Post Reply
Page 2 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3 Next
Switch to Forum Live View New thought, everyone has a purpose....
3 years ago  ::  Jul 23, 2011 - 5:21PM #11
Namchuck
Posts: 11,274

Jul 23, 2011 -- 4:01PM, JoliverJOLLY wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:

 


Wel thankyou for your comments you do not believe in God existence anyway, that's is a hurdel you will have to over come really, it's clear you'll slam down anything and everything following your oppionion.


 While I don't "slam down everything", I do question unjustified claims.


 


Jul 13, 2011 -- 2:32AM, Namchuck wrote:


Afterall, according to the New Testament, even some of the angels rebelled against God,




Maybe you should read a little it is the old testament and the older scriptures that speak of this, even tho some are not included in the old testament as held by the church, within the new testament there are a few mentions of that, in a few letters.


I have read the scriptures more than most Christians I have met. Anyway, your assertion remains false.


 



 


The arrogant assumptions of that statement are rediculas, you will find most Christians as with muslims and Jews read the bible or relevent scriptures everyday.


No, my statement is not "rediculas" (sic). I circulate and associate with enough Jews, Christians, and Muslims to know just how benighted many of them are about their own scriptures.


I doubt you know the full daily practices of the Christians you have met, unless they are just social christians that never go to church and were just born in a christian family but having nothing to do with the faith but to say "Yes I'm christian, and celebrate christmas", you will find christians hear the scripture everytime they go to church also.


Wrong again. As a life long student of religion, I get to meet some of the most intensely practicing believers.  


 You seek to say I assume, that you understend the text better than those that follow it, I will say if the heart is not present you cant understand the texts.


So clearly you dont slam down anything that doesnt match with your immence understanding of reality.


I don't know why you insist on using such hysterical language, but I don't "slam" anything down. Like many a believer I have met, you seem as sensitive as a sunburnt neck about having your beliefs criticised. Do you hold them as being immune to criticism, revision, or rejection? This would surely bespeak an underlying - perhaps even subconcious - insecurity about your faith.


What you call questioning is actually bashing down everything, that doesnt match with what you think.


You know clearly.


It is clearly apparent that what I have just said above is accurate. Your anorexic faith is simply too obvious. 


All you can do in defence of it is issue forth with hysterical and judgmental claims while indulging in rank and amateur psychologizing about my supposed motives.


 


                                                     More Below


 


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 13, 2011 -- 2:32AM, Namchuck wrote:


so it's obvious that even possessing blatant and obvious knowledge of God's existence would not in any way imperil or curtail the use of one's will or agency.




 


That is not the issue, and no one was suggesting otherwise, I certainly wasn't, being aware of god or not would not change free will if God has given you that- It's what you do with that free will that is the issue "With Pride the angels fell".


you do not except that God exists, and I'm sure you might even say 'if I was God I would do things differently' Free will allows you to act on that.


 Besides the sons of God or Angels are not the same as the sons of Adam


They're the same inasmuch as they are all mythological.




So you are mythological?


No, I am not mythological, but as there was no historic Adam, he and his supposed "sons" are purely mythological.


You are a son of Adam to those of us that have faith, if you wish to say that adam is a person of myth fine, but still, myth or not, for those of us of faith, a son of Adam you are.


Yes, but faith, as all the differing and contradictory religions evidence, is capable of believing anything. Faith is the transparent admission that ones beliefs cannot stand on their own two feet.  


And myth or not, Sons of Adam are not the same as the sons of God or angels, and are in a differnt situations or circunstances which do and will and can, effect the relevence of free will and it's consiquences, with regards to knowledge of God and its implications.


No, they're the same and belong up there on the same shelf with Batman, Superman, and Captain America.


But ofcourse you are simply here, to show those silly people that believe in God how stupid they are and how cleaver you are, correct?


No, I'm here to do my bit in the attempt to stop people such as you ushering in a new Dark Age and returning mankind to some form of pre-modern stupidity that was jettisoned long ago by people more interested in truth.


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 13, 2011 -- 2:32AM, Namchuck wrote:


On that score, your point collapses utterly.




Hardly, but please mummble about another really unrelated issue


What, so you can dodge some more?




You contencion was that with angels . Quote:even some of the angels rebelled against God, so it's obvious that even possessing blatant and obvious knowledge of God's existence would not in any way imperil or curtail the use of one's will or agency. On that score, your point collapses utterly.


So according to you, because these mythical creature that dont exist, reject god but knew he was real, that proves that, what I was saying was wrong and utterly flawed, becasue they knew.


When I was first talkiing about people, and not angels and said Quote:    if god showed himself, people would not have to question, by staying out of the picture, or acting in wispers, and softly God allows people freedom to choose to think.


Angels do not have that luxuary and are not the same as people. So plesae do again rammble on about something unrelated!


Also as an add on, I never suggested that knowledge of god changed free will, I was replying to your statements, and my statement was relating to god "proving his existence", and by not allowing people more freedom, to question reality ect... 


No, it was simply an excercise to show you that even by your own scripture your point was false.  


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 13, 2011 -- 2:32AM, Namchuck wrote:


On top of this, there is the irreducible fact that the God hypotheses has no epistemological value. We don't need it today to explain a thing.  





The God hypothesses?


Yes, there are several such hypotheses. Can you advance any compelling evidence that your preferred deity is anything more than an hypothesis?





Now think about that question and ask again.


The question is clear. It is apparent that you can't respond to it.


 


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


The scientist "The man that understood nothing, till there was nothing left to understand"


An hysterical saying cited only by those who revel in their ignorance.


 



How so?


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Hypothesse dont explain anything anyway, so that's a rediculas statement in the first place.


Well, it's clear that you don't understand the meaning of the word.





 


Umm is a contencion an explaination?


No, in brief, a hypothesis is a tentative explanation for data collected and expected to account for future observations as well. If a hypothesis does not explain subsequent findings, it must be modified or abandoned. A hypothesis that is repeatedly confirmed by extensive observation and experimentation is retained and may become a theory, an explanation that has remained consistent with all the data.


 


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


You know the problem with scientists? You all have something to prove!


While the religionists - for obvious reasons - are indifferent to evidence.


 



 


Well Prove me wrong!


All you have done so far is make wild claims without advancing the least evidence for your extravagant assertions. If someone claims that something akin to a kangaroo reigns supreme on a planet in Ursa Minor, how is one going to prove them wrong? One simply dismisses such claims as meaningless if the claimaint cannot advance any good reasons for such assertions. 





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 29, 2011 - 11:27AM #12
JoliverJOLLY
Posts: 440

Jul 23, 2011 -- 5:21PM, Namchuck wrote:


So you are mythological?


No, I am not mythological, but as there was no historic Adam, he and his supposed "sons" are purely mythological.




In your oppinion, prove it scientist, you cant you can mubble about fossils and 'brotherly'(not forgetting all the back biting) consenious, Neither disprove our beginings as being from God, or their being an orginal man made by god. Now you might want to rammble on about those crazyies in america that claim the world is 6000 years old easy moan. I say it is far older, and cilivisations existed that you and scientists have no clue of.


