Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yet so many Dawkin's Witnesses continue to waste people's times going on about "facts" this and "data" this and "double-blind study" this and "my fedora" that, and it never works. I get it. No basis in scientific theory.
WE. Don't. Care.
If you can show me evidence that an evidence based existence will lead me closer to existential authenticity, I will listen. Until then, I am not going to let a little thing like "scientific vigor" get between me and the joy of touching the eternal. All your talk of "reason" is simply boring.
"The heart has its reasons of which REASON knows nothing"-Blaise Pascal
Glad you addressed my post. Given me the change to say that your ability to regard preferred speculation as hard fact is one I don't admire and I doubt that any atheist would envy.
Pretty much all of your posts here are peddling the same absurd noting, plus the staggering argument that scientific data is somehow not to be trusted. Further comment ought to be superfluous, but I fear that I may yet again have to explain that science provides validated explanation that is not only the only validated explanations we have, but the track record is remarkably good while the track record of theistical guesswork remarkably bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You have NOT explained or in any way controverted the obvious absurdity that a non-conscious reality can miraculously "emerge" consciousness that is so completely alien to the non-conscious dead material from which it somehow emerges. I know you THINK it makes perfect sense to your concrete mind, but it is preposterous. There is NOTHING in the materialist make-up of reality that in any way presages the unique and completely alien phenomenon of consciousness. Consciousness has the ability to imagine and therefore manifest within it things that completely VIOLATE the laws that constrain the reality within which it somehow "emerged."
Thanks Mystic! This time you debunked yourself, in bolded font, too! You have already referred to Emergence as an 'observation'. You don't observe (in a verified way,of course) that which doesn't happen. You are a very intelligent guy (as well as being as crafty as they make 'em) but your faith -based thinking makes you look ludicrous. As in your appeal to Unexplained. As a philosopher, you ought to know enough first year logic to know better. But then you consistently argue reversal of burden of proof; an error even a 1st year logic freshman wouldn't make. It is not lack of smarts on your part but a complete reversal of everything that faith -based thinking does to believers.
That is why a complete tyro in this area and with a mediocre IQ (I should know..I tested it )can take you bits every time. And the inevitable denial of this will just make you look more of a laughing stock, if having Gldnrule as a disciple wasn't bad enough.
P.s sorry if that sounds harsh. But your post accusing me of having turned from kindly old Arq into the atheist professor Transponder BoSc means that I can't allow myself to be intimidated into going easy on you.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-25-2016 at 05:12 AM..
You have NOT explained or in any way controverted the obvious absurdity that a non-conscious reality can miraculously "emerge" consciousness that is so completely alien to the non-conscious dead material from which it somehow emerges. I know you THINK it makes perfect sense to your concrete mind, but it is preposterous. There is NOTHING in the materialist make-up of reality that in any way presages the unique and completely alien phenomenon of consciousness. Consciousness has the ability to imagine and therefore manifest within it things that completely VIOLATE the laws that constrain the reality within which it somehow "emerged."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Thanks Mystic! This time you debunked yourself, in bolded font, too! You have already referred to Emergence as an 'observation'. You don't observe (in a verified way,of course) that which doesn't happen. You are a very intelligent guy (as well as being as crafty as they make 'em) but your faith -based thinking makes you look ludicrous. As in your appeal to Unexplained. As a philosopher, you ought to know enough first year logic to know better. But then you consistently argue reversal of burden of proof; an error even a 1st year logic freshman wouldn't make. It is not lack of smarts on your part but a complete reversal of everything that faith -based thinking does to believers.
This exchange with mordant and KC should help you to see why your position has done nothing to debunk anything I have ever said nor validated your anti-philosophy stance. Your post deserves the same "QED" that I rendered to KC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I am confused as to what you think I misunderstood in your post, mordant. I know that you are afflicted by God-o-phobia and given your experiences understandably so. But what did I misunderstand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
I appreciated your kind remarks but feel that you concluded that simply because I recognize that science has limitations that I necessarily think there are or must or should be any viable alternatives to it.
Science is just a field of human endeavor and as such is subject to human limitations. We get into trouble when we reach beyond our ken. Science has not expanded our innate capabilities but rather, helped us to make the most of them. We still have finite limitations, and this makes us feel insecure and to desire transcendence. Even if we have to manufacture it out of whole cloth. I do not advocate this. I advocate acceptance.
