RE: A question game for agnostics.

RE: A question game for agnostics. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/17/2011 9:44:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster how exactly do you move from "I feel the touch" to "I have a nose"? No reason? This has already been explained to you, both by zonie and myself. The reason "I feel it", "I see it", "I use it" and "others feel/see it" is sufficient is because the definition of a nose does not quantify its origins (illusion or real) it only requires that a nose is perceptible as being a nose for it to qualify as BEING a nose. It's a nose BECAUSE one can see it, feel it and smell with it. The fact that it's perceptible as a nose is the ONLY reason it's a nose.

Zonie63 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/18/2011 7:48:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: Even if Azonier existed, it wouldn't matter, since my perceptions would still tell me that I have a nose. Zonie... how exactly do they "say" that? I don't see it. From the fact "I feel the touch" you *cannot* deduce that you have a nose, as long as you cannot exclude Azonier. How exactly do they "say" that? As I see it, you have at least two possible explanations of "I feel the touch". Azonier, and a nose. And you, in a completely arbitrary way, with no apparent reason behind it, choose the second. I would say "because it's simpler". But then, I am using Occam's Razor. But you do not seem to accept Occam's Razor as a reason enough to deny the existence of anything. Therefore... how exactly do you move from "I feel the touch" to "I have a nose"? No reason? Is this really so? Are you really being irrational on this point? Or there is a reason, even if you use it intuitively? I also do not see how you can quantify probabilities. If you think that you really can (and I know, you haven't said that) then please tell me, how. Honestly, I don't understand your confusion here. I can't see how I could have made it more clear, unless you wish to stop the game and just have an open discussion on the subject. I don't know how I can continue with this game, because I can't really be sure where the goalposts are anymore. Every time I try to answer the question, you keep coming back and telling me that I'm wrong. What kind of "game" is this? Are you just making it up as you go along, or is this a game which has been conceived and played by others successfully?

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/18/2011 9:09:48 AM)
Hello, Zonie63. When I reject something, I try to explain why I reject it, and ask for an explanation. This explanation is your move. My questions are my move. I have played this successfully in other times, yes, verbally and written. Sometimes I won, sometimes the other participant won. In this case, we are here: - You tell that "Even if Azonier existed, it wouldn't matter, since my perceptions would still tell me that I have a nose." I understand that you personalize. Your perception do not speak English. You perceive something (you feel the touch of your nose), and then you conclude that you have a nose. And you tell me that you would conclude the same even if you were wrong. That is ok. I understand this. The question is, how can you conclude it. The step between "I feel the touch" and "I have a nose" is not justified, as long as you cannot exclude the possible existence of Azonier. I will try with an analogy. Let us imagine that you see a friend coming out of a room in a party and he says you "no more girls there". Can you suppose that there are no more PEOPLE there? No. Because you cannot exclude that there are guys there. If you could then you could make the step between "no more girls" and "no more people". But first you have to make sure that there are no more guys. If you conclude that there are no more people, you are implicitly saying that there are no more guys. Now with Azonier. You feel a touch, which would correspond to your nose if you had one. Can you affirm that you HAVE one, from this? No. Because you cannot exclude that Azonier has created this sensation. If you could, then you could make the step between "I feel this touch" and "I have a nose". But first you have to make sure that Azonier does not exist. If you conclude that you have a nose, you are implicitly saying that Azonier does not exist. Ok? So... are you saying that? Or not? And if you are saying that... how, being that you do want to apply the rule I suggested?

Real0ne -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/18/2011 9:19:59 AM)
is there a point to this other than logic masterbation?

Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/18/2011 11:02:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne is there a point to this other than logic masterbation? There is not even that anymore, because his analogies don't even correlate, but if you explain to him that he's wrong, you get back as a reply "no, you are wrong" and if you dare to disagree with that, you'll go on hide. That's delusional narcissism. Mental masturbation is arguing for argument's sake and would imply that argument would be attached to "you're wrong" statements, and that, as long as arguments kept being provided, nobody would ever be dropped from the "game". He doesn't like arguing for argument's sake... he just likes to pretend he's always right.