 


Jul 23, 2011 -- 5:21PM, Namchuck wrote:




You are a son of Adam to those of us that have faith, if you wish to say that adam is a person of myth fine, but still, myth or not, for those of us of faith, a son of Adam you are.


Yes, but faith, as all the differing and contradictory religions evidence, is capable of believing anything. Faith is the transparent admission that ones beliefs cannot stand on their own two feet.  




 


True to a degree, you also have faith in your evidence, you have to trust that the experimants showed the results they did, and there are plenty of examples of scientist in the interest of personal gain changing results to gain funding ect Science has never been the search for truth, it has always been the search for wealth and power and prestiege. Ultimately as you can never put the same foot in the same river once, you have to keep on proving the same thing consistently and even then it might change, you as scientist also live by a faith.


 


Jul 23, 2011 -- 5:21PM, Namchuck wrote:


And myth or not, Sons of Adam are not the same as the sons of God or angels, and are in a differnt situations or circunstances which do and will and can, effect the relevence of free will and it's consiquences, with regards to knowledge of God and its implications.


No, they're the same and belong up there on the same shelf with Batman, Superman, and Captain America.




 


Here you really do show you ignorance, you come here to discuss theology, and lump everything together. As an analogy you've gone to a comic book talk and gone on and on about how Batman and the Joker are the same- how stupid you wanna get?


 


 


Jul 23, 2011 -- 5:21PM, Namchuck wrote:


But ofcourse you are simply here, to show those silly people that believe in God how stupid they are and how cleaver you are, correct?


No, I'm here to do my bit in the attempt to stop people such as you ushering in a new Dark Age and returning mankind to some form of pre-modern stupidity that was jettisoned long ago by people more interested in truth.




 


Knew dark age? I think you have no clue about how dark this world is. You seem to want to maintain the stuts quo where science is going crazy, human are seen by scientists as nothing but bio-robots and are treated in utter disrespect, knew dark age? You are a blind fool, as most scientists are! The ARROGANCE!


 


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 13, 2011 -- 2:32AM, Namchuck wrote:


On that score, your point collapses utterly.




Hardly, but please mummble about another really unrelated issue


What, so you can dodge some more?




You contencion was that with angels . Quote:even some of the angels rebelled against God, so it's obvious that even possessing blatant and obvious knowledge of God's existence would not in any way imperil or curtail the use of one's will or agency. On that score, your point collapses utterly.


So according to you, because these mythical creature that dont exist, reject god but knew he was real, that proves that, what I was saying was wrong and utterly flawed, becasue they knew.


When I was first talkiing about people, and not angels and said Quote:    if god showed himself, people would not have to question, by staying out of the picture, or acting in wispers, and softly God allows people freedom to choose to think.


Angels do not have that luxuary and are not the same as people. So plesae do again rammble on about something unrelated!


Also as an add on, I never suggested that knowledge of god changed free will, I was replying to your statements, and my statement was relating to god "proving his existence", and by not allowing people more freedom, to question reality ect... 


No, it was simply an excercise to show you that even by your own scripture your point was false.  




 


Which you didnt, you rammbled about how angels are aware of god. I was speaking about people. Change the subject again why dont you! You're a joke!


 


 


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 13, 2011 -- 2:32AM, Namchuck wrote:


On top of this, there is the irreducible fact that the God hypotheses has no epistemological value. We don't need it today to explain a thing.  





The God hypothesses?


Yes, there are several such hypotheses. Can you advance any compelling evidence that your preferred deity is anything more than an hypothesis?





Now think about that question and ask again.


The question is clear. It is apparent that you can't respond to it.








 


I wonder what would you do if god proved himself? POINT!


 


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


The scientist "The man that understood nothing, till there was nothing left to understand"


An hysterical saying cited only by those who revel in their ignorance.


 



How so?


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Hypothesse dont explain anything anyway, so that's a rediculas statement in the first place.


Well, it's clear that you don't understand the meaning of the word.





 


Umm is a contencion an explaination?


No, in brief, a hypothesis is a tentative explanation for data collected and expected to account for future observations as well. If a hypothesis does not explain subsequent findings, it must be modified or abandoned. A hypothesis that is repeatedly confirmed by extensive observation and experimentation is retained and may become a theory, an explanation that has remained consistent with all the data.



 




 


No your hypothesis is what starts the process before you experiment, a contencion, not an explaination and as you your self stated A  hypothesis that is repeatedly confirmed by extensive observation and  experimentation is retained and may become a theory, an explanation that  has remained consistent with all the data.


 Are you a complete idiot?  


 


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


You know the problem with scientists? You all have something to prove!


While the religionists - for obvious reasons - are indifferent to evidence.


 



 


Well Prove me wrong!


All you have done so far is make wild claims without advancing the least evidence for your extravagant assertions. If someone claims that something akin to a kangaroo reigns supreme on a planet in Ursa Minor, how is one going to prove them wrong? One simply dismisses such claims as meaningless if the claimaint cannot advance any good reasons for such assertions. 






And there again you show the simplic way you understand reality, you only ever except what is proven and it is possible somethings cannot be, dark matter or energy for example.


You know to deny the possibility is to walk in delusion, for it is possible.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 30, 2011 - 4:36AM #13
Namchuck
Posts: 11,274

New responses bracketed and written in red following a red *


 


Jul 29, 2011 -- 11:27AM, JoliverJOLLY wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 5:21PM, Namchuck wrote:


So you are mythological?


No, I am not mythological, but as there was no historic Adam, he and his supposed "sons" are purely mythological.




In your oppinion, prove it scientist, you cant you can mubble about fossils and 'brotherly'(not forgetting all the back biting) consenious, Neither disprove our beginings as being from God, or their being an orginal man made by god. Now you might want to rammble on about those crazyies in america that claim the world is 6000 years old easy moan. I say it is far older, and cilivisations existed that you and scientists have no clue of.


* ( No, not just my opinion. It is an overwhelmingly established fact that man as a distinct species has been around for at least a couple of hundred thousand years and that there was no biblical Adam. Man was not created by God but evolved over millions of years from a common ancestor with most other primates. This is so well evidenced that only those committed to pre-modern ignorance shrink from its truth. Adam is a myth.)


 


Jul 23, 2011 -- 5:21PM, Namchuck wrote:




You are a son of Adam to those of us that have faith, if you wish to say that adam is a person of myth fine, but still, myth or not, for those of us of faith, a son of Adam you are.


Yes, but faith, as all the differing and contradictory religions evidence, is capable of believing anything. Faith is the transparent admission that ones beliefs cannot stand on their own two feet.  




 


True to a degree, you also have faith in your evidence, you have to trust that the experimants showed the results they did, and there are plenty of examples of scientist in the interest of personal gain changing results to gain funding ect Science has never been the search for truth, it has always been the search for wealth and power and prestiege. Ultimately as you can never put the same foot in the same river once, you have to keep on proving the same thing consistently and even then it might change, you as scientist also live by a faith.


