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.
So by that statement you are one of those guys who would destroy someone else house without supplying them with somewhere else to live.
Fundamentalist in any field whether it be in religion or the scientific field or atheism all have in common one thing. To the Christian fundamentalist the bible is the only standard of all truth, to the fundamentalist sciences, science is the only standard of truth and the fundamental atheist only follows the fundamentalist sciences as the only standard of truth and each camp take everything in the bible literally.
Within each camps there are those that would be considered militant. Touch their sacred cow and watch out.
Now I do not know whether or not you are of the militant type or not, I hope not as they are the ones who are the cause of many of the wars fought throughout history, as they are the ones who hold all truth and woe be to those who dare challenge them.
Statements like religion is the cause of all the problems of our world; it is the source of absolute evil and poisons everything; and I will destroy all religions at all costs, show pretty much the heart of the individuals making those statement.
Not only are statements like this very troubling as they sound just like something that would have come out of the mouth of Hitler; they are also a very simplistic view as many wars were caused by an imbalance of political power, secular nationalism and the struggle for world domination.
In short militant fundamentalism, I and only I hold the truth, of any kind is a very dangerous road to take as for one to annihilate the other a war must be fought, which as we all know is not a good place for the world to be in.
Robert N Bellah points out " those who feel they are most fully objective in their assessment of reality are most in the power of deep, unconscious fantasies."
Gianni Vattimo states "when someone wants to tell me the absolute truth it is because he wants to put me under his control"
Both theism and atheism make such claims, but there is no absolute truth anymore only interpretations.
What seems typical of the fundamental mind set is the belief that there is only one way to interpret reality.
For myself I believe more along the lines of Stephen Jay Gould who states" a magisterium is a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution' " religion and science were separate magisteria and should not encroach on each other's domain. Gould goes on to say religion and science are two distinct magistaria that hold equal worth and necessary status for any complete human life; and remain logically distinct and fully separated in lines of inquiry.
Because of Gould stance here Dawkens calls Gould a traitor.
Dawkins like many of his supporters wants to get rid of all religion; yet Dawkens states that atheism is a necessary consequence of evolution and has argued that the religious impulse is simply an evolutionary mistake, a misfiring of something useful, it is a kind of virus, parasitic on cognitive systems naturally selected because they had enabled a species to survive.
Did you get that? Dawkens wants to get rid of religion yet maintains religion enabled mankind to survive. So logically if religion enabled mankind to survive if religion was to be taken out of the equation mankind would simply die.
Dawkens seems to want to kill off the whole human race, not just the religious sects.
So yes Trans you have a fundamental mind set, what I don't know is whether you are of the militant fundamental mindset or not.
Dear dear. If you would like to drop by A/A sometime and ask about atheists, atheism and the humanist worldview, its' aims objective and plans fo the religious sould we ever get enough political clot to make politicians court us, you might change a few ideas you have about us and also about the value of reliable data as evidence rather than theistic speculations and logical reasoning over trying to hammer square opinons into factual holes they don't fit.
You might also find that you have nothing to fear from a humanist worldview, because you live in one already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
HUH? How can something be the absolute truth if it can be revised?
So obviously if it can be revised it cannot be the absolute truth.
So you can't prove something with science yet you believe there is no God; that is called faith without evidence.(Dawkens interpretation of faith)
Did you not just finish saying I believe something to be true because the authorities in this or that field of science have verified it. Even then, it's always open to revision.
Yup you did and here you are believing something not verified by science. I guess we will have to wait for the revision.
*
You simply do not get it Trans. The mind of Christ is not something you can explain via science it is something one must live.
Nah some of us still have to work for a living.
Well, you still don't seem to be batting for him, but are arguing about the rules of the game and who should be umpire.
I would like to discuss the way the scientific method works but you can always look it up. Suffice it that relying on authorities but always revising is like knowing the geography of the world even if we haven't seen it ourselves. But where this river is sourced from or just what kinds of trees are thin that jungle or how many species of beetle there are somewhere else is always open to revision.
Science hasn't been upset since Copernicus turned the solar system inside out, and Newton is just as valid now as he was in the 17th century, despite Relativity, Quantum mechanics and Black holes.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-04-2017 at 01:53 PM..
....
It is ludicrous for you to try to discredit what you haven't a clue about. ....
.... you do NOT understand enough of my views to be so completely dismissive and disparaging of them
This is worded very nicely and contains much wisdom.
With all due respect mystic this is exactly what can be said to you regarding how you look down on other views and other beliefs and on religion and on people in ancient times. The truth is you do not understand other views and ancient peoples and religion.
Very well said. Now you know how it feels and why people find the negative words in your posts difficult and abrasive and offensive.
yet Dawkens [sic] states that atheism is a necessary consequence of evolution and has argued that the religious impulse is simply an evolutionary mistake, a misfiring of something useful, it is a kind of virus, parasitic on cognitive systems naturally selected because they had enabled a species to survive.
You have posted a misrepresentation of what Dawkins said. There is zero accuracy in your claims of what Dawkins said.
Think about the two qualities that a virus, or any sort of parasitic replicator, demands of a friendly medium, the two qualities that make cellular machinery so friendly towards parasitic DNA, and that make computers so friendly towards computer viruses. These qualities are, firstly, a readiness to replicate information accurately, perhaps with some mistakes that are subsequently reproduced accurately; and, secondly, a readiness to obey instructions encoded in the information so replicated.
See Chapter 3 of the link I posted if you need clarification on what he actually said.
I am explaining and defending my understanding of God and the beliefs that cause me to associate with Christ. Read your posts, Arq. They reveal that your actual objections are to ME, not my understanding of God. You discuss me and my motives and my knowledge and my state of mind, etc. Your knowledge and understanding of the provenance of Christian scripture are why you reject my association with the Christ narrative as proof of anything. But what you seem unable to understand is that none of that is WHY I believe as I do. I have repeatedly said my experiences are the reason for my certainty about God and His characteristics. I have presented plausible scientific hypotheses for how that would work within our reality. I associate with my corrected Christian narrative not as proof but because the consciousness I encountered matches the descriptions of the "mind of Christ" and the actions of Jesus (whatever their provenance). Let's not quibble over the term salvation, Arq, it is problematic to associate the extinction of self-identity with any kind of salvation. What is saved if the self is gone?What is fact is that you did not understand the analogies and you did not understand the actual science behind them, but someone SEEMED to oppose my views and you believed that they were demolished. I doubt you could follow the actual discussions we had on the deeper issues so you have no basis for continuing to assail my knowledge of the science or my hypotheses extrapolated from them. Please stop. It is ludicrous for you to try to discredit what you haven't a clue about. Your continued unflattering focus on me just prompts me to make unflattering responses taking the thread off topic, which I do not want to do. Your lengthy post responding to me that was actually pneuma's is just one of the things prompting my GENUINE concern about you, old friend. Forgive me if it seemed too personal in the context of our repartee. Your quick edit of the other post does indicate that you seem as sharp as ever otherwise. Please trust me when I say you do NOT understand enough of my views to be so completely dismissive and disparaging of them (Noah'sArk indeed). I will not bother to address your remaining discussion of ME because it is off topic.
Well, look old mate. I cann understand that you are rattled by what I wrote and are fighting back. But the fact is that I explained what was wrong with your theory and thinking and unsurprisingly you took it personally. But you are not really explaining anything by way of supporting your views (nor is Pneuma) and so it's just trying to put me down.
I don't really relish confrontations, flame wars or tit for tats. So I'm more inclined to let people read all the discussion over again and make up their own minds, if I just point up what to look for
Because even though (an Pneuma pointed up ) I am not gainfully employed but am living off the sweat of the poor, I do have other things I'm inclined to do - like play disc 2 of the complete Borodin Chamber pots which was delivered yesterday and work out the best way or getting from Tenochtitlan to Cancun in October.
So I hand What's left of Mystic back you good folks.
That's not what mystic says.
Readers would be interested in hearing how you two work through that. Thank you.
Wait there's more! Then again it looks like truth can change after all..
Stagnant or advancing? Changing or static? Which is it?
What is your point, Tzaph? That there are things that are true and they can change. Of course, there are. But if we are talking about the NATURE of God, that truth does not. That does NOT mean that God does not and cannot change (His mind, evidence your own fables, eg., the flood, reproduce, evidence US, etc.). Tell me, Tzaph, what does a LIVING God mean to you since life is nothing but change?
This is worded very nicely and contains much wisdom.
With all due respect mystic this is exactly what can be said to you regarding how you look down on other views and other beliefs and on religion and on people in ancient times. The truth is you do not understand other views and ancient peoples and religion.
Very well said. Now you know how it feels and why people find the negative words in your posts difficult and abrasive and offensive.
Sorry, Tzaph. As I said, I have no intention doing any such thing, though I am a grumpy old man when provoked.
Well, look old mate. I cann understand that you are rattled by what I wrote and are fighting back. But the fact is that I explained what was wrong with your theory and thinking and unsurprisingly you took it personally. But you are not really explaining anything by way of supporting your views (nor is Pneuma) and so it's just trying to put me down.
I don't really relish confrontations, flame wars or tit for tats. So I'm more inclined to let people read all the discussion over again and make up their own minds, if I just point up what to look for
Because even though (an Pneuma pointed up ) I am not gainfully employed but am living off the sweat of the poor, I do have other things I'm inclined to do - like play disc 2 of the complete Borodin Chamber pots which was delivered yesterday and work out the best way or getting from Tenochtitlan to Cancun in October.
So I hand What's left of Mystic back you good folks.
Don't go, old friend, just ease off the disparagement of me. My views remain fair game and your interpretations of scripture I find knowledgeable and plausible. Your understanding of science and the issues with materialism leave much to be desired, though.
More examples! Let's add these statements that fall in the same category:
Oh! And look who said them!
And yes I totally agree .... Very troubled mindset indeed
What really IS troubling is that you left off the first part of my quote, :"Not really. "Religion" quite often gets in the way of faith and love, but it is not an absolute detriment."
And you completerly ignore the point that has been brought up more than once that the use of "religion" here is about the forms and doctrines and dogmas tather than the faith that should underpin the social phenomenon.
Here is your biggest problem Trans. We are not followers of the Bible ( let that sink in, because you obviously don't get it) as can be seen by this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
Then why do you and Mystic keep quoting it?
The Bible contains truths, Tzaph. They just need to be sussed out using the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Think about the two qualities that a virus, or any sort of parasitic replicator, demands of a friendly medium, the two qualities that make cellular machinery so friendly towards parasitic DNA, and that make computers so friendly towards computer viruses. These qualities are, firstly, a readiness to replicate information accurately, perhaps with some mistakes that are subsequently reproduced accurately; and, secondly, a readiness to obey instructions encoded in the information so replicated.
See Chapter 3 of the link I posted if you need clarification on what he actually said.
its from the God delusion 2006 p.188
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.
If you would like to drop by A/A sometime and ask about atheists, atheism and the humanist worldview, its' aims objective and plans fo the religious sould we ever get enough political clot to make politicians court us, you might change a few ideas you have about us and also about the value of reliable data as evidence rather than theistic speculations and logical reasoning over trying to hammer square opinons into factual holes they don't fit.
). I will not bother to address your remaining discussion of ME because it is off topic.
) I am not gainfully employed but am living off the sweat of the poor, I do have other things I'm inclined to do - like play disc 2 of the complete Borodin Chamber pots which was delivered yesterday and work out the best way or getting from Tenochtitlan to Cancun in October.
