longing for life in an imaginary paradise?*

Do you find it impossible to believe in supernatural gods, and difficult to conceive of anything more worthy of the deepest respect* than the beauty of Nature or the power and mystery of the Universe?

Do you feel a deep sense of peace and belonging and wonder in the midst of Nature?

Are you looking for a form of spirituality that respects individual choice and human and animal rights, rather than pushing prejudice and senseless exploitation of Nature? One that values reason and science over adherence to ancient scriptures?

If you answered yes to these questions, then you will feel at home in the World Pantheist community.

I don't think a love for nature, which rejects the supernatural can be called theist.

Cavalry Doc
07-19-2012, 18:15
From the Pantheist Movement website:

Are you searching for a path which focuses on Earth in the Cosmos, rather than some imaginary beyond? Are you more concerned with saving the planet than*saving your eternal soul? With making the best of your one life here, rather than longing for life in an imaginary paradise?*

Do you find it impossible to believe in supernatural gods, and difficult to conceive of anything more worthy of the deepest respect* than the beauty of Nature or the power and mystery of the Universe?

Do you feel a deep sense of peace and belonging and wonder in the midst of Nature?

Are you looking for a form of spirituality that respects individual choice and human and animal rights, rather than pushing prejudice and senseless exploitation of Nature? One that values reason and science over adherence to ancient scriptures?

If you answered yes to these questions, then you will feel at home in the World Pantheist community.

I don't think a love for nature, which rejects the supernatural can be called theist.

Since I have very little personal knowledge of the movement, I'll accept that people will have different opinions about it. Does it have to be exactly one specific thing, other than spinozism?

Gunhaver
07-19-2012, 18:35
Since I have very little personal knowledge of the movement, I'll accept that people will have different opinions about it. Does it have to be exactly one specific thing, other than spinozism?

So once you think you know about something you don't accept that others have different opinions about it? Yep. Sounds like the Doc I know.

Cavalry Doc
07-19-2012, 18:53
So once you think you know about something you don't accept that others have different opinions about it? Yep. Sounds like the Doc I know.

Did someone pee in your Cheerios again today?

Oh, there are things I am sure about, that I accept people have different opinions on. There are a lot of examples in medicine. Lots of examples here too, even in "the thread that shall not be named". Keep your ad homs straight at least.

As far as spinozism goes, it refers to a god, and in single articles is referred to as atheism, pantheism & theism.

One pretty smart professed believer in the god of spinoza was a self described agnostic.

It seems that even the believers in spinozism had a hard time defining it in terms other than spinozism.

It's not that important to me, in fact, I had not even heard of spinozism in my first 44 years or so.....

Would you prefer that I try to argue with you about it? Is that the problem?

Geko45
07-19-2012, 20:56
You do know that other people can read the thread too, these aren't PM's.

The deflections aren't working.

You are sbolutely right. Now that I've illustrated what you have been doing wrong all this time, I hope you can learn from it and do better going forward.

Cavalry Doc
07-20-2012, 06:36
You are sbolutely right. Now that I've illustrated what you have been doing wrong all this time, I hope you can learn from it and do better going forward.

:rofl: wow, just wow. :rofl:

If people read the whole thread, I think a different picture emerges. One of adherence to dogma with a clearly stated agenda and objective.



...if you concede that religion is a scourge on the human race that must be eliminated if we are ever to be truly free. ...

Geko45
07-20-2012, 09:01
:rofl: wow, just wow. :rofl:

If people read the whole thread, I think a different picture emerges. One of adherence to dogma with a clearly stated agenda and objective.

:yawn:

This is getting boring.

It's not like I ever attempted to hide my position and it's not dogma when I arrived at this conclusion myself. No person or organization told me to think this way. In fact, everyone was telling me to "believe" different, but what they were selling just didn't pass the smell test.

At any rate, enjoy your sport trolling CD. I'm gonna go enjoy my weekend on the boat!

:thumbsup:

Cavalry Doc
07-21-2012, 13:14
:yawn:

This is getting boring.

:

Funny, I found it fairly interesting.

steveksux
07-21-2012, 14:19
From the Pantheist Movement website:

Are you searching for a path which focuses on Earth in the Cosmos, rather than some imaginary beyond? Are you more concerned with saving the planet than*saving your eternal soul? With making the best of your one life here, rather than longing for life in an imaginary paradise?*

Do you find it impossible to believe in supernatural gods, and difficult to conceive of anything more worthy of the deepest respect* than the beauty of Nature or the power and mystery of the Universe?

Do you feel a deep sense of peace and belonging and wonder in the midst of Nature?

Are you looking for a form of spirituality that respects individual choice and human and animal rights, rather than pushing prejudice and senseless exploitation of Nature? One that values reason and science over adherence to ancient scriptures?

If you answered yes to these questions, then you will feel at home in the World Pantheist community.

I don't think a love for nature, which rejects the supernatural can be called theist.Atheism rejects the supernatural, and that doesn't stop some people from claiming its religion.

Randy

steveksux
07-21-2012, 14:20
Double tap

English
07-21-2012, 14:42
:rofl: wow, just wow. :rofl:

If people read the whole thread, I think a different picture emerges. One of adherence to dogma with a clearly stated agenda and objective.

Well, indeed I have not read the whole thread, but dogma is unquestioned knowledge taught by some kinds of teachers. Very few, if if any, here seem to have been taught atheism - they have discovered it for themselves as a kind conceptual base which does not contain the nonsense they have been taught at Sunday School or what ever. Their only clearly stated agenda is that they believe all religions to be nonsensical and their objective is to minimise the interference that those religions impose on their lives and to reduce the damage that has been the inheritance of almost everyone over at least 500 generations.

The people with all three of those characteristics - adherence to dogma, and a clearly stated agenda and objective based on dogma are the followers of religion and not the atheist. Dogma is based on not questioning received "wisdom". Atheism is based on always questioning it.

English

Cavalry Doc
07-21-2012, 16:03
Well, indeed I have not read the whole thread....

English

Favor returned.

What ??

Geko45
07-22-2012, 09:19
.....