* ( What you write here is irreducible nonsense. There is a tremendous convergence of scientifically established fact that is truly astonishing, and this convergence suggests that the results of the research rely on what we all share: the universe around us.


Unlike religion, science is the only human activity with a built-in system of self-correction when tested against the vagaries of the real world. And anyone who suggests that science is faith-based neither understands science nor religion.


All that science requires is data and evidence. Religion, on the other hand, rejects all and any data or evidence that challenges its baroque assumptions.)


Jul 23, 2011 -- 5:21PM, Namchuck wrote:


And myth or not, Sons of Adam are not the same as the sons of God or angels, and are in a differnt situations or circunstances which do and will and can, effect the relevence of free will and it's consiquences, with regards to knowledge of God and its implications.


No, they're the same and belong up there on the same shelf with Batman, Superman, and Captain America.




 


Here you really do show you ignorance, you come here to discuss theology, and lump everything together. As an analogy you've gone to a comic book talk and gone on and on about how Batman and the Joker are the same- how stupid you wanna get?


* (There is nothing stupid in my analogy whatsoever. Both God, the gods, Batman, and so on, come from the imagination of man, which is why they all belong on the same shelf.


But I did notice, as you were pointing out my supposed ignorance, that you didn't attempt to advance the least bit of evidence as to just why my "lump(ing) everything together" is stupid. Perhaps it's because you are just not in possession of any justifications for your elaborate beliefs?)


 


 


Jul 23, 2011 -- 5:21PM, Namchuck wrote:


But ofcourse you are simply here, to show those silly people that believe in God how stupid they are and how cleaver you are, correct?


No, I'm here to do my bit in the attempt to stop people such as you ushering in a new Dark Age and returning mankind to some form of pre-modern stupidity that was jettisoned long ago by people more interested in truth.




 


Knew dark age? I think you have no clue about how dark this world is. You seem to want to maintain the stuts quo where science is going crazy, human are seen by scientists as nothing but bio-robots and are treated in utter disrespect, knew dark age? You are a blind fool, as most scientists are! The ARROGANCE!


* (That's "New" Dark Age, and the present world is certainly not as dark as when religious superstition weilded power. And, of course, scientists do not regard humans as "bio-robots", nor do they disrepect humanity. One solid example of this - among many one could cite - is the way in which medical science has prevented the deaths of millions of people who would previously have perished from diseases that science has now conquered. 


No, the real arrogance and ignorance is found among those believers who think that three or four billion years of life on this planet is a mere pretext for putting the humble to the test and who believe that they are the pets of some wholly imagined sky-being who especially cares for them. There is something very juvenile about this kind of belief which suggests some sort of stunted psychological development.)  


 


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 13, 2011 -- 2:32AM, Namchuck wrote:


On that score, your point collapses utterly.




Hardly, but please mummble about another really unrelated issue


What, so you can dodge some more?




You contencion was that with angels . Quote:even some of the angels rebelled against God, so it's obvious that even possessing blatant and obvious knowledge of God's existence would not in any way imperil or curtail the use of one's will or agency. On that score, your point collapses utterly.


So according to you, because these mythical creature that dont exist, reject god but knew he was real, that proves that, what I was saying was wrong and utterly flawed, becasue they knew.


When I was first talkiing about people, and not angels and said Quote:    if god showed himself, people would not have to question, by staying out of the picture, or acting in wispers, and softly God allows people freedom to choose to think.


Angels do not have that luxuary and are not the same as people. So plesae do again rammble on about something unrelated!


Also as an add on, I never suggested that knowledge of god changed free will, I was replying to your statements, and my statement was relating to god "proving his existence", and by not allowing people more freedom, to question reality ect... 


No, it was simply an excercise to show you that even by your own scripture your point was false.  




 


Which you didnt, you rammbled about how angels are aware of god. I was speaking about people. Change the subject again why dont you! You're a joke!


* ( No, the joke is on you through failing to recognize the falsity of your original claim. Your religion is founded on unjustified and insupportable assertions and beliefs for which you cannot mount any worthy or coherent defence, which is why you have no other alternative but to both attack science and call me names.


It has always amused me how pious believers like yourself rarely seem troubled to heed your God's word about not judging others. You are writing cheques with your tongue that your conduct cannot cash.)


 


 


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 13, 2011 -- 2:32AM, Namchuck wrote:


On top of this, there is the irreducible fact that the God hypotheses has no epistemological value. We don't need it today to explain a thing.  





The God hypothesses?


Yes, there are several such hypotheses. Can you advance any compelling evidence that your preferred deity is anything more than an hypothesis?





Now think about that question and ask again.


The question is clear. It is apparent that you can't respond to it.








 


I wonder what would you do if god proved himself? POINT!


* ( If God "proved" himself then there would be no reason to believe, would there? One only believes when one doesn't know.)


 


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


The scientist "The man that understood nothing, till there was nothing left to understand"


An hysterical saying cited only by those who revel in their ignorance.


 



How so?


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Hypothesse dont explain anything anyway, so that's a rediculas statement in the first place.


Well, it's clear that you don't understand the meaning of the word.





 


Umm is a contencion an explaination?


No, in brief, a hypothesis is a tentative explanation for data collected and expected to account for future observations as well. If a hypothesis does not explain subsequent findings, it must be modified or abandoned. A hypothesis that is repeatedly confirmed by extensive observation and experimentation is retained and may become a theory, an explanation that has remained consistent with all the data.



 




 


No your hypothesis is what starts the process before you experiment, a contencion, not an explaination and as you your self stated A  hypothesis that is repeatedly confirmed by extensive observation and  experimentation is retained and may become a theory, an explanation that  has remained consistent with all the data.


 Are you a complete idiot?


* (As I previously demonstrated, you simply do not understand what the word hypothesis means in the scientific sense, which, I have to say, is no real surprise.


And I think it will be very apparent to anyone reading these posts just who the idiot actually is. Idiots, because they are idiots, usually have little recourse but to name call as a substitute for cool, logical, and reasoned argument. Hey, look at that, just like you! )  


 


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


You know the problem with scientists? You all have something to prove!


While the religionists - for obvious reasons - are indifferent to evidence.


 



 


Well Prove me wrong!


All you have done so far is make wild claims without advancing the least evidence for your extravagant assertions. If someone claims that something akin to a kangaroo reigns supreme on a planet in Ursa Minor, how is one going to prove them wrong? One simply dismisses such claims as meaningless if the claimaint cannot advance any good reasons for such assertions. 






And there again you show the simplic way you understand reality, you only ever except what is proven and it is possible somethings cannot be, dark matter or energy for example.


* (Well, all you illustrate here is a startling, but not surprising, benightedness, especially about the nature of science.


