Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 332 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 104 of 120 < 1 2 ... 102 103 104 105 106 ... 119 120 >
Topic Options
#48129 - 02/26/13 03:07 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Tutor Turtle]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

So in otherwords, you're using a definition of 'god' that is so meaningless as to be useless.

No, I don't define God.

So, in otherwords, it is impossible to have a discussion with you about god, since you refuse to even talk about what god "is".

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

"The Rest of Us" refers to all those you know and don't know, (assuming everyone experiences and thinks the same as you) who see God as a non-word describing something that doesn't exist, but gives meaning to a conversation regarding what doesn't exist?

You're the one using 'god' as a non-word. words have definitions - you refuse definition. Ergo, it is you, not the rest of us, who don't 'know'.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

How could you know anything about anything, if the thing being referenced isn't experienced?

Because personal experience is only one path to knowledge - and, as history has shown us - one of the least useful, most prejudicial, and most prone to error routes to knowledge.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
If something doesn't exist but the authoritative example for the word (dictionary) describing the non-thing is your point of reference, why would you give a non-thing any thought or any credibility to the dictionary?

Because, without a usable definition it is impossible to even discuss if something exists. Lets pretend I take your tact - refusing to acknowledge the definition of a word. But instead of the definition of 'god', I'm going to refuse to define the term "tooth fairy". Now, how do we ever begin to discuss the non/existence of the tooth fairy, if I refuse to acknowledge what the term "tooth fairy" implies in its common useage?


Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Everyone is familiar with the word God.

LOL. Doesn't exist = no words.
Than simply put no one can be anti-god. Since God is a non word and doesn't exist, nor could you have a conversation about something you can't know anything about since it can't exist.[/quote]
The word god exists. Look, here it is ----> god <-----. But it describes a supernatural phenomena which does not exist. Just like the term tooth fairy describes something which does not exist.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
No, authoritatively prescribed definitions of personal realities that seek to reduce the experience to a non-experience, or to prove a non-experience to be a real experience.

There are no 'personal realities' - there is only one, the universe in which we live. I can wish as much as I want for reality to conform to my personal desires; it never will - it'll conform to the physical principals which drive the universe.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
.
#48139 - 02/26/13 06:01 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: ImagingGeek]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

So, in otherwords, it is impossible to have a discussion with you about god, since you refuse to even talk about what god "is".
No, it would be impossible to speak of God if you don't have an open door to the reality of God since you don't accept God as a word or subject of reality.

We could have an argument about defining principals around subject/object determinism and personal viewpoints predetermined as you prescribe to, in accord with genetic disposition. cool

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

You're the one using 'god' as a non-word. words have definitions - you refuse definition. Ergo, it is you, not the rest of us, who don't 'know'.

Your statement
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Doesn't exist = no words
If you want to have a discussion about God then you would have to accept words as something other than absolute in meaning and or definition.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

How could you know anything about anything, if the thing being referenced isn't experienced?

Because personal experience is only one path to knowledge - and, as history has shown us - one of the least useful, most prejudicial, and most prone to error routes to knowledge.

I don't agree. Having an authority dictate what is useful to understanding within any experience is ridiculous. Not only do you want to indicate free will as fantasy, but you want to establish an authority outside of choice to dictate what a person should accept regardless of experience.
Pretty much what the Church wanted to accomplish with the religions of belief in God.
You want to establish the church of science.


Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
without a usable definition it is impossible to even discuss if something exists.

If a usable definition is not universally accepted as a reality, discussions become relevant to beliefs and not experience OR knowledge.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Lets pretend I take your tact

You haven't been able to grasp my tact since you argue it doesn't apply, so why pretend to understand what you deny?



Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

The word god exists. Look, here it is ----> god <-----. But it describes a supernatural phenomena which does not exist. Just like the term tooth fairy describes something which does not exist.
Your authoritative definition does not apply to my experience or knowledge regarding anything supernatural or within the realm of Tooth fairies. So now what?

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

There are no 'personal realities' - there is only one, the universe in which we live. I can wish as much as I want for reality to conform to my personal desires; it never will - it'll conform to the physical principals which drive the universe.
If that were so you wouldn't be hiding from the opposition you described as anti-science. You would simply acknowledge the fact that within the one universe you have made yourself available to threats made by those who are genetically inclined to speak to their own version of the one universe in which they see you as a threat. In other words you knew the job was dangerous when you took it and by your own choice exposed your family to this threat.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#48142 - 02/26/13 06:56 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Tutor Turtle]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
No, it would be impossible to speak of God if you don't have an open door to the reality of God since you don't accept God as a word or subject of reality.

