RE: Any atheists here? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Musicmystery -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 3:22:25 PM)

Like you're doing? Just checking.



philosophy -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 3:22:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub


I've noticed something about you...when you can't directly refute an idea that you don't agree with...your try and confuse things with silly tangents...like the exact meaning of a word or phrase. You do this rather than make an argument against the heart of the idea.

You are acting just like a politician you so dearly like to criticize.



...no, not a politician. Maybe someone who thinks that words have disitinct meanings, so teacher perhaps.

You defined the words religion and theology as synonyms. They categorically are not. i gave you a fairly good example of why not. Now why don't you simply accept that your use of language was incorrect and thus the thrust of your argument was misguided instead of attempting to make an ad hominum attack and weasel out of the substantive point.......come to think of it, isn't that what politicians do?



variation30 -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 3:29:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

...yes there is. And they only need one attribute in common to be grouped as a category. That attribute is the ability to vote.


and going beyond that would be a bit presumptuous...

especially when trying to guess their motives.

quote:

You seem to feel that categories are, in essence, invalid descriptors of reality. And in a sense they are. However, unless you are going to name every Daisy in the world individually you can't use language effectively to describe reality without the use of categories.


daisies don't have the ability to think abstractly...

trying to speak for a whole group's motivations is probably not going to get you anywhere. you have to look at things from the prespective of individuals.



variation30 -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 3:36:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Perhaps, when you're done shifting your premises and covering the act by patronizing, you'll bother to learn something about rhetorical figures.

In the meantime, you feel voters have no responsibility for their government. I disagree. "It wasn't me!" is childish and simplistic.


I'm not shifting my premises. I think that making statements about the motives of an entire group of people is sloppy and a waste of time. it's a shame methodological individualism is so rare these days.

and in the end, as I said earlier, the only people responsible for any action are those who actually commit it. were the people who voted for bush in 2000 responsible for the patriot act? were the responsible for afghanistan or iraq? no.



philosophy -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 3:36:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

trying to speak for a whole group's motivations is probably not going to get you anywhere. you have to look at things from the prespective of individuals.



.......i  tend to agre with that statement. i do disagree though with you when you suggested that there was no such category as voters.

What may be viable though is to suggest that sub-categories of the general category of voters have elements of their motivation in common. We don't have to go down to the level of individuals to make statements about motivations. We certainly can do so, but that is, in essence, to toss out the idea of maps in favour of a rigid use of territory. Maps are helpful.....they're not the whole story, but we don't always need the whole story.



Rule -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 3:37:45 PM)

I am the one-eyed man.



kdsub -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 3:38:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub


I've noticed something about you...when you can't directly refute an idea that you don't agree with...your try and confuse things with silly tangents...like the exact meaning of a word or phrase. You do this rather than make an argument against the heart of the idea.

You are acting just like a politician you so dearly like to criticize.



...no, not a politician. Maybe someone who thinks that words have disitinct meanings, so teacher perhaps.

You defined the words religion and theology as synonyms. They categorically are not. i gave you a fairly good example of why not. Now why don't you simply accept that your use of language was incorrect and thus the thrust of your argument was misguided instead of attempting to make an ad hominum attack and weasel out of the substantive point.......come to think of it, isn't that what politicians do?


You just can't help yourself can you..it was not an attack..just an observation...wait...measurement... of you. Your examples make no sense and do not address the very clear idea. I did not misuse the language ..just used different words than you would use...very proper and they clearly explain my premise...you just don't want to address it.

Butch



variation30 -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 3:41:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

.......i  tend to agre with that statement. i do disagree though with you when you suggested that there was no such category as voters.


it was a bit of an overstatement on my part. I tend to avoid thinking in the collective like a long-tailed cat avoids a rocking chair (I talked to my grandmother today and she used that phrase and I can't stop using it now).

yes, there are voters. they are individuals who vote. but saying something along the lines of: 'The VOTER assumes the promise, and, unburdened by closer examination, responds by blind affiliation. ' is a bit much.



NumberSix -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 3:41:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

I am the one-eyed man.


We hold forth a ferverent hope, that it is not a 'brown-eye'.

6  



philosophy -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 3:43:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NumberSix

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

I am the one-eyed man.


We hold forth a ferverent hope, that it is not a 'brown-eye'.

6  


...just not very much hope.....



philosophy -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 3:45:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

.......i  tend to agre with that statement. i do disagree though with you when you suggested that there was no such category as voters.


it was a bit of an overstatement on my part. I tend to avoid thinking in the collective like a long-tailed cat avoids a rocking chair (I talked to my grandmother today and she used that phrase and I can't stop using it now).

yes, there are voters. they are individuals who vote. but saying something along the lines of: 'The VOTER assumes the promise, and, unburdened by closer examination, responds by blind affiliation. ' is a bit much.