But before we get to that, why should one believe in something for which there is no compelling or sound evidence? Do you believe that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, flew to heaven on a white horse, or that Mbombo spewed up the universe? If you don't believe these two things, why not? They enjoy about as much evidence as your beliefs, which is nil.


If you understand why you reject the two beliefs above, then you might gain an insight as to why I reject your beliefs.


And do you really think that there is no evidence for energy? You jest, right (I hope so, because nobody in this day and age has any excuse for such ignorance!)? 


And 'dark matter' is an hypothesis that enjoys, at present, a good deal of evidentially corroborative support.


There is simply no reason why anyone should believe in things for which there is not a grain of evidence.)


You know to deny the possibility is to walk in delusion, for it is possible.


* (I do not deny the possibility. It is possible that flying horses, fire-breathing dragons, and flying spaghetti monsters exist somewhere out there in the far reaches of space, but science and reason is all about probabilities, and I'm skeptical about the probability that flying horses, fire-breathing dragons, the spaghetti monsters, and your God exist. I might be wrong, so perhaps you can show me the evidence why I should believe in your God and not those other creatures just mentioned?


But I'm not living in hope that you will be able to do so. So far, all you have been able to offer is your ignorance of science immaturely punctuated by name-calling.


If your God exists, I think he will be disappointed in your miserable defence of him so far. )





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 02, 2011 - 3:31PM #14
JoliverJOLLY
Posts: 440

Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


New responses bracketed and written in red following a red *


 


Jul 29, 2011 -- 11:27AM, JoliverJOLLY wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 5:21PM, Namchuck wrote:


So you are mythological?


No, I am not mythological, but as there was no historic Adam, he and his supposed "sons" are purely mythological.




In your oppinion, prove it scientist, you cant you can mubble about fossils and 'brotherly'(not forgetting all the back biting) consenious, Neither disprove our beginings as being from God, or their being an orginal man made by god. Now you might want to rammble on about those crazyies in america that claim the world is 6000 years old easy moan. I say it is far older, and cilivisations existed that you and scientists have no clue of.


* ( No, not just my opinion. It is an overwhelmingly established fact that man as a distinct species has been around for at least a couple of hundred thousand years and that there was no biblical Adam. Man was not created by God but evolved over millions of years from a common ancestor with most other primates. This is so well evidenced that only those committed to pre-modern ignorance shrink from its truth. Adam is a myth.)






 


There are many established consensious' in science they generally follow the money, or the military today, As I said before or attempted to as far as I am concern man was on earth long before science believes man was, so you can stick your fossil record. P.S it is not a fact, it is a theory, maybe you should read some more Hume(he believed in god by the way, so did Darwin).


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 5:21PM, Namchuck wrote:




You are a son of Adam to those of us that have faith, if you wish to say that adam is a person of myth fine, but still, myth or not, for those of us of faith, a son of Adam you are.


Yes, but faith, as all the differing and contradictory religions evidence, is capable of believing anything. Faith is the transparent admission that ones beliefs cannot stand on their own two feet.  




 


True to a degree, you also have faith in your evidence, you have to trust that the experimants showed the results they did, and there are plenty of examples of scientist in the interest of personal gain changing results to gain funding ect Science has never been the search for truth, it has always been the search for wealth and power and prestiege. Ultimately as you can never put the same foot in the same river once, you have to keep on proving the same thing consistently and even then it might change, you as scientist also live by a faith.


* ( What you write here is irreducible nonsense. There is a tremendous convergence of scientifically established fact




Fact? are you sure about that?


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


that is truly astonishing, and this convergence suggests that the results of the research rely on what we all share: the universe around us.




Which could be completly different to anything you think it is. If the universe was a river as a simple analogy it would be changing around you with no fixed base. You seem to have mis understood my point.


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


 


Unlike religion, science is the only human activity with a built-in system of self-correction when tested against the vagaries of the real world. And anyone who suggests that science is faith-based neither understands science nor religion.




No a false claim there are many systems that have a built in means of adaptation to new evidence, or a change in enviroment, religion also has this.


Again You are arrogant to make these accertions about religion, pure and simply, you claim a superiority to everyone other than those like your self, and show little respect for people of faith, as you denonuce them all as 'people capable of following anything'.


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


All that science requires is data and evidence. Religion, on the other hand, rejects all and any data or evidence that challenges its baroque assumptions.)




Again a simplistic assumption about 'people that will believe anything'.


You really did come here to show them all how stupid they are right?


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 5:21PM, Namchuck wrote:


And myth or not, Sons of Adam are not the same as the sons of God or angels, and are in a differnt situations or circunstances which do and will and can, effect the relevence of free will and it's consiquences, with regards to knowledge of God and its implications.


No, they're the same and belong up there on the same shelf with Batman, Superman, and Captain America.




 


Here you really do show you ignorance, you come here to discuss theology, and lump everything together. As an analogy you've gone to a comic book talk and gone on and on about how Batman and the Joker are the same- how stupid you wanna get?


* (There is nothing stupid in my analogy whatsoever. Both God, the gods, Batman, and so on, come from the imagination of man, which is why they all belong on the same shelf.


But I did notice, as you were pointing out my supposed ignorance, that you didn't attempt to advance the least bit of evidence as to just why my "lump(ing) everything together" is stupid. Perhaps it's because you are just not in possession of any justifications for your elaborate beliefs?)




I'm sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and felt you would have suffient intelect to understand the simple analogy I gave you. I dont want to condecend but I will if you ask again.


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 5:21PM, Namchuck wrote:


But ofcourse you are simply here, to show those silly people that believe in God how stupid they are and how cleaver you are, correct?


No, I'm here to do my bit in the attempt to stop people such as you ushering in a new Dark Age and returning mankind to some form of pre-modern stupidity that was jettisoned long ago by people more interested in truth.




 


Knew dark age? I think you have no clue about how dark this world is. You seem to want to maintain the stuts quo where science is going crazy, human are seen by scientists as nothing but bio-robots and are treated in utter disrespect, knew dark age? You are a blind fool, as most scientists are! The ARROGANCE!


* (That's "New" Dark Age, and the present world is certainly not as dark as when religious superstition weilded power. And, of course, scientists do not regard humans as "bio-robots",




I'm afirad they are thanks to game thoery and books like the 'selfish gene' by Dawkins, Corporate interests in the predictablity of people also all play a role, but that is held as a belief today by higher ups.


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


nor do they disrepect humanity. One solid example of this - among many one could cite - is the way in which medical science has prevented the deaths of millions of people who would previously have perished from diseases that science has now conquered. 




Well dont miss out all the diesases invented and developed by men of science or bio logical weapons, chiemical weapons a long list actually, bottom line science is killing more than it helps. Shall we discuss the drugging of people? Odor tech ect?


And it is only going to get worse, as the powers that be will use anything to keep their position and get more, the scientifically controlled society they seek will be a nightmare, if you dont except the fantasy that is, Say- thankyou science.