Okay, but the acceptance of those limitations does NOT make reality actually HAVE those limitations. That tends to be the corollary to the materialism espoused by most atheists here on the forum. They exclude from the possible those things that cannot conform to or currently be explained by science. They reject legitimate hypotheses DERIVED from existing knowledge in science because of the limitation. They lump them into the same category as the illegitimate and completely fanciful hypotheticals, like tooth fairies, unicorns, leprechauns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters. THAT is the fallacious and illogical reasoning that characterizes most atheist thought, Gaylen notwithstanding. They consider the philosophical, logical and extrapolative reasoning to be pointless and illegitimate despite its quite legitimate provenance and history of success in advancing the cause of science on the frontiers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
There's no question that some people build up intricate personal narratives about what is going on. The outstanding question is how much do these personal narratives have to do with reality.
And:
And I won't even pick on you too much for trying to sneak in the idea that logical deduction is the best way to evaluate choices of epistemological methods - another idea which philosophers seem stuck on even though it doesn't work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
Just because materialism works as a practical assumption for the purposes of pursuing science, it does not follow that materialism is the best choice of metaphysics when contemplating the nature of consciousness or the grounds of all moral or aesthetic values. And it also does not mean that knowledge or wisdom is limited to just what science can deliver.
From what I can see, metaphysics doesn't really rule much of anything out. So claims that it doesn't rule out idea X isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the idea - it pretty much leaves it as valid (or not) as it was before it got the metaphysics stamp of approval.
QED!!!
Last edited by MysticPhD; 05-26-2016 at 03:30 PM..
By way of background, I was born Catholic, but in my 20's walked away from all forms of religion and became a non-believer. Why? I just couldn't swallow such fantastic flights of fantasy, and so many disconnects in logic and rationality without at least some substantive, verifiable evidence. I don't believe in Santa Claus, BTW, for the same reasons I don't believe in any god or creator etc., or a "life" after death, re-birth, reincarnation etc., of any type. There simply isn't, in my experience, any evidence whatsoever.
However, I am open to new information, and would ask if anyone has any direct evidence, please present it.
Two basic standards apply:
1. It has to be verifiably true
2. It has to have direct evidentiary value. IOW, it has to speak directly and substantively to the premise that there is, in fact, a god.
BTW, no dogma-as-evidence or anecdotal submissions - only real "stuff" that can be verified.
My suggestion is that you just stay put. You seem to be happy with where you are now, and as I'm sure you know, religious beliefs and spiritual experiences are deeply personal. It would be completely impossible for anyone to "prove" anything to you. Rather, it would end up being a frustrating experience for everyone concerned.
My suggestion is that you just stay put. You seem to be happy with where you are now, and as I'm sure you know, religious beliefs and spiritual experiences are deeply personal. It would be completely impossible for anyone to "prove" anything to you. Rather, it would end up being a frustrating experience for everyone concerned.
Katz, I want to say I completely agree with what you said above but it brings a question to mind: How does acknowledging that a non, or different believer is okay where they are now, square with Mormon's door-knocking/proselytizing?
Do you feel you need to be convinced, or at least told by the door-answerer that they're okay with their current belief/non-belief state of being?
If you'd prefer answering via a DM, that's fine with me.
Katz, I want to say I completely agree with what you said above but it brings a question to mind: How does acknowledging that a non, or different believer is okay where they are now, square with Mormon's door-knocking/proselytizing?
Unless most of what I hear from people who answer their doors to find a couple of Mormon missionaries standing on their porch is incorrect, generally a simple "no thanks" does the trick. Mormon missionaries are actually told not to get into arguments with people. Generally speaking, they are reasonably laid-back and just want to present potential converts with some food for thought. Back when my husband was a missionary (in the 1960s ), it was much more of a hard sell. Today, it's more a matter of letting the conversation flow wherever the person being talked to wants it to flow. Also, even though Mormon missionaries still do go door-to-door, this is not as commonly done as it once was, for the simple reason that the Church realizes that, in this age of technology, it's not the most effective way of preaching the gospel.
Quote:
Do you feel you need to be convinced, or at least told by the door-answerer that they're okay with their current belief/non-belief state of being?