Zonie63 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/18/2011 11:18:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Hello, Zonie63. When I reject something, I try to explain why I reject it, and ask for an explanation. This explanation is your move. My questions are my move. I have played this successfully in other times, yes, verbally and written. Sometimes I won, sometimes the other participant won. In this case, we are here: - You tell that "Even if Azonier existed, it wouldn't matter, since my perceptions would still tell me that I have a nose." I understand that you personalize. Your perception do not speak English. You perceive something (you feel the touch of your nose), and then you conclude that you have a nose. And you tell me that you would conclude the same even if you were wrong. That is ok. I understand this. The question is, how can you conclude it. The step between "I feel the touch" and "I have a nose" is not justified, as long as you cannot exclude the possible existence of Azonier. Well, I suppose it would be like this. If I feel the touch of this thing on my face, if I can see it in the mirror, if I can be aware of this thing by smelling through it (or having to blow it during cold and allergy season - a rather unpleasant time), then I'm aware that I have something on my face. The fact that I call it a "nose" is just something I learned, since that's what it's called in my language (although the word itself seems to have a root going back to Sanskrit, since everybody has a nose, so every language has a word for it, as far as I can tell). So, before we even enter Azonier into the equation, I'm aware that "I feel the touch," as it's presumed that I was aware of my nose even before I learned the name for it. "I have a nose" is what I learned first, as it became a part of me as long as I've been alive, so this was part of my perception and reality long before I was ever old enough to understand concepts of God, religion, or even alien beings called "Azonier." If no one had told me about Azonier, then I probably would never even consider the question at all. However, if you inform me of the possibility of the existence of Azonier, some being who has the ability to steal my nose and replace it with a substitute nose without my knowledge, then I have to think about that one. It never dawned on me that such a being might exist. So, given my original, default perception of "I feel the touch," when faced with the question of Azonier, there are two possibilities: - Azonier exists. - Azonier does not exist. Those two possibilities exist, independent of the question of whether or not I, personally, have a nose. As an agnostic, I honestly do not know which possibility is correct. My common sense tells me that Azonier does not exist, but common sense may not always be purely logical; that may be more in the realm of intuition and gut instinct. That's why it's difficult to narrow it down to an "either/or" question like this. As to the question of whether or not I have a nose, which was one of your original questions, of course, I'm going to say "Yes, I have a nose. It's there. I can feel it and see it in the mirror." But when faced with the question of the possibility of Azonier's existence, then my response would be, "Well, if that's true, then it doesn't seem like anything different to me" (perception). I may not know the absolute, final, ultimate objective truth as to whether or not I truly have a nose, but I'm just going to assume that it's true that I do, in fact, have a nose, even if there might minuscule doubts in the back of my mind. So, when you say that the step between "I feel the touch" and "I have a nose" is not justified without excluding the possible existence of Azonier, I don't really see how it's not. You seem to be saying that there must be a final answer, either a definite "yes" or a definite "no," without leaving the question more open-ended. The answer might likely be the same if I believed in the existence of Azonier, since I could say that my nose was a gift from Azonier. I would still believe that I had a nose, even if it was in the form of a gift nose from "the Great Azonier, giver of noses." If I was a true believer, then I would still say that I have a nose. quote: I will try with an analogy. Let us imagine that you see a friend coming out of a room in a party and he says you "no more girls there". Can you suppose that there are no more PEOPLE there? No. Because you cannot exclude that there are guys there. If you could then you could make the step between "no more girls" and "no more people". But first you have to make sure that there are no more guys. If you conclude that there are no more people, you are implicitly saying that there are no more guys. I agree completely. If someone said "no more girls there," I would not jump to conclusions and say that there are no people in there. I might ask for more information or go in and see for myself, but there wouldn't be anything for me to conclude just upon hearing the statement itself. It could mean anything. Maybe there are girls there, but they're all with other guys, and none of them wanted to be with him. So, he comes out and says "no more girls there." But I wouldn't conclude that automatically without further information. quote: Now with Azonier. You feel a touch, which would correspond to your nose if you had one. Can you affirm that you HAVE one, from this? No. Because you cannot exclude that Azonier has created this sensation. If you could, then you could make the step between "I feel this touch" and "I have a nose". But first you have to make sure that Azonier does not exist. If you conclude that you have a nose, you are implicitly saying that Azonier does not exist. Ok? So... are you saying that? Or not? And if you are saying that... how, being that you do want to apply the rule I suggested? Well, I conclude that I have a nose, because I just do. "I feel this touch," if that's what we'll call it. It's what I've had all my life, for better or worse. So, that would be my first answer, before I even consider the question of Azonier. If I neither affirm or deny the existence of Azonier does not change the fact that I still have a nose. As an agnostic, I don't feel that I have to make a final decision on the existence of Azonier to be able to prove, through commonly accepted scientific methods, that I do in fact have a nose. I can prove that I have a nose, scientifically and beyond any reasonable doubts. If I went to any doctor and asked them if I had a nose, they would say that I do. So, I can prove that I have a nose, but I can't prove the existence or non-existence of Azonier. According to what little I know about science and the universe in which I live, I am satisfied, beyond any reasonable doubts, that I have a nose. I don't see how it's irrational to refrain from denying the existence of Azonier in order to be able to state that I have a nose, especially if there's nothing I can do about it either way. I could see your point if I actually believed in Azonier, but I don't. But belief is something different. I choose to neither believe nor disbelieve, and I leave it at that. When I say my "day to day life," I operate as if this world is the real world in which I live in, that I have a nose, and that God, angels, demons, ghosts, Azonier etc. do not exist - or at least, I have never seen anything like that, nor do I believe that all reasonable doubts have been satisfied. (I sometimes joke around about not believing in anything except the Great Pumpkin, but I'll leave that aside for now.) But I won't say that any of it is untrue either, because I just don't know. It's a big universe out there, and quantum scientists have considered the possibilities of different dimensions, alternate universes, so when I consider just how little we truly know about the universe and the nature of our existence, it's mind boggling. So, I keep my mind open to possibilities, without necessarily accepting them as fact unless I have reason to. But I'm not going to deny the possibility as either. So, I guess the question have at this point would be this: Is it really necessary to say for certainty that Azonier does not exist in order for me to state positively that I have a nose? I can prove that I have a nose, but I can't prove anything about Azonier one way or the other.