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


No, the real arrogance and ignorance is found among those believers who think that three or four billion years of life on this planet is a mere pretext for putting the humble to the test and who believe that they are the pets of some wholly imagined sky-being who especially cares for them. There is something very juvenile about this kind of belief which suggests some sort of stunted psychological development.)  



 


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 13, 2011 -- 2:32AM, Namchuck wrote:


On that score, your point collapses utterly.




Hardly, but please mummble about another really unrelated issue


What, so you can dodge some more?




You contencion was that with angels . Quote:even some of the angels rebelled against God, so it's obvious that even possessing blatant and obvious knowledge of God's existence would not in any way imperil or curtail the use of one's will or agency. On that score, your point collapses utterly.


So according to you, because these mythical creature that dont exist, reject god but knew he was real, that proves that, what I was saying was wrong and utterly flawed, becasue they knew.


When I was first talkiing about people, and not angels and said Quote:    if god showed himself, people would not have to question, by staying out of the picture, or acting in wispers, and softly God allows people freedom to choose to think.


Angels do not have that luxuary and are not the same as people. So plesae do again rammble on about something unrelated!


Also as an add on, I never suggested that knowledge of god changed free will, I was replying to your statements, and my statement was relating to god "proving his existence", and by not allowing people more freedom, to question reality ect... 


No, it was simply an excercise to show you that even by your own scripture your point was false.  


 


Which you didnt, you rammbled about how angels are aware of god. I was speaking about people. Change the subject again why dont you! You're a joke!


* ( No, the joke is on you through failing to recognize the falsity of your original claim.






My orginal claim was that god remains out of the picture(does not prove himself) as that allows people more freedom. You claimed angels disproved that. Who is the joke here? You not only change the subject, you then carry on rammbling. Do you have a psycological problem with excepting you made a mistake or could be wrong?


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


Your religion is founded on unjustified and insupportable assertions and beliefs for which you cannot mount any worthy or coherent defence, which is why you have no other alternative but to both attack science and call me names.




Jesus called people 'fools', you also insult but just word it differently. As for my belief in God it stems from many areas, from philosophic podering Hume also came to god in a simliar way, 'for nothing can not create anything', then my personal experiences which are numerious and varied, also the texts and much besides.... I will say it is certinly silly to assume that people of faith do not live by experiences and evidences, they do. Science is blind.


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


It has always amused me how pious believers like yourself rarely seem troubled to heed your God's word about not judging others. You are writing cheques with your tongue that your conduct cannot cash.)




I have not judged you. You as many others seem to not understand what is meant by judgement, in biblical terms, As Jesus said 'I judge no one' he still called people fools. You seek to say that a person of faith shouldnt critic people as they shouldnt judge, they are not the same thing. Infact people of faith are called to speek out and denounce evils they see or bad things being done, to call a tyrant a tyrant as it were, calling a tyrant a tyrant is not judging him.


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 13, 2011 -- 2:32AM, Namchuck wrote:


On top of this, there is the irreducible fact that the God hypotheses has no epistemological value. We don't need it today to explain a thing.  





The God hypothesses?


Yes, there are several such hypotheses. Can you advance any compelling evidence that your preferred deity is anything more than an hypothesis?





Now think about that question and ask again.


The question is clear. It is apparent that you can't respond to it.






 


I wonder what would you do if god proved himself? POINT!


* ( If God "proved" himself then there would be no reason to believe, would there? One only believes when one doesn't know.)






 


 


You didn't answer my question. and again there are many beliefs in many things, known or not.


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


The scientist "The man that understood nothing, till there was nothing left to understand"


An hysterical saying cited only by those who revel in their ignorance.


 



How so?


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Hypothesse dont explain anything anyway, so that's a rediculas statement in the first place.


Well, it's clear that you don't understand the meaning of the word.





 


Umm is a contencion an explaination?


No, in brief, a hypothesis is a tentative explanation for data collected and expected to account for future observations as well. If a hypothesis does not explain subsequent findings, it must be modified or abandoned. A hypothesis that is repeatedly confirmed by extensive observation and experimentation is retained and may become a theory, an explanation that has remained consistent with all the data.



 


 


No your hypothesis is what starts the process before you experiment, a contencion, not an explaination and as you your self stated A  hypothesis that is repeatedly confirmed by extensive observation and  experimentation is retained and may become a theory, an explanation that  has remained consistent with all the data.


 Are you a complete idiot?


* (As I previously demonstrated, you simply do not understand what the word hypothesis means in the scientific sense, which, I have to say, is no real surprise.


And I think it will be very apparent to anyone reading these posts just who the idiot actually is.






I agree, As for the word hypothises it has many definations, as 'a contencion to start the process of investigation', was my defination, with regards to this conversation anyway.


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


Idiots, because they are idiots, usually have little recourse but to name call as a substitute for cool, logical, and reasoned argument. Hey, look at that, just like you! )  




Cool? You know a cool scientist?


I am very happy to have a reasoned conversation, but with you a discussion about theology is impossible you continue with the they are all the same and seek to change the form of the discussion, I appollogise for name calling on seeing you do so.


I again wonder why someone would bother even trying to discuss something they consider to be simple fantasy?


 


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


You know the problem with scientists? You all have something to prove!


While the religionists - for obvious reasons - are indifferent to evidence.


 



 


Well Prove me wrong!


All you have done so far is make wild claims without advancing the least evidence for your extravagant assertions. If someone claims that something akin to a kangaroo reigns supreme on a planet in Ursa Minor, how is one going to prove them wrong? One simply dismisses such claims as meaningless if the claimaint cannot advance any good reasons for such assertions. 






And there again you show the simplic way you understand reality, you only ever except what is proven and it is possible somethings cannot be, dark matter or energy for example.


* (Well, all you illustrate here is a startling, but not surprising, benightedness, especially about the nature of science.


But before we get to that, why should one believe in something for which there is no compelling or sound evidence?




Again people of faith base their beliefs on many things, evidence also, you may call some of those evidences unsound, but who are you to say or know?


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


Do you believe that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, flew to heaven on a white horse, or that Mbombo spewed up the universe? If you don't believe these two things, why not? They enjoy about as much evidence as your beliefs, which is nil.


If you understand why you reject the two beliefs above, then you might gain an insight as to why I reject your beliefs.


And do you really think that there is no evidence for energy? You jest, right (I hope so, because nobody in this day and age has any excuse for such ignorance!)? 




Why are you talking to youself?


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


And 'dark matter' is an hypothesis that enjoys, at present, a good deal of evidentially corroborative support.


There is simply no reason why anyone should believe in things for which there is not a grain of evidence.)


You know to deny the possibility is to walk in delusion, for it is possible.


* (I do not deny the possibility. It is possible that flying horses, fire-breathing dragons, and flying spaghetti monsters exist somewhere out there in the far reaches of space, but science and reason is all about probabilities, and I'm skeptical about the probability that flying horses, fire-breathing dragons, the spaghetti monsters, and your God exist. I might be wrong, so perhaps you can show me the evidence why I should believe in your God and not those other creatures just mentioned?


