[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

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,

[Sarge1400]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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),

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.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Altaris

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.

And we have a winner.


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????


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

[soflasmg]

The interesting thing is that the God hating trolls on this thread will all be believers shortly.

[Altaris]

Originally Posted by soflasmg

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]

Originally Posted by soflasmg

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]

Originally Posted by soflasmg

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.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Sarge1400

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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]

Originally Posted by Geko45

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]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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]

Originally Posted by Sarge1400

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]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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]

Originally Posted by Geko45

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.

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.

[nmk]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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]

Originally Posted by Geko45

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.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by nmk

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]

Originally Posted by Sarge1400

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

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

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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]

Originally Posted by Geko45

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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]

Originally Posted by soflasmg

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]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

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]

Originally Posted by Geko45

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.