Zonie63 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/18/2011 11:43:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne is there a point to this other than logic masterbation? There is not even that anymore, because his analogies don't even correlate, but if you explain to him that he's wrong, you get back as a reply "no, you are wrong" and if you dare to disagree with that, you'll go on hide. That's delusional narcissism. Mental masturbation is arguing for argument's sake and would imply that argument would be attached to "you're wrong" statements, and that, as long as arguments kept being provided, nobody would ever be dropped from the "game". He doesn't like arguing for argument's sake... he just likes to pretend he's always right. Well, I was kind of hoping to get to the endgame on this, to see what the results of this exercise would look like. I'm not quite sure where we're headed with this either. There is a certain humorous side to this, especially considering questions about whether we have noses or not. I keep thinking about the joke about the dog with no nose. I suppose when my allergies flare up, it must mean that I've displeased Anozier and need to repent by blowing my nose 100 times. [;)] Still, I'm not sure why "I don't know" is not an acceptable answer in this instance. I remember one atheist I saw on a talk show, and he said that it's actually very easy to disbelieve, as he brought the examples that Christians don't believe in Poseidon. So, one might ask, why believe in one supernatural deity over another? That's part of the reason why I'm an agnostic, because even if I believed in the possibility, it's hard to be certain which religious beliefs would be the "correct" ones. So, I tend to opt out of religion altogether and rely on science, while still acknowledging that even science doesn't have all the answers - yet. The universe is a big place, so that leaves open an infinite array of possibilities. I don't see why that's so difficult to accept. We can still acknowledge the possibilities while still being able to get on with our lives and exist in the real world, too. I don't see it as an either/or question.

Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/18/2011 12:21:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster I have played this successfully in other times, yes, verbally and written. Sometimes I won, sometimes the other participant won. It would appear, then, that the variation in outcomes depends more on the ability of your opponent than the strength of your argument. Because if your argument can be defeated, as you admit it has been, then it already stands established as unsound. K.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/18/2011 12:49:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster I have played this successfully in other times, yes, verbally and written. Sometimes I won, sometimes the other participant won. It would appear, then, that the variation in outcomes depends more on the ability of your opponent than the strength of your argument. Because if your argument can be defeated, as you admit it has been, then it already stands established as unsound. K. I was hoping he would hang himself further before someone pointed this out to him! It reduces his game to one of "Im more persistent than you", which has been obvious from the start.

Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/18/2011 1:55:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Well, I was kind of hoping to get to the endgame on this, to see what the results of this exercise would look like. I'm not quite sure where we're headed with this either. Me too, but I've been bad and am not allowed to play anymore, so it will be up to you to finish, or we'll never know. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 There is a certain humorous side to this, especially considering questions about whether we have noses or not. I keep thinking about the joke about the dog with no nose. I suppose when my allergies flare up, it must mean that I've displeased Anozier and need to repent by blowing my nose 100 times. [;)] OMG that's hilarious... and it would also explain why my sinus cavities are small enough to have them blocked 24/7/365. I've displeased Ishoser by feeling it's irrelevant whether he exists or not. Still, I'm not sure why "I don't know" is not an acceptable answer in this instance. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I remember one atheist I saw on a talk show, and he said that it's actually very easy to disbelieve, as he brought the examples that Christians don't believe in Poseidon. So, one might ask, why believe in one supernatural deity over another? That's part of the reason why I'm an agnostic, because even if I believed in the possibility, it's hard to be certain which religious beliefs would be the "correct" ones. So, I tend to opt out of religion altogether and rely on science, while still acknowledging that even science doesn't have all the answers - yet. The universe is a big place, so that leaves open an infinite array of possibilities. I don't see why that's so difficult to accept. We can still acknowledge the possibilities while still being able to get on with our lives and exist in the real world, too. I don't see it as an either/or question. I still find a religious view a more sensible approach than an atheist one -especially positive atheist- because a religious approach has nothing to loose and something to gain. Seeing that, as I've argued before, the existence of God can never be disproven (the only thing that can be disproven are certain assumptions human beings have about the nature and practices of God) a religious person has got nothing to loose. At the same time, they've got a lot to gain in terms of getting solace, strength and comfort through their believe, as well as usually, meaningful social interactions. On top of that, there is the distinct possibility of a religious person being proven right, if we ever get any solid proof of the existence of God. An atheist on the other hand can never be proven right, because the existence of God cannot be disproven. They can only be wrong, and they don't actually gain anything from their believe, other than the feeling that they're on their own. All the positive aspects a religious view theoretically could have pass them by, and in the end, the most they can hope for is that they don't turn out to be proven wrong. Agnosticism is what makes most sense to me, because both other points of view depend on faith instead of facts, but if a person is determined to pick a point of view that's based on faith, a religious view is the more attractive of the two. Considering that both points of view come down to a matter of sheer faith -the faith that God does or does not exist- it seems to be more sensible to me to pick a faith that actually leaves you with something to gain, instead of only leaving you with things to loose.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/18/2011 2:42:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr I still find a religious view a more sensible approach than an atheist one -especially positive atheist- because a religious approach has nothing to loose and something to gain. No, it doesnt. Pasal's fallacy rears its ugly head again.

Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/18/2011 3:05:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr I still find a religious view a more sensible approach than an atheist one -especially positive atheist- because a religious approach has nothing to loose and something to gain. No, it doesnt. Pasal's fallacy rears its ugly head again. It's got nothing to do with Pasal's Wager, because I don't consider the benefit or choosing religion as a belief system to be eternal bliss, but instead, the benefit of having the social interaction, the hope, the comfort and so on people derive from having religion. Even if the believe in God turns out to be wrong, people still have gained something from believing. Pascal's Wager implies that believing in God is only a benefit if the believe turns out to be true. I don't think that's a correct point of view. Mind you, I still find any choice in faith around the existence of God, be it atheism or religion to be a less sensible approach than agnosticism, but if one feels compelled to base ones views on faith, the religious approach is the more sensible of the two.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/18/2011 3:13:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr I still find a religious view a more sensible approach than an atheist one -especially positive atheist- because a religious approach has nothing to loose and something to gain. No, it doesnt. Pasal's fallacy rears its ugly head again. It's got nothing to do with Pasal's Wager, because I don't consider the benefit or choosing religion as a belief system to be eternal bliss, but instead, the benefit of having the social interaction, the hope, the comfort and so on people derive from having religion. Even if the believe in God turns out to be wrong, people still have gained something from believing. Pascal's Wager states that believing in God is only a benefit if the believe turns out to be true. I don't think that's a correct point of view. Mind you, I still find any choice in faith around the existence of God, be it atheism or religion to be a less sensible approach than agnosticism, but if one feels compelled to base ones views on faith, the religious approach is the more sensible of the two. It doesnt require religion to have social interaction, hope and comfort. Reliance on religion for those things is the result of indoctrination, nothing more. What they lose from believing is the ability to base their actions on logic, untainted by mythology, and to the extent those behaviors differ they have lost. They also lose the time spent worshiping and praying and the money spent donating to structures that exist to create and then feed on their need. Doesnt sound at all sensible to me.

Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/18/2011 4:04:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy What they lose from believing is the ability to base their actions on logic, untainted by mythology... Do you just make this shit up, or do you (if you'll excuse the expression) "believe" it? Nobel Laureates in Physics (year of prize): Guglielmo Marconi (1909) The more I work with the powers of Nature, the more I feel God’s benevolence to man; the closer I am to the great truth that everything is dependent on the Eternal Creator and Sustainer; the more I feel that the so-called science, I am occupied with, is nothing but an expression of the Supreme Will, which aims at bringing people closer to each other in order to help them better understand and improve themselves. Sir William H. Bragg (1915) From religion comes a man’s purpose; from science, his power to achieve it. Sometimes people ask if religion and science are not opposed to one another. They are: in the sense that the thumb and fingers of my hand are opposed to one another. It is an opposition by means of which anything can be grasped. Max Planck (1918) Both religion and science need for their activities the belief in God, and moreover God stands for the former in the beginning, and for the latter at the end of the whole thinking. For the former, God represents the basis, for the latter – the crown of any reasoning concerning the world-view. Albert Einstein (1921) Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a Spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a Spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. Robert Millikan (1923) Human well-being and all human progress rest at bottom upon two pillars, the collapse of either one of which will bring down the whole structure. These two pillars are the cultivation and the dissemination throughout mankind of 1) the spirit of religion, and 2) the spirit of science (or knowledge). Arthur Compton (1927) For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence. An orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered: "In the beginning God...." Werner Heisenberg (1932) The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you. Erwin Schroedinger (1933) In the presentation of a scientific problem, the other player is the good Lord. He has not only set the problem but also has devised the rules of the game – but they are not completely known, half of them are left for you to discover or to deduce. Isidor Isaac Rabi (1944) Physics filled me with awe, put me in touch with a sense of original causes. Physics brought me closer to God. That feeling stayed with me throughout my years in science. Whenever one of my students came to me with a scientific project, I asked only one question, "Will it bring you nearer to God?" Charles Townes (1964) As a religious person, I strongly sense the presence and actions of a creative Being far beyond myself and yet always personal and close by. Nevill Mott (1977) I believe, too, that neither physical science nor psychology can ever "explain" human consciousness. To me, then, human consciousness lies outside science, and it is here that I seek the relationship between God and man. Arno Penzias (1978) I look at God through the works of God’s hands and from those works imply intentions. From these intentions, I receive an impression of the Almighty. Abdus Salam (1979) We are trying to discover what the Lord thought; of course we miserably fail most of the time, but sometimes there is great satisfaction in seeing a little bit of the truth. Arthur Schawlow (1981) It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. William Phillips (1997) I believe in God as both creator and friend. If these are people who lack "the ability to base their actions on logic," what's that make you? K.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/18/2011 4:07:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy What they lose from believing is the ability to base their actions on logic, untainted by mythology... Do you just make this shit up, or do you (if you'll excuse the expression) "believe" it? Nobel Laureates in Physics (year of prize): Guglielmo Marconi (1909) The more I work with the powers of Nature, the more I feel God’s benevolence to man; the closer I am to the great truth that everything is dependent on the Eternal Creator and Sustainer; the more I feel that the so-called science, I am occupied with, is nothing but an expression of the Supreme Will, which aims at bringing people closer to each other in order to help them better understand and improve themselves. Sir William H. Bragg (1915) From religion comes a man’s purpose; from science, his power to achieve it. Sometimes people ask if religion and science are not opposed to one another. They are: in the sense that the thumb and fingers of my hand are opposed to one another. It is an opposition by means of which anything can be grasped. Max Planck (1918) Both religion and science need for their activities the belief in God, and moreover God stands for the former in the beginning, and for the latter at the end of the whole thinking. For the former, God represents the basis, for the latter – the crown of any reasoning concerning the world-view. Albert Einstein (1921) Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a Spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a Spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. Robert Millikan (1923) Human well-being and all human progress rest at bottom upon two pillars, the collapse of either one of which will bring down the whole structure. These two pillars are the cultivation and the dissemination throughout mankind of 1) the spirit of religion, and 2) the spirit of science (or knowledge). Arthur Compton (1927) For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence. An orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered: "In the beginning God...." Werner Heisenberg (1932) The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you. Erwin Schroedinger (1933) In the presentation of a scientific problem, the other player is the good Lord. He has not only set the problem but also has devised the rules of the game – but they are not completely known, half of them are left for you to discover or to deduce. Isidor Isaac Rabi (1944) Physics filled me with awe, put me in touch with a sense of original causes. Physics brought me closer to God. That feeling stayed with me throughout my years in science. Whenever one of my students came to me with a scientific project, I asked only one question, "Will it bring you nearer to God?" Charles Townes (1964) As a religious person, I strongly sense the presence and actions of a creative Being far beyond myself and yet always personal and close by. Nevill Mott (1977) I believe, too, that neither physical science nor psychology can ever "explain" human consciousness. To me, then, human consciousness lies outside science, and it is here that I seek the relationship between God and man. Arno Penzias (1978) I look at God through the works of God’s hands and from those works imply intentions. From these intentions, I receive an impression of the Almighty. Abdus Salam (1979) We are trying to discover what the Lord thought; of course we miserably fail most of the time, but sometimes there is great satisfaction in seeing a little bit of the truth. Arthur Schawlow (1981) It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. William Phillips (1997) I believe in God as both creator and friend. If these are people who lack "the ability to base their actions on logic," what's that make you? K. Yes, I believe it. Intellectual abilities are not the same as actions. Religion is a waste of time, money and intellect. Anyone who is shackled by those beliefs could be more productive than they otherwise are.

Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/18/2011 4:25:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Yes, I believe it. Intellectual abilities are not the same as actions. Religion is a waste of time, money and intellect. Anyone who is shackled by those beliefs could be more productive than they otherwise are. Well, since you are immune to evidence and have none to offer, I will respect your faith and just thank you for sharing. K.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/18/2011 4:29:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Yes, I believe it. Intellectual abilities are not the same as actions. Religion is a waste of time, money and intellect. Anyone who is shackled by those beliefs could be more productive than they otherwise are. Well, since you are immune to evidence and have none to offer, I will respect your faith and just thank you for sharing. K. Once again, you fail to understand that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and that faith has nothing to do with it. I don't expect you to offer evidence, because you know you have none. NDE's, rofl.

crazyml -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/18/2011 4:39:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Yes, I believe it. Intellectual abilities are not the same as actions. Religion is a waste of time, money and intellect. Anyone who is shackled by those beliefs could be more productive than they otherwise are. Well, since you are immune to evidence and have none to offer, I will respect your faith and just thank you for sharing. K. Once again, you fail to understand that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and that faith has nothing to do with it. I don't expect you to offer evidence, because you know you have none. NDE's, rofl. So if those Nobel laureates hadn't been shackled by their faith, maybe they'd have won two of them? To argue that having faith brings people no benefits at all... well that seems like something that would deserve some evidence.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/18/2011 4:43:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Yes, I believe it. Intellectual abilities are not the same as actions. Religion is a waste of time, money and intellect. Anyone who is shackled by those beliefs could be more productive than they otherwise are. Well, since you are immune to evidence and have none to offer, I will respect your faith and just thank you for sharing. K. Once again, you fail to understand that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and that faith has nothing to do with it. I don't expect you to offer evidence, because you know you have none. NDE's, rofl. So if those Nobel laureates hadn't been shackled by their faith, maybe they'd have won two of them? To argue that having faith brings people no benefits at all... well that seems like something that would deserve some evidence. I didnt say that it brings no benefits...I said it only brings benefits to those indoctrinated to need it.

Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/18/2011 4:59:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy I don't expect you to offer evidence, because you know you have none. NDE's, rofl. You're my evidence for the reality of Near Dope Experiences. [:D] K.

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625