But I'm not living in hope that you will be able to do so. So far, all you have been able to offer is your ignorance of science immaturely punctuated by name-calling.


If your God exists, I think he will be disappointed in your miserable defence of him so far. )









Compared to what? your feble attempt to destroy my faith in him? I do not seek to convince you of Gods existence, just that's it's possible, which at least you conceeded. If God does not seek to speak to you, that's Gods choice, although in many ways his servents do at times speak for him.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 03, 2011 - 3:39AM #15
Namchuck
Posts: 11,274

Aug 2, 2011 -- 3:31PM, JoliverJOLLY wrote:


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


New responses bracketed and written in red following a red *


 


Jul 29, 2011 -- 11:27AM, JoliverJOLLY wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 5:21PM, Namchuck wrote:


So you are mythological?


No, I am not mythological, but as there was no historic Adam, he and his supposed "sons" are purely mythological.




In your oppinion, prove it scientist, you cant you can mubble about fossils and 'brotherly'(not forgetting all the back biting) consenious, Neither disprove our beginings as being from God, or their being an orginal man made by god. Now you might want to rammble on about those crazyies in america that claim the world is 6000 years old easy moan. I say it is far older, and cilivisations existed that you and scientists have no clue of.


* ( No, not just my opinion. It is an overwhelmingly established fact that man as a distinct species has been around for at least a couple of hundred thousand years and that there was no biblical Adam. Man was not created by God but evolved over millions of years from a common ancestor with most other primates. This is so well evidenced that only those committed to pre-modern ignorance shrink from its truth. Adam is a myth.)






 


There are many established consensious' in science they generally follow the money, or the military today, As I said before or attempted to as far as I am concern man was on earth long before science believes man was, so you can stick your fossil record. P.S it is not a fact, it is a theory, maybe you should read some more Hume(he believed in god by the way, so did Darwin).


I suppose you mean 'consensus', and, indeed, there are such, but very few of them follow either the money or the military. 


And what we know of the prehistory of man is entirely the product of science. The mere fact that you relegate 'theory' as you do once again confirms that you haven't the foggiest idea just what constitutes a theory in science. You don't seem to understand what a 'fact' is either.


It is hard to have an intelligent discussion with someone who is obviously ill-educated.


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 5:21PM, Namchuck wrote:




You are a son of Adam to those of us that have faith, if you wish to say that adam is a person of myth fine, but still, myth or not, for those of us of faith, a son of Adam you are.


Yes, but faith, as all the differing and contradictory religions evidence, is capable of believing anything. Faith is the transparent admission that ones beliefs cannot stand on their own two feet.  




 


True to a degree, you also have faith in your evidence, you have to trust that the experimants showed the results they did, and there are plenty of examples of scientist in the interest of personal gain changing results to gain funding ect Science has never been the search for truth, it has always been the search for wealth and power and prestiege. Ultimately as you can never put the same foot in the same river once, you have to keep on proving the same thing consistently and even then it might change, you as scientist also live by a faith.


* ( What you write here is irreducible nonsense. There is a tremendous convergence of scientifically established fact




Fact? are you sure about that?


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


that is truly astonishing, and this convergence suggests that the results of the research rely on what we all share: the universe around us.




Which could be completly different to anything you think it is. If the universe was a river as a simple analogy it would be changing around you with no fixed base. You seem to have mis understood my point.


No, the documentation has proven itself to be reliable, which is why we are able to land machines and men on other worlds with a great deal of precision. This would certainly be a difficult thing to do if the universe kept changing all the time.


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


 


Unlike religion, science is the only human activity with a built-in system of self-correction when tested against the vagaries of the real world. And anyone who suggests that science is faith-based neither understands science nor religion.




No a false claim there are many systems that have a built in means of adaptation to new evidence, or a change in enviroment, religion also has this.


Give me an example of a single religion changing one of its fundamental assumptions as a result of new data or evidence?


Again You are arrogant to make these accertions about religion, pure and simply, you claim a superiority to everyone other than those like your self, and show little respect for people of faith, as you denonuce them all as 'people capable of following anything'.


No, I think we have established very clearlty just where the arrogance and the ignorance is. Your posts are startling examples of both.


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


All that science requires is data and evidence. Religion, on the other hand, rejects all and any data or evidence that challenges its baroque assumptions.)




Again a simplistic assumption about 'people that will believe anything'.


You really did come here to show them all how stupid they are right?


I suppose that these two sentences were intended to make some sort of sense. They don't, so, unless you can elucidate and make clear just what it is you are trying to say, I'm going to have to conclude that you are simply taking pot-shots in the dark.


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 5:21PM, Namchuck wrote:


And myth or not, Sons of Adam are not the same as the sons of God or angels, and are in a differnt situations or circunstances which do and will and can, effect the relevence of free will and it's consiquences, with regards to knowledge of God and its implications.


No, they're the same and belong up there on the same shelf with Batman, Superman, and Captain America.




 


Here you really do show you ignorance, you come here to discuss theology, and lump everything together. As an analogy you've gone to a comic book talk and gone on and on about how Batman and the Joker are the same- how stupid you wanna get?




* (There is nothing stupid in my analogy whatsoever. Both God, the gods, Batman, and so on, come from the imagination of man, which is why they all belong on the same shelf.


But I did notice, as you were pointing out my supposed ignorance, that you didn't attempt to advance the least bit of evidence as to just why my "lump(ing) everything together" is stupid. Perhaps it's because you are just not in possession of any justifications for your elaborate beliefs?)




I'm sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and felt you would have suffient intelect to understand the simple analogy I gave you. I dont want to condecend but I will if you ask again.


Your analogy was simply daft - as I demonstrated. Once again, though, you illustrate your own absence of intellect by not advancing a single grain of evidence that identifies why one should regard your God as any diffrent from Superman or some other imaginary hero.


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 5:21PM, Namchuck wrote:


But ofcourse you are simply here, to show those silly people that believe in God how stupid they are and how cleaver you are, correct?


No, I'm here to do my bit in the attempt to stop people such as you ushering in a new Dark Age and returning mankind to some form of pre-modern stupidity that was jettisoned long ago by people more interested in truth.




 


Knew dark age? I think you have no clue about how dark this world is. You seem to want to maintain the stuts quo where science is going crazy, human are seen by scientists as nothing but bio-robots and are treated in utter disrespect, knew dark age? You are a blind fool, as most scientists are! The ARROGANCE!


* (That's "New" Dark Age, and the present world is certainly not as dark as when religious superstition weilded power. And, of course, scientists do not regard humans as "bio-robots",




I'm afirad they are thanks to game thoery and books like the 'selfish gene' by Dawkins, Corporate interests in the predictablity of people also all play a role, but that is held as a belief today by higher ups.


Don't be absurd, unless, of course, you can't help it. 