...then we're more or less on the same page [:)]



Musicmystery -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 4:18:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

.......i  tend to agre with that statement. i do disagree though with you when you suggested that there was no such category as voters.


it was a bit of an overstatement on my part. I tend to avoid thinking in the collective like a long-tailed cat avoids a rocking chair (I talked to my grandmother today and she used that phrase and I can't stop using it now).

yes, there are voters. they are individuals who vote. but saying something along the lines of: 'The VOTER assumes the promise, and, unburdened by closer examination, responds by blind affiliation. ' is a bit much.


You've conveniently ignored the statement turned to better focus YOUR claim, which was, indeed, "a bit much." Rather, you're treating this as if proposed as the basis.

You also continue to assume, rather than establish, that voters bear no responsibility for their elected representatives.

Indeed, many voters communicate with those representatives, helping to shape policy and direction.



kdsub -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 4:19:48 PM)

I really want you to understand what I am saying…I will try again.

I was and am comparing science and Religion…not theology.

My premise… they both require faith in some part of their beliefs.

A scientist may believe in infinity…but by it’s very nature it can’t be proven in absolute terms. He must then have faith that it is true.

A scientist may believe in instantaneous creation of matter, energy, and time. But again it can’t be proven in an absolute manner so again he needs faith in his theories.

A scientist may believe in a black hole. And if he does he may believe he knows what happens to the matter it consumes… but this can’t be proven in absolute terms …so again it takes faith.

This faith is no different than the belief in a supreme being or beings.

Because neither can absolutely prove their beliefs then either or neither may be true.

I as a religious person believe in science…I see us as brethrens looking for THE truth…not to disprove the others truth.
Butch



Musicmystery -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 4:21:55 PM)

Science deals with testable proposals.

Essentially, that's the difference. As such, science allows for the expansion of knowledge.

Faith, in religion or anything else, restricts untestable and thus unsupported belief. As such, it cannot grow beyond its preconceived boundaries, as it as already defined itself as knowing all it needs to know.



kdsub -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 4:24:04 PM)

You see that is my point...there are some things that cannot be tested...only theorized...at least at this time.

How is this any different than religion.  They can measure as well... They see people cured with prayer...They document miracles… many witnesses of the appearance of deities. On and on.. these can not be proven absolutely and neither can many theories of science….WITHOUT..faith

That is all I am saying... and it is my discussion you can join in or not.



Musicmystery -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 4:26:35 PM)

That's an obvious statement---and has nothing to do with supporting your discussion of faith above.



kdsub -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 4:30:45 PM)

sorry I was editing while you were posting

Butch



NumberSix -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 4:31:28 PM)

Butch,

I like many things you say, and your forming of opinions, but here?
This is the penultimate; if not the ultimate; ignoratio elenchi.

One can absolutely prove infinity given very mean conception.

Pick a number, any number, I shall choose one larger by one, and someone else chooses one larger than mine.  No misunderstandings or faith required.

Theories in science are only that, theories, as in, perhaps it works this way, let's tear it apart and see if that is true.


This--------- Faith in god, is on a much grander scale than the faith that the sun rises in the east.

You are only making a clever argument based on a word, faith, that has far larger implications in meaning than intended to the scientist.

As for me and my house, we shall follow the probable, and the provable.

Isaiah VI  


lol, eclenchi---we are not really grappling here.



Musicmystery -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 4:46:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

You see that is my point...there are some things that cannot be tested...only theorized...at least at this time.

How is this any different than religion.  They can measure as well... They see people cured with prayer...They document miracles… many witnesses of the appearance of deities. On and on.. these can not be proven absolutely and neither can many theories of science….WITHOUT..faith

That is all I am saying... and it is my discussion you can join in or not.


They can see, they can measure, but they can't prove----well then they could hardly accurately document or measure. As Bertrand Russell put it (paraphrasing), "There's no difference between the man who eats little and sees God and the man who drinks much as sees snakes." Simply a matter of belief.

Scientific theories involve testable hypotheses---where the tests can be duplicated---and thus, nothing is "just a theory," but rather something that works. When I drop an apple, it falls. Not because I have faith that it will, but because I'm in a gravitational field. And if I have no faith in gravity---it still falls. Not a matter of belief.

Joshua 25 or 6 to 4 (24:15)



kdsub -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 4:49:14 PM)

Saying a larger number is not proving infinity and its existence. Say after moving to the furthest star or distance… can you prove absolutely that there is or is not something further away.

I do understand the difference in believers and non-believers when it comes to proof… at least personal proof. What a human can see and touch

I don’t mean to be clever just point out that there is no absolute proof in science so it can’t be used to disprove faith in a God.

They go side by side with equal stature until there is absolute proof on way or the other.

It would just be wise to have just as much doubt about the truth of today’s science as religion.
Butch



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125