Missionary work by the LDS Church will never stop, of course, because we believe that Jesus Christ commands His followers to share His word. Most missionaries are just trying to offer people something they find worthwhile, and if the person isn't interested, they are willing to move on to someone else who is. I don't think that most missionaries would expect people to "convince" them that what they believe is right. I'm sure there are exceptions, but for the most part, they don't operate that way. Since we believe that the opportunity for people to accept the gospel during the period of time in between their death and their resurrection, and that almost nobody will end up in a fiery hell, we don't feel quite the urgency to convert people that, say, the JWs do.
Unless most of what I hear from people who answer their doors to find a couple of Mormon missionaries standing on their porch is incorrect, generally a simple "no thanks" does the trick. Mormon missionaries are actually told not to get into arguments with people. Generally speaking, they are reasonably laid-back and just want to present potential converts with some food for thought. Back when my husband was a missionary (in the 1960s ), it was much more of a hard sell. Today, it's more a matter of letting the conversation flow wherever the person being talked to wants it to flow. Also, even though Mormon missionaries still do go door-to-door, this is not as commonly done as it once was, for the simple reason that the Church realizes that, in this age of technology, it's not the most effective way of preaching the gospel.
Missionary work by the LDS Church will never stop, of course, because we believe that Jesus Christ commands His followers to share His word. Most missionaries are just trying to offer people something they find worthwhile, and if the person isn't interested, they are willing to move on to someone else who is. I don't think that most missionaries would expect people to "convince" them that what they believe is right. I'm sure there are exceptions, but for the most part, they don't operate that way. Since we believe that the opportunity for people to accept the gospel during the period of time in between their death and their resurrection, and that almost nobody will end up in a fiery hell, we don't feel quite the urgency to convert people that, say, the JWs do.
Unless most of what I hear from people who answer their doors to find a couple of Mormon missionaries standing on their porch is incorrect, generally a simple "no thanks" does the trick. Mormon missionaries are actually told not to get into arguments with people. Generally speaking, they are reasonably laid-back and just want to present potential converts with some food for thought. Back when my husband was a missionary (in the 1960s ), it was much more of a hard sell. Today, it's more a matter of letting the conversation flow wherever the person being talked to wants it to flow. Also, even though Mormon missionaries still do go door-to-door, this is not as commonly done as it once was, for the simple reason that the Church realizes that, in this age of technology, it's not the most effective way of preaching the gospel.
Missionary work by the LDS Church will never stop, of course, because we believe that Jesus Christ commands His followers to share His word. Most missionaries are just trying to offer people something they find worthwhile, and if the person isn't interested, they are willing to move on to someone else who is. I don't think that most missionaries would expect people to "convince" them that what they believe is right. I'm sure there are exceptions, but for the most part, they don't operate that way. Since we believe that the opportunity for people to accept the gospel during the period of time in between their death and their resurrection, and that almost nobody will end up in a fiery hell, we don't feel quite the urgency to convert people that, say, the JWs do.
My mother was visited by Mormons when she was elderly. They came to see her several times. She said they were very nice people and welcomed them but it wasn't for her and eventually told them so. She went to church from time to time (not sure which - Methodist rings a bell), but never made a big deal of religion.
I don't think you did old beast. You were discussing it with me just last week!
Yes...we did discuss it.
I recall noting your lack of understanding on the matter...as usual.
How did you escape the glue-factory workers Ol' Plug?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks Mystic! This time you debunked yourself, in bolded font, too! You have already referred to Emergence as an 'observation'. You don't observe (in a verified way,of course) that which doesn't happen. You are a very intelligent guy (as well as being as crafty as they make 'em) but your faith -based thinking makes you look ludicrous. As in your appeal to Unexplained. As a philosopher, you ought to know enough first year logic to know better. But then you consistently argue reversal of burden of proof; an error even a 1st year logic freshman wouldn't make. It is not lack of smarts on your part but a complete reversal of everything that faith -based thinking does to believers. 
)can take you bits every time. And the inevitable denial of this will just make you look more of a laughing stock, if having Gldnrule as a disciple wasn't bad enough. 
), it was much more of a hard sell. Today, it's more a matter of letting the conversation flow wherever the person being talked to wants it to flow. Also, even though Mormon missionaries still do go door-to-door, this is not as commonly done as it once was, for the simple reason that the Church realizes that, in this age of technology, it's not the most effective way of preaching the gospel. 