The 'selfish gene' and 'game theory' have nothing to do with how scientists perceive human beings as "bio-robots". Again, though, you simply prove beyond doubt that, although you know the names of these hypotheses, you have no understanding of their meaning or implication.


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


nor do they disrepect humanity. One solid example of this - among many one could cite - is the way in which medical science has prevented the deaths of millions of people who would previously have perished from diseases that science has now conquered. 




Well dont miss out all the diesases invented and developed by men of science or bio logical weapons, chiemical weapons a long list actually, bottom line science is killing more than it helps. Shall we discuss the drugging of people? Odor tech ect?


That is arrant nonsense and you should be ashamed of yourself. How many people have chemical or biological weapons - which are obvious misapplications of science - killed?


On the other hand, medical science is responsible for saving billions of lives.


All you are demonstrating here is an abyssmal grasp of very much at all.


And it is only going to get worse, as the powers that be will use anything to keep their position and get more, the scientifically controlled society they seek will be a nightmare, if you dont except the fantasy that is, Say- thankyou science.


This is all that you believers are good at, isn't it? Apocalyptic visions that have about as much tenure in reality as your beliefs and faith, which, one should note again, you haven't advanced the least evidence for.


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


No, the real arrogance and ignorance is found among those believers who think that three or four billion years of life on this planet is a mere pretext for putting the humble to the test and who believe that they are the pets of some wholly imagined sky-being who especially cares for them. There is something very juvenile about this kind of belief which suggests some sort of stunted psychological development.)  



 


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 13, 2011 -- 2:32AM, Namchuck wrote:


On that score, your point collapses utterly.




Hardly, but please mummble about another really unrelated issue


What, so you can dodge some more?




You contencion was that with angels . Quote:even some of the angels rebelled against God, so it's obvious that even possessing blatant and obvious knowledge of God's existence would not in any way imperil or curtail the use of one's will or agency. On that score, your point collapses utterly.


So according to you, because these mythical creature that dont exist, reject god but knew he was real, that proves that, what I was saying was wrong and utterly flawed, becasue they knew.


When I was first talkiing about people, and not angels and said Quote:    if god showed himself, people would not have to question, by staying out of the picture, or acting in wispers, and softly God allows people freedom to choose to think.


Angels do not have that luxuary and are not the same as people. So plesae do again rammble on about something unrelated!


Also as an add on, I never suggested that knowledge of god changed free will, I was replying to your statements, and my statement was relating to god "proving his existence", and by not allowing people more freedom, to question reality ect... 


No, it was simply an excercise to show you that even by your own scripture your point was false.  


 


Which you didnt, you rammbled about how angels are aware of god. I was speaking about people. Change the subject again why dont you! You're a joke!


* ( No, the joke is on you through failing to recognize the falsity of your original claim.






My orginal claim was that god remains out of the picture(does not prove himself) as that allows people more freedom. You claimed angels disproved that. Who is the joke here? You not only change the subject, you then carry on rammbling. Do you have a psycological problem with excepting you made a mistake or could be wrong?


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


Your religion is founded on unjustified and insupportable assertions and beliefs for which you cannot mount any worthy or coherent defence, which is why you have no other alternative but to both attack science and call me names.




Jesus called people 'fools', you also insult but just word it differently. As for my belief in God it stems from many areas, from philosophic podering Hume also came to god in a simliar way, 'for nothing can not create anything', then my personal experiences which are numerious and varied, also the texts and much besides.... I will say it is certinly silly to assume that people of faith do not live by experiences and evidences, they do. Science is blind.


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


It has always amused me how pious believers like yourself rarely seem troubled to heed your God's word about not judging others. You are writing cheques with your tongue that your conduct cannot cash.)




I have not judged you. You as many others seem to not understand what is meant by judgement, in biblical terms, As Jesus said 'I judge no one' he still called people fools. You seek to say that a person of faith shouldnt critic people as they shouldnt judge, they are not the same thing. Infact people of faith are called to speek out and denounce evils they see or bad things being done, to call a tyrant a tyrant as it were, calling a tyrant a tyrant is not judging him.


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 13, 2011 -- 2:32AM, Namchuck wrote:


On top of this, there is the irreducible fact that the God hypotheses has no epistemological value. We don't need it today to explain a thing.  





The God hypothesses?


Yes, there are several such hypotheses. Can you advance any compelling evidence that your preferred deity is anything more than an hypothesis?





Now think about that question and ask again.


The question is clear. It is apparent that you can't respond to it.






 


I wonder what would you do if god proved himself? POINT!


* ( If God "proved" himself then there would be no reason to believe, would there? One only believes when one doesn't know.)






 


 


You didn't answer my question. and again there are many beliefs in many things, known or not.


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


The scientist "The man that understood nothing, till there was nothing left to understand"


An hysterical saying cited only by those who revel in their ignorance.


 



How so?


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


Hypothesse dont explain anything anyway, so that's a rediculas statement in the first place.


Well, it's clear that you don't understand the meaning of the word.





 


Umm is a contencion an explaination?


No, in brief, a hypothesis is a tentative explanation for data collected and expected to account for future observations as well. If a hypothesis does not explain subsequent findings, it must be modified or abandoned. A hypothesis that is repeatedly confirmed by extensive observation and experimentation is retained and may become a theory, an explanation that has remained consistent with all the data.



 


 


No your hypothesis is what starts the process before you experiment, a contencion, not an explaination and as you your self stated A  hypothesis that is repeatedly confirmed by extensive observation and  experimentation is retained and may become a theory, an explanation that  has remained consistent with all the data.


 Are you a complete idiot?


* (As I previously demonstrated, you simply do not understand what the word hypothesis means in the scientific sense, which, I have to say, is no real surprise.


And I think it will be very apparent to anyone reading these posts just who the idiot actually is.






I agree, As for the word hypothises it has many definations, as 'a contencion to start the process of investigation', was my defination, with regards to this conversation anyway.


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


Idiots, because they are idiots, usually have little recourse but to name call as a substitute for cool, logical, and reasoned argument. Hey, look at that, just like you! )  




Cool? You know a cool scientist?


I am very happy to have a reasoned conversation, but with you a discussion about theology is impossible you continue with the they are all the same and seek to change the form of the discussion, I appollogise for name calling on seeing you do so.


Given what you have so far advanced - unmitigated nonsense - I don't think that you're capable of "reasoned conversation". You had ample opportunity to so engage, but you simply resorted, as the ignorant do, to making unjustified assertions and name calling. 


I again wonder why someone would bother even trying to discuss something they consider to be simple fantasy?


Because it is a simple fantasy that has caused more division and violence among mankind than any reasonable person would care to know.


 


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 3:13AM, Namchuck wrote:


You know the problem with scientists? You all have something to prove!


While the religionists - for obvious reasons - are indifferent to evidence.


 



 


Well Prove me wrong!


All you have done so far is make wild claims without advancing the least evidence for your extravagant assertions. If someone claims that something akin to a kangaroo reigns supreme on a planet in Ursa Minor, how is one going to prove them wrong? One simply dismisses such claims as meaningless if the claimaint cannot advance any good reasons for such assertions. 






