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.
Some of the recent posts seem to point up the different view of evidence science and religion. Setting aside the rather extreme (but common) arguing position of 'believe or not' (ignoring the actual evidence, apparently) there are various efforts to cast doubt on the validity of science.
The geocentric system is just a variant on 'they denied powered flight' ploy. Instead of debunking knowledge because it disbelieved what was later proved true, it is debunked because what it thought was true was proved false.
This is of course a fallacy. Not because it isn't true, but because it simply shows the value, need and rightness of not accepting claims without validation. Ptolemy was in fact a considerable step forward for the snowdome -cosmos of the ancients. One could even regard the replacing of the earth with the sun as a Tweak in an essentially correct system, as Kepler replaced the Copernican circular orbits with elliptical.
In any case, the replacement of the Geocentric system with the heliocentric was the las major Overturn for science. The discovery of warm -blooded and then fethered dinosaurs was no more than relativity being added to Newtonian physics and Quantum to relativity. The earlier laws are jut as valid now as they were then.
I needn't labour the terminally skewed and biases thinking of the theists who argue illogically and dishonestly in their efforts to debunk human knowledge so that unsupported faith- claims can pass without challenge, but I am amused by the hypocrisy and double standards.
In the great atrocity debate, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hit...no, scrap him..he was a Believer..are trotted out (false argument, again(1) to discredit atheism. The response is the Conquest of Mexico and the Crusades. These are brushed aside as being old stuff..only 'recent' examples count.
But in discrediting Scientific Knowledge, they have to go back to Ptolemy and dredge up Piltdown man. And those are not really science -debunkers anyway.
(1) what false argument? Because they did not act as they did because they were atheists, but because they owed their authority to dogma, set down in a Book and everyone was obliged to learn and obey the dogma or else, and anyone questioning it would be punished. Remind you of anything? That the believers accuse atheism of wanting to the same thing shows (projection) that they know how they would act if they were allowed the power they crave.
Some of the recent posts seem to point up the different view of evidence science and religion. Setting aside the rather extreme (but common) arguing position of 'believe or not' (ignoring the actual evidence, apparently) there are various efforts to cast doubt on the validity of science.
The geocentric system is just a variant on 'they denied powered flight' ploy. Instead of debunking knowledge because it disbelieved what was later proved true, it is debunked because what it thought was true was proved false.
This is of course a fallacy. Not because it isn't true, but because it simply shows the value, need and rightness of not accepting claims without validation. Ptolemy was in fact a considerable step forward for the snowdome -cosmos of the ancients. One could even regard the replacing of the earth with the sun as a Tweak in an essentially correct system, as Kepler replaced the Copernican circular orbits with elliptical.
In any case, the replacement of the Geocentric system with the heliocentric was the las major Overturn for science. The discovery of warm -blooded and then fethered dinosaurs was no more than relativity being added to Newtonian physics and Quantum to relativity. The earlier laws are jut as valid now as they were then.
I needn't labour the terminally skewed and biases thinking of the theists who argue illogically and dishonestly in their efforts to debunk human knowledge so that unsupported faith- claims can pass without challenge, but I am amused by the hypocrisy and double standards.
In the great atrocity debate, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hit...no, scrap him..he was a Believer..are trotted out (false argument, again(1) to discredit atheism. The response is the Conquest of Mexico and the Crusades. These are brushed aside as being old stuff..only 'recent' examples count.
But in discrediting Scientific Knowledge, they have to go back to Ptolemy and dredge up Piltdown man. And those are not really science -debunkers anyway.
(1) what false argument? Because they did not act as they did because they were atheists, but because they owed their authority to dogma, set down in a Book and everyone was obliged to learn and obey the dogma or else, and anyone questioning it would be punished. Remind you of anything? That the believers accuse atheism of wanting to the same thing shows (projection) that they know how they would act if they were allowed the power they crave.
You are trying to collect feathers in a hurricane.
It doesn't matter. Whatever the Universe i(God) is....it IS...regardless of the accuracy of anyone's knowledge about it, including Ol' Claudius Ptolemaeus'.
Once it is perceived as God...it's a done deal...it's God. Others without the same perception mean squat.
Just like someone you consider your "friend"...they are then a "friend", PERIOD. Others to whom that person isn't a friend, doesn't render your designation null and void...nor can they use that as a premise to try to determine that "friends" don't exist.
Neither does the person you consider a "friend" not meeting the standards others set for establishing a "friend". You DO...that covers it...and another cannot divest them of the title by their differing view of it.
"ALL" is God...because there are those (even one, ever, would suffice) that considers it such. "ALL" exists....irrespective of the validity of what we think we know about it at any given time...thus, God exists.
And the "No God Exists" concept...on ANY level, on ANY basis...is rendered illogical and completely bogus. Claims otherwise, not withstanding.
"ALL" is God...because there are those (even one, ever, would suffice) that considers it such. "ALL" exists....irrespective of the validity of what we think we know about it at any given time...thus, God exists.
And the "No God Exists" concept...on ANY level, on ANY basis...is rendered illogical and completely bogus. Claims otherwise, not withstanding.
Well okay, I can play that game. All is NOT god. There, I said it ... it only takes one person considering it such to make it so. So there. Nyah. And by the way this negates all other concepts such as the concept that god exists -- on ANY level, on ANY basis. It's rendered illogical and completely bogus. Because I said so.
Well okay, I can play that game. All is NOT god. There, I said it ... it only takes one person considering it such to make it so. So there. Nyah. And by the way this negates all other concepts such as the concept that god exists -- on ANY level, on ANY basis. It's rendered illogical and completely bogus. Because I said so.
This is exactly what I was thinking when I read the incoherent post. Guy just said that the truth doesn't matter, because he believes something, so therefore it is true, even if it isn't.
OTOH, all claims that differ from his, are bogus and illogical, because he says so. I have realized the Gldn is only here for one reason, and it isn't conversation or discussion.
This is exactly what I was thinking when I read the incoherent post. Guy just said that the truth doesn't matter, because he believes something, so therefore it is true, even if it isn't.
OTOH, all claims that differ from his, are bogus and illogical, because he says so. I have realized the Gldn is only here for one reason, and it isn't conversation or discussion.
He's said himself that he's just sitting there in his night club passing the time and enjoys stirring the pot. It's his hobby.
Well okay, I can play that game. All is NOT god. There, I said it ... it only takes one person considering it such to make it so. So there. Nyah. And by the way this negates all other concepts such as the concept that god exists -- on ANY level, on ANY basis. It's rendered illogical and completely bogus. Because I said so.
Sorry...ERRRRRRRT!! WRONG. Please try again.
As per the "Logic & Reason" crew....you can't prove a negative.
I just explained, with an analogy---If you determine someone to be your "friend", another cannot logically just declare your determination null and void. If you hold the perception...that is objectively determinative. Done deal! Irrevocable by anyone else.
If you have something that comports with logic and reason (that you can substantiate) to contest the concept...then put it up. What you just offered did not.
He's said himself that he's just sitting there in his night club passing the time and enjoys stirring the pot. It's his hobby.
I'm doing video and photo edits at the moment. And tweaking the Saturday show for next week, taking into account performers that are indisposed for the holiday. That's always a problem...every year for 30 years now. Oh, well.
Please offer a logical rebuttal to my argument. Oh, wait, sorry....there isn't one this side of Pure Solipsism.
As per the "Logic & Reason" crew....you can't prove a negative.
You can't (dis)prove a non-falsifiable hypothesis. "God is all" is non-falsifiable and its verity is demonstrated, in your world, by the simple fact that someone asserts it. Both "God is all" and "God is not all" are non-falsifiable and non-provable.
What you are confusing (or deliberately conflating) is that the burden of proof is on someone making a positive assertion, not on the one disbelieving it. Both "god is all" and "god is not all" are positive assertions, one is just a positive assertion of a negative.
Virtually no atheist makes the knowledge claim "god does not exist". Virtually all theists make the knowledge claim "god does exist".
Virtually all atheists decline belief in deities because they see no good reason to believe and judge invisible personal deities to be highly, highly unlikely. Virtually all theists believe in deities because of the failed epistemology of faith, which simply asserts that god exists and demands that you subscribe to it.
This is exactly what I was thinking when I read the incoherent post. Guy just said that the truth doesn't matter, because he believes something, so therefore it is true, even if it isn't.
OTOH, all claims that differ from his, are bogus and illogical, because he says so. I have realized the Gldn is only here for one reason, and it isn't conversation or discussion.
The truth matters to me. Why would you think it doesn't?
The truth is...I perceive ALL as God....and title it such. Which is logically all that is required for it to objectively be.
Like the determination of a "hero" or a "friend". The perception and declaration is determinative. As long as the perception is held...that which is perceived as such is necessarily imbued with that quality.
You can try to brush it off. But you can't.
I wanna see it...your logical and reasonable argument to contest my claim.
But I just want to hip you to sumthin ahead of time: There isn't one. But don't let that deter you...it will amuse me to watch you try.
The truth matters to me. Why would you think it doesn't?
The truth is...I perceive ALL as God....and title it such. Which is logically all that is required for it to objectively be.
Like the determination of a "hero" or a "friend". The perception and declaration is determinative. As long as the perception is held...that which is perceived as such is necessarily imbued with that quality.
You can try to brush it off. But you can't.
I wanna see it...your logical and reasonable argument to contest my claim.
But I just want to hip you to sumthin ahead of time: There isn't one. But don't let that deter you...it will amuse me to watch you try.
Ok, well I perceive God as nothing... and title it such. Which is logically all that is required for it to objectively be.
You can't say your "idea" is any more valid than this one. You can' t prove either, so therefore they are both right, according to you.....
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.