This is a false equivalence. I don't have to believe in a thing - or a possibility of a thing - to discuss it. Anything which can be conceptualized can be discussed. You, however, refuse to allow any form of conceptualization (i.e. a definition within which we can work) and ergo, a discussion is pointless.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Your statement
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Doesn't exist = no words
If you want to have a discussion about God then you would have to accept words as something other than absolute in meaning and or definition.

I never once claimed the definition was absolute - nor that an absolute definition was required. Rather, I asked you for your definition, so that we could discuss 'god' in your terms.

You refused to do so, giving some gobblygoop about words not having definitions as your excuse. I simply pointed out that your claim was meaningless - without a shared acception of what a word means, no conversation is possible.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek


Because personal experience is only one path to knowledge - and, as history has shown us - one of the least useful, most prejudicial, and most prone to error routes to knowledge.

I don't agree. Having an authority dictate what is useful to understanding within any experience is ridiculous.

What authority? I never evoked an authority. The relative value of personal experience as a way of knowing has been a topic of thousands of years of writings, and more recently, of scientific enquiry. And the conclusion of all of that - i.e. the facts as we have been able to reveal them - shows us that personal experience is a poor way to learn.

It would be a lot of reading on your part, but the neurobiology & psycology of how our brains process "reality" would probably be of great interest to you. Sadly, what we see/hear/feel/experience is not an accurate representation of the world around us. Our brains - for survival reasons - pre-processes everything and presents it to us in a way which is far from accurate.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Not only do you want to indicate free will as fantasy

I never did so, and I would request that you stop assigning claims to me I have never made. It is a most egregiousness form of dishonesty on your part.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
You want to establish the church of science.

Far from it - what I want is for people to use rational thought in place of irrational belief & supposition. Blind faith in anything - even science - is the exact opposite of what I owuld like to establish.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
without a usable definition it is impossible to even discuss if something exists.

If a usable definition is not universally accepted as a reality, discussions become relevant to beliefs and not experience OR knowledge.

Which is exactly what I have been trying to get out of you - your definition of 'god', so we can discuss the term in relationship to your beliefs. Your refusal to make even the slightest attempt at describing it is what makes discussion - and understanding - of your position impossible. Frankly, I don't care how you define god, so long as its defined in a way we can discuss.

Otherwise, we're just wasting out time.


Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

The word god exists. Look, here it is ----> god <-----. But it describes a supernatural phenomena which does not exist. Just like the term tooth fairy describes something which does not exist.
Your authoritative definition does not apply to my experience or knowledge regarding anything supernatural or within the realm of Tooth fairies. So now what?

PROVIDE YOUR BLOODY DEFINITION OF THE WORD.

This isn't rocket science. Whining that my definition doesn't work for you gets us no closer to any meaningful discussion.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

There are no 'personal realities' - there is only one, the universe in which we live. I can wish as much as I want for reality to conform to my personal desires; it never will - it'll conform to the physical principals which drive the universe.
If that were so you wouldn't be hiding from the opposition you described as anti-science.

Sorry, but this is just nonsense. A singular universe in no way implies a lack of free will or a state of absolute determinism.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
You would simply acknowledge the fact that within the one universe you have made yourself available to threats made by those who are genetically inclined to speak to their own version of the one universe in which they see you as a threat.

No, I'd have to be completely ignorant of genetics and biology to say anything that stupid.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
In other words you knew the job was dangerous when you took it and by your own choice exposed your family to this threat.

The opposite is true. When I started this, none of that stuff existed. The current anti-vax movement was decades away (and completely unpredicted - it was formulated after all on a case of scientific fraud), and the animal rights movement was peaceful. The s**t hit the proverbial fan in the 1990's, peaked in the early 2000's, and thankfully has been on the decline ever since.

Bryan


Edited by ImagingGeek (02/26/13 06:59 PM)
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#48155 - 02/26/13 11:51 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: ImagingGeek]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

This is a false equivalence. I don't have to believe in a thing - or a possibility of a thing - to discuss it.
Then there wouldn't be any commonality to speak of when discussing the subject. I'd say something and then you would deny it has any relevance to your beliefs, or experiences, and it isn't possible etc. etc. What would be the point?
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Anything which can be conceptualized can be discussed.

In order for a concept to exist, it has to have a foundation in reality, otherwise it wouldn't exist.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
You, however, refuse to allow any form of conceptualization (i.e. a definition within which we can work) and ergo, a discussion is pointless.