And there again you show the simplic way you understand reality, you only ever except what is proven and it is possible somethings cannot be, dark matter or energy for example.


* (Well, all you illustrate here is a startling, but not surprising, benightedness, especially about the nature of science.


But before we get to that, why should one believe in something for which there is no compelling or sound evidence?




Again people of faith base their beliefs on many things, evidence also, you may call some of those evidences unsound, but who are you to say or know?


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


Do you believe that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, flew to heaven on a white horse, or that Mbombo spewed up the universe? If you don't believe these two things, why not? They enjoy about as much evidence as your beliefs, which is nil.


If you understand why you reject the two beliefs above, then you might gain an insight as to why I reject your beliefs.


And do you really think that there is no evidence for energy? You jest, right (I hope so, because nobody in this day and age has any excuse for such ignorance!)? 




Why are you talking to youself?


 


Jul 30, 2011 -- 4:36AM, Namchuck wrote:


And 'dark matter' is an hypothesis that enjoys, at present, a good deal of evidentially corroborative support.


There is simply no reason why anyone should believe in things for which there is not a grain of evidence.)


You know to deny the possibility is to walk in delusion, for it is possible.


* (I do not deny the possibility. It is possible that flying horses, fire-breathing dragons, and flying spaghetti monsters exist somewhere out there in the far reaches of space, but science and reason is all about probabilities, and I'm skeptical about the probability that flying horses, fire-breathing dragons, the spaghetti monsters, and your God exist. I might be wrong, so perhaps you can show me the evidence why I should believe in your God and not those other creatures just mentioned?


But I'm not living in hope that you will be able to do so. So far, all you have been able to offer is your ignorance of science immaturely punctuated by name-calling.


If your God exists, I think he will be disappointed in your miserable defence of him so far. )









Compared to what? your feble attempt to destroy my faith in him? I do not seek to convince you of Gods existence, just that's it's possible, which at least you conceeded. If God does not seek to speak to you, that's Gods choice, although in many ways his servents do at times speak for him.




 


All in all, you have again merely demonstrated that, although possessed one supposes of any number of beliefs, you have utterly failed to advance any good or compelling reasons why anyone should take them seriously. In the absence of a coherent apologetic, you have simply resorted to making benighted claims about science which suggests, at best, that thinking is probably not your forte and that you had best just stick to discussing your beliefs with other credulous people like yourself.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 04, 2011 - 2:21AM #16
JoliverJOLLY
Posts: 440

P.s Wars are ecconomic and always have been, not religious in nature. We can thank science for all the weapons of war cant we. 60% of scientific research is conducted by the military by the way.

Moderated by Beliefnet_community on Aug 16, 2011 - 11:36AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 06, 2011 - 7:46PM #17
JoliverJOLLY
Posts: 440

So anyway for everyone else interested in the actual topic up for discussion,


It was the idea that, all people have a purpose given by god, but that only by excepting god and so giving yourself to god can a person truly fulfil that purpose for which they were created by god. 


God is the potter and we the clay.


 


It does leave questions ofcourse such as "of those that are hypocrites, those that claim they serve god but in reality actual serve themselves and use religion to gain position, status, money and acclaim ect, what more is needed? For these people, of supposed faith, do state they believe in God, yet have not given their lives to him, as Jesus would speak of "I can only do what I see the father doing in me"  'the vine and the vinedresser(gardener)'.


 


So there is ofcourse a question of giving yourself to be of use to god, but then also becomming open enought to understand what God is doing with you, the choice to comply, "As you not I, will it"


So one thing is to except there is a god and then the other to give yourself to him.


Then ofcourse there are those who do not believe in God or do believe and reject god.


The point of this thread was to state that it could be possible that while God made us all for a purpose, only with our complience does that purpose truly come into effect(excepting that many who reject god could still end up doing things god created them for without having faith in him).


Ofcourse that grants us the freedom to choose, even if we are with God and serving him, a sin could then be seen in another way also, as a rejection of what god has asked of us if in that position(the position of the kingdom of god and so true life).


This ofcourse speaks of a personal relationship, a personal purpose and a relationship between the individual and god.


Also as a Monk once said to me, "it is in the things we enjoy that God often shows us the path he wants us to take" Which makes sense that our purpose would be something we enjoy doing, Born to sing for example.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGR9bQh-kpk It just came to me.


This ones from me www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYVEd3HY7_o&


There's always more......

Moderated by Beliefnet_community on Aug 16, 2011 - 10:59AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 07, 2011 - 11:39PM #18
Revjohn
Posts: 167

Namchuck,


Does not your humanistic orientation include a positive value of the quality of mercy? 


John

Moderated by Beliefnet_community on Aug 16, 2011 - 10:55AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2011 - 6:41PM #19
JoliverJOLLY
Posts: 440

 


So anyway for everyone else interested in the actual topic up for discussion,


It was the idea that, all people have a purpose given by god, but that only by excepting god and so giving yourself to god can a person truly fulfil that purpose for which they were created by god. 


God is the potter and we the clay.


 


It does leave questions ofcourse such as "of those that are hypocrites, those that claim they serve god but in reality actual serve themselves and use religion to gain position, status, money and acclaim ect, what more is needed? For these people, of supposed faith, do state they believe in God, yet have not given their lives to him, as Jesus would speak of "I can only do what I see the father doing in me"  'the vine and the vinedresser(gardener)'.


 


So there is ofcourse a question of giving yourself to be of use to god, but then also becomming open enought to understand what God is doing with you, the choice to comply, "As you not I, will it"


So one thing is to except there is a god and then the other to give yourself to him.


Then ofcourse there are those who do not believe in God or do believe and reject god.


The point of this thread was to state that it could be possible that while God made us all for a purpose, only with our complience does that purpose truly come into effect(excepting that many who reject god could still end up doing things god created them for without having faith in him).


Ofcourse that grants us the freedom to choose, even if we are with God and serving him, a sin could then be seen in another way also, as a rejection of what god has asked of us if in that position(the position of the kingdom of god and so true life).


This ofcourse speaks of a personal relationship, a personal purpose and a relationship between the individual and god.


Also as a Monk once said to me, "it is in the things we enjoy that God often shows us the path he wants us to take" Which makes sense that our purpose would be something we enjoy doing, Born to sing for example.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGR9bQh-kpk It just came to me.

Moderated by Beliefnet_community on Aug 16, 2011 - 10:50AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 13, 2011 - 3:43PM #20
JoliverJOLLY
Posts: 440

As I have said before I am not interested in proving the existence of God, in fact if I had proof upon my person I would happily destroy it.


Last thing I want to see is a bunch of moronics running round going "of course God exists, we have proof"


As I have said repetedly before I did not start this thread to discuss something I am not interested in proving to start with, if god wants to prove himself that is for god.

Moderated by Beliefnet_community on Aug 16, 2011 - 10:41AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook