Pretending (doctrine, spirit, atheists, about)

[GoCardinals]

Originally Posted by monumentus

The question is actually why do you feel the need to use terms like "scared" to explain away people who are not just falling over into the labels _you_ fling at them. You are more interested - it seems - at writing "lol" a lot and telling people who and what they are rather than them telling you who and what they are.

Why you want to talk _at_ people rather than _with_ people is anyone's guess but I reckon it has a lot to do with the "pretending" that this very thread is about. You want to pretend who we are and what we think - because it is easier to deal with than the reality.

As for your question "what exactly does it mean" I am afraid I simply can not dumb it down or make it any more basic linguistically than I already have. Some people think there is a god. I see no reason to think that. What exactly do you not understand there??? It could not be more understandable.

Drop you little obsession with labels and instead listen to what people are actually saying to you.



Now you have switched up into outright lying about me which is not really great. I have very often said _exactly_ the things you here outright lie I will not "admit". I can quote me saying them if you require.

The use of the word "admit" is telling though. The word "admit" suggests some kind of confession, often to a crime or to something wrong or immoral or hard to justify. It suggests something negative from the outset. I do not to "admit" to any such things as you list above. I am instead entirely open and forthcoming and clear about them. They you fail to understand the words I write - or pretend to - does not mean I have been in any way reticent in my prose.


.

That’s very disappointing.
I waited for a couple days for your reply and thought it would be interesting to move forward with our discussion, but you came back with such a long and boring hogwash which actually supports my point.

On one hand, you don’t want to be “labeled” perhaps rightly so, but who labeled you? I simply ASKED if you were an atheist, a theist, an agnostic or something else? How is asking question is labeling you? And that too, when I am giving the option of “something else” so you can explain. ,

And on the other hand you are “skeptical” (feels better?) in telling us what is your belief system?

It’s very rudimentary that you come here and voice your critical opinion on the religious belief system but you don’t introduce your own belief system - which IMO, simply puts a zero value to your opinions and your input.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

That’s very disappointing. I waited for a couple days for your reply and thought it would be interesting to move forward with our discussion, but you came back with such a long and boring hogwash which actually supports my point.

Yes I am sure my constant refusal to fall into _your_ definitions of _myself_ rather than offer my own is indeed very disappointing to you. I see that as a good thing however - as there is no reason why I should play that game.

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

On one hand, you don’t want to be “labeled” perhaps rightly so, but who labeled you? I simply ASKED if you were an atheist, a theist, an agnostic or something else?

The labelling is not the problem. The problem is I have answered with who and what I am - you personally do not like that answer - so you are A) pretending I have not answered and B) making up emotions like "afraid" to explain me not answering.

You are welcome to ask me to define and describe myself. Any time. You are not however welcome to make it a multiple choice quiz and demand I tick your boxes.

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

How is asking question is labeling you? And that too, when I am giving the option of “something else” so you can explain.

Which I have done. Frequently. Over the years. Including on this thread in response to you. If you have any specific questions rather than general ones so you can understand me further, ask them. But you not understanding, or even ignoring, what I wrote so far does not magically mean I have not written it.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

This is actually a good post.

The key word is the "tool box" that we have, which is science.

There two paths we can focus on from this point.

First - The tool box of science works to a certain extent - after that is another box that holds "human logic, intelligence and common sense" (let's call this tool box as "HIC"). This box also gives us some direction and some perceived information (not necessarily always correct though) and this box also works only to a certain extent, and THEN, there is the inevitable, throwing the white towel of "I don't know" or "we don't know".
The final box of "I don't know" is held by both Atheists and Theists, and it's the exact same box.


And I think the crux of our discussion lies in the box of "HIC". Because this tool box is not exact the same for every person (unlike the tool box of Science and the tool box of "I don't know".

This box of HIC may vary from person to person. This box may also have a common ground between Theists and Atheists but this tool box may also have uncommon ground between the two groups.


So lets begin with the first tool box.

I fully support the tool box of science - but we see that the immediate bone of contention between both camps is "Theory of evolution" - a topic not so encouraged to be discussed in this forum - so we have to surpass it.

So lets stick with the tool box of science and move beyond the Theory of human evolution - and we come to this post that I wrote earlier which moves us from the tool box of science to the tool box of HIC where all the action lies.

