Internet atheism: one of secularism's biggest enemies (Revelation, verse, religion)
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.
"Spirit" is probably your own imagination, emotions, and thoughts. It has nothing to do with calculus.
yes, thank you, this illustrates another obstacle to understanding. "I already know that, I just call it something else." "don't need spirit or soul for that." "I already know letters, don't need numbers for that."
"I already know letters, also words and parts of speech and verbs, I can even write a story and diagram complex sentences and use alliteration and onomatopoeia. That is probably what numbers are, nothing I can't do with letters which I already know."
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-27-2016 at 12:36 PM..
You are spouting phrases like "willingness to learn" but they do not apply because I could not BE more willing.
you make a good point, Nozz, thank you.
so i've stopped using the phrase "obstacles to learning" and am now instead using the phrase "obstacles to understanding"
"obstacles to understanding" is more fitting because it can include understanding concepts, understanding what someone is trying to say in a conversation, or understanding someone else's views or perspective.
it is also more in keeping with the opening post, and not going off topic, which addresses how a message is presented and how it is received and understood by others.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-27-2016 at 02:51 PM..
so i've stopped using the phrase "obstacles to learning" and am now instead using the phrase "obstacles to understanding"
I'm glad you rephrased that TZ because I didn't feel like it was very descriptive for the typical atheist, nor specifically somebody like Nozz in my experience. The typical atheist, in my experience, actually embraces learning about all sorts of things, and is quite willing to embrace new concepts. So much so that they very often have learned about the natural world enough that they can no longer believe the religious teachings of their youth.
So while I can appreciate you might have different experiences with things like a spirit world....I'd like to understand how you define (e.g. how you know) what a spirit world actually is? In other words, our best science doesn't have an actual definition of such a thing....which you'd presume because it attempts to measure physical reality...so how do you go about demonstrating a reality that isn't (thus far) measurable physically?
Yes, evidence for would be good, though I suspect we have seen it all before. But isn't proving a spirit -world a bit off the topic of the damage Internet atheism does to secularism? Or has that argument been pretty much dealt with?
Nozz is correct, the choice of words we use is important because a seemingly small nuance can make a huge difference in how our message is heard. Since obstacles to understanding also includes the words we use, i like the idea of using the phrase Nozz introduced (back in post #144) which is really good:
"substantiation that lends credibility" "substantiation compels me"
It is much more more user-friendly (in my view) and less likely to put people off and send them into knee-jerk reactions, than using the words "proof" and "evidence". so thank you Nozz for a better term that (in my view) removes an obstacle to understanding.
Martin also uses language in a way (in post #97) that although he throws the barbs "cult" "delusion" "self-affirming" "mythology" which could cause offense, he appends them with the qualifier "what i perceive to be." He's walking a fine line and he knows it. But it does demonstrate how a person can state a strongly held view in a less offensive way. So phrases like "my view" or "my perception" or "it appears to me" or "in my experience" also help keep people away from going to the knee-jerk place where productive conversation ends or degenerates.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-27-2016 at 06:49 PM..
Yes, evidence for would be good, though I suspect we have seen it all before. But isn't proving a spirit -world a bit off the topic ...?
i agree it would be off topic for this thread, but if anyone wants to take it to a different thread, it could continue. people have raised really good points and asked very good questions, such as: if science can't measure it how do we know spirit exists? how do you define spirit/soul? how does anyone know what the spirit world is? if my spirit/soul exists what's the difference between it and what we already know as emotion, thoughts, imagination? how do i know if i'm not just making it up? how does a person demonstrate or participate in a reality that can't be measured physically? how can the non-physical part of a person (spirit, soul) exist without the physical brain/body? how can consciousness exist without a physical body?
Snowball's 'nothingness' thread had me asking for evidence of a soul, so that would be a good place. I am encouraged by your cordial tone.
that's as good a place as any. particularly since it is not really clear (to me; and others so it seems) what the opening post in that thread is talking about, then tangential conversations that occur are less likely to be seen as off topic.
i am going off line for about 28 hours and will return sometime after that.
science journals are great at what they do; however they do not do soul/spirit.
Precisely. My spouse and I went to the botanical garden last weekend, and after almost twenty five years of marriage it was declared the best date we ever had. Where is the science that proves that?
This morning I'm distracted and worried, even though my spouse and I are going on a waterfalls tour that could rival last weeks' trip to the botanical garden... because my good friend and sister-in-faith is recovering from major surgery. Where are the mathematical models for distraction and worry, which can accurately predict why the surgery of one person causes a certain effect and someone else's surgery causes a different effect?
Next week the chair of our worship team will suffer a loss, as her child and grandchildren move abroad. Prove, with science, that there is a loss. Doesn't science dictate laws of conservation that prove that there will be no loss?
There's a piece of porcelain in my china cabinet (which originally cost about $3). If there is a fire in the house, protocol is that my spouse grabs one cat, I grab the other, and then I grab that piece of porcelain. The rest can all burn to the ground. How does science prove the value of that piece of porcelain.
Science would try to fully explain such things with talk about stimuli and synapses firing, and that's all true, but it doesn't tell the whole store. Clearly science is irrelevant to explain certain things.
that's as good a place as any. particularly since it is not really clear (to me; and others so it seems) what the opening post in that thread is talking about, then tangential conversations that occur are less likely to be seen as off topic.
i am going off line for about 28 hours and will return sometime after that.
Great. In fact what Snowball was on about is perhaps being explained to me. As Mystic says, I am a concrete thinker. Cement at least.
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.
As Mystic says, I am a concrete thinker. Cement at least.