If you haven't read it before, please read it again. Slow and easy so you could understand my train of thoughts.



Remember the above in quotes is the step BEFORE we throw in the white towel of "we don't know".

Now to continue with this HIC box if X is what started it all then X is probably a force with intelligence because creation and design (as we observe in the natural universe) requires intelligence and force.

I think to some extent, believers can say X is God.
Atheist can say, X is just nature that has designed and created it all.

What is X and where it come from?
Both parties throw in the white towel of "I don't know".

*BUT* is probably a fact that exists.
As the great Einstein put it,

Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious.”


In my personal opinion, if you are an Atheists and you can be all the Atheists you want but if you are also a believer in the knowledge of science then it will probably be unfair to outright deny the existence of this "force" - NOT because you have more scientific knowledge than Eisenstein and you can prove him wrong but look at what's going on here?
He (a non religious and perhaps the greatest scientist) believes in the existence of "force" that he cannot provide the evidence of it's existence.
Sounds familiar?
Perhaps believers label this "force" as God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second path that we can take from the tool box of science that I would like to shed just a little light on is, "What should be our intention behind using this, very useful, tool box"?

In my opinion, exploration of scientific knowledge that benefits humanity MUST be continued on - I 100% support it. If that was not the case, I would've not gotten a Masters in Science, and neither would have encouraged my wife pursue a double PhD in science.

IMO, when it comes to the scenario of "Science and Religion coming face to face", THEN, believers should use the knowledge of science to appreciate X as to how this force created things under our research and exploration.

And Atheists should simply continue with their research and exploration in the field of science that benefits humanity WITHOUT belittling those who would like to appreciate X.

This way, both camps can join forces and move even faster in expanding the knowledge of science that is beneficial to all.

If only you read our responses slowly and carefully, then you would not repeat your usual fallacies.

[GoCardinals]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

If only you read our responses slowly and carefully, then you would not repeat your usual fallacies.

Please see the red boxed text.

This was your response, after which I really lost interest or put too much value in reading your posts with any seriousness - time is of essence.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

Please see the red boxed text.

This was your response, after which I really lost interest or put too much value in reading your posts with any seriousness - time is of essence.

Yes, that was me having lost interest in having to point out yet again the fallacy in your argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

But thank you for admitting you do not put too much value in making a rational argument.

[GoCardinals]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Yes, that was me having lost interest in having to point out yet again the fallacy in your argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

But thank you for admitting you do not put too much value in making a rational argument.

lol ... sending a wiki link and telling others to come up with a rational argument?

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

*** nipped for space ***

Now to continue with this HIC box if X is what started it all then X is probably a force with intelligence because creation and design (as we observe in the natural universe) requires intelligence and force.

There was a lot in your post. I saw a few of what I call "base axiom" problems. Lets just look at this one line.

One "HIC", I would classify that as a processor. yes, we have different processors. some are better than others and i personally shy away from weighting claims based on the processor. I like using groups of processors.

But that is a different issue. lets just look at you statement.

"Creation because creation and design (as we observe in the natural universe) requires intelligence and force'

This statement mixes two idea's that need to be addressed. one is intellect and the other is the force. i will call it "life force", and simplify it to "life".

1) creation. did my wife use her intellect to create my children? does the biosphere have intellect? it most certainly created humans as shown by evolution.

2) the "life", yes, it looks like life came from life on planet earth. Much the same as cells in you are created by your life.

I still don't see a god as taught in the major religions.

.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

lol ... sending a wiki link and telling others to come up with a rational argument?

Because saying LOL refutes every argument?

[OzzyRules]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

I still don't see a god as taught in the major religions.

Personally, I don't think anyone does. The religious teachings that atheists discuss have nothing to do with most people's faith. It's more like a starting point for people to have a connection to the spirit. Everyone's own religion is personal.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

Personally, I don't think anyone does. The religious teachings that atheists discuss have nothing to do with most people's faith.

Another misrepresentation from you. Atheism is a response to those teachings, to those religious claims. From "we do not believe your claim" to "here is why we do not believe your claim".

Once again you pretend atheists are attacking a straw man version of religion.