No I refused to define God, not refuse concepts as being reflections, or possibilities of consciousness as it extends itself beyond defining relative principals.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

I never once claimed the definition was absolute - nor that an absolute definition was required. Rather, I asked you for your definition, so that we could discuss 'god' in your terms.
However you imply God doesn't exist in any terms. So it would be a rather one sided conversation with no one joining in.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

without a shared acception of what a word means, no conversation is possible.

My point exactly. Are we to the point of reversing your original remark:
Originally Posted By: geek
Doesn't exist = no words
?
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

What authority? I never evoked an authority. The relative value of personal experience as a way of knowing has been a topic of thousands of years of writings, and more recently, of scientific enquiry. And the conclusion of all of that - i.e. the facts as we have been able to reveal them - shows us that personal experience is a poor way to learn.

We? Who is we?
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

It would be a lot of reading on your part, but the neurobiology & psycology of how our brains process "reality" would probably be of great interest to you. Sadly, what we see/hear/feel/experience is not an accurate representation of the world around us. Our brains - for survival reasons - pre-processes everything and presents it to us in a way which is far from accurate.
So much for what neurobiology or psychology (as observed) regarding any accuracy in the accuracy of experience.
With no faith in the senses, everything is subject to the delusional properties of the brain. Every conversation would be hopelessly suspect and filled with doubt or a quality of delusion.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Not only do you want to indicate free will as fantasy
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

I never did so, and I would request that you stop assigning claims to me I have never made. It is a most egregiousness form of dishonesty on your part.
[quote=Geek]
You'd be surprized just how predictable human behaviour is. Indeed, fMRI has shown us that your brain makes decisions before your concious mind is aware of it, leading some neurologists to question whether "free will" and conciousness even exist.


Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
You want to establish the church of science.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Far from it - what I want is for people to use rational thought in place of irrational belief & supposition.
By eliminating experience as a factor in the thought process, and by establishing the fact that rational thinking is not possible due to the fear based survival instincts of the brain, which distorts everything?

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
without a usable definition it is impossible to even discuss if something exists.
Originally Posted By: turtle

If a usable definition is not universally accepted as a reality, discussions become relevant to beliefs and not experience OR knowledge.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Which is exactly what I have been trying to get out of you - your definition of 'god', so we can discuss the term in relationship to your beliefs. Your refusal to make even the slightest attempt at describing it is what makes discussion - and understanding - of your position impossible. Frankly, I don't care how you define god, so long as its defined in a way we can discuss.

Then extend your idea of consciousness into the the universe as a living presence outside of the mechanical operations of the meatsack and the brain. We might actually have a conversation about God.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Otherwise, we're just wasting out time.

Well that would be the subjective thing wouldn't it. Kinda like you saying there is no good or bad. People make their own determinations.


Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

PROVIDE YOUR BLOODY DEFINITION OF THE WORD.

Nope. Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.. wink
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

This isn't rocket science. Whining that my definition doesn't work for you gets us no closer to any meaningful discussion.

Well your right about something, it isn't science. Science puts everything within terms of subjectivity and leaves out alot of the objectivity due to a natural distrust of the human mechanism. In turn the faulty human mechanism invents mechanical instrumentation and formulae to lean on and give authority to, because of the mistrust in the human mechanism. If it can't be measured by the human derived instrument designed to specifically measure the acceptable concept, it doesn't exist or its not worthy of acceptable supposition.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Sorry, but this is just nonsense. A singular universe in no way implies a lack of free will or a state of absolute determinism.
Yet personal realities are out of the question.



Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
In other words you knew the job was dangerous when you took it and by your own choice exposed your family to this threat.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

The opposite is true. When I started this, none of that stuff existed.

Yet even if it didn't exist, it came about. Interesting how something that doesn't exist can make its way into existence for someone who stands outside of concepts of reality.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
The current anti-vax movement was decades away (and completely unpredicted - it was formulated after all on a case of scientific fraud),
So much for predictiblity
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
and the animal rights movement was peaceful. The s**t hit the proverbial fan in the 1990's, peaked in the early 2000's, and thankfully has been on the decline ever since.
Just goes to show nothing is impossible and any statement that something doesn't exist, doesn't mean it can't, or that someone hasn't already experienced it.
But then the brain is such a funny thing and so maybe all of the above is totally inaccurate and moot.

_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#48185 - 03/01/13 04:17 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: ImagingGeek]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Quote:
THE DAILY HOOT
--a blog, by the Wise Old Owl, aka, W.O.O.
================
Quote:
Feel free to call me WOO. I am known as the one with ears so sharp, some believe I can see in the dark. I am always pleased to share my latest HOOT with anyone interested. Here it is:

Sitting in my favourite tree just before dawn last weekend, I heard Bryan the lion, attempting to have a conversation with someone.

At first, it sounded like a friendly dialogue, with a turtle no less, whose only means of communication it seems is a form of mental telepathy.

At first, things seemed to go quite well. But, eventually things got so heated that what started off as a conversation became a debate of the "you-are-wrong-and-I-am-right" kind. More than that, it became a a noisy argument.
Naturally, Bryan started to roar--and I do not blame him-- like a lion:
Quote:
PROVIDE YOUR BLOODY DEFINITION OF THE WORD [God?].
To this he quickly added,
Quote:
This isn't rocket science, you know. (And) whining that my definition doesn't work for you gets us no closer to any meaningful discussion.
Refusing to define 'God' Turtle mumbled
Quote:
No
then, mentally [Muttering to himself] he said
Quote:
it would be impossible to speak of God if you don't have an open door to the reality of God since you don't accept God as a word or subject of reality.
Getting hungrier and hungrier for some tasty food, Bryan the lion, made one more try to get on with what what he really had in mind, eating, and [his sharp mind picking up the mutter], he added
Quote:
This is a false equivalence. I don't have to believe in a thing - or a possibility of a thing - to discuss it. Anything which can be conceptualized can be discussed. You, however, refuse to allow any form of conceptualization (i.e. a definition within which we can work) and ergo, a discussion is pointless.
Quote:
"Pointless?" Bryan. Of course it is! What else can be expected from a voiceless Turtle. However, all is not lost. For me at least it provides material for one of my daily HOOTS! laugh

==================




Edited by Revlgking (03/01/13 04:30 AM)
Edit Reason: a
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#48187 - 03/01/13 05:10 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
For me at least it provides material for one of my daily HOOTS! laugh

Since you haven't gotten him to engage with you on the subject of God, maybe this will work. wink
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#48190 - 03/01/13 07:59 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
It seems there is nothing like troll feeding to maintain a long and healthy life for a thread.

Would the study of the mutual exchange of nourishment constitute the basis for a scientific paper?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#48192 - 03/01/13 08:21 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Bill S.]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
This thread has a life?

I suppose a mutually agreed form of nourishment would be in order to write the paper you suggest.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#48197 - 03/02/13 04:47 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Bill S.]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
It seems there is nothing like troll feeding to maintain a long and healthy life for a thread.

Would the study of the mutual exchange of nourishment constitute the basis for a scientific paper?
Bill S, you got that right!

But tell us more. How does that work? Which TROLL is the most costly to feed, eh?

=========================================================

BTW, beginning tomorrow, I will be in the sunny--I hope-- SOUTH. I plan to be back on MARCH 17, OK?


Edited by Revlgking (03/02/13 04:53 AM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#48201 - 03/02/13 12:23 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
Which TROLL is the most costly to feed, eh?


Couldn't answer that without doing the study, and I have to say there are lots of things that are higher up to-do list than that.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#48202 - 03/02/13 12:59 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
How about sending a couple of trolls on a trip to mars?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23230-mars-trip-to-use-astronaut-poo-as-radiation-shield.html

They could feed each other then.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#48203 - 03/02/13 03:24 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Bill S.]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Reminds me of this thread.
The title of this topic is surrounded by the poo of personal idealism and self made proclamations of social importance.

Keeps the discussions from being exposed to the topic of philosophy of religion, and more in line with opinion, judgment and belief in personal value systems.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#48204 - 03/02/13 04:08 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
BILL S, ET AL: A PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION WORTH SOME DEEP THOUGHT--IT IS DEISM:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C
hristian_deism

HERE IS THE OFFICIAL SITE

http://deism.com/

Apparently, over the years this philosophy has attracted a lot scientists and all who appreciate and value the moral and true use of KNOWLEDGE (science)--for good, and not for evil.
===================================
UNIDEISM? Interestingly, I just checked and found that this word is not in Wikipedia, yet. Perhaps we need this neologism. Hmmmmm! Goes well with the idea of unitheism.

I think of it as meaning that ONE POWERFUL AND GOOD IDEA IS A POSSIBILITY--SO IS THAT WHICH IS GOOD, ORDERLY AND DESIRABLE. The choice is ours.

We have the power to say yes, or no, to choose good, or evil. Neutrality tends to support evil.

As the famous quote of Edmund Burke goes: "All that evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing."




Edited by Revlgking (03/02/13 04:36 PM)
Edit Reason: Always helpful
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#48208 - 03/02/13 05:53 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere

Natural Religion: Belief in God based on the application of reason on the laws/designs of Nature as opposed to revealed religion which is based on alleged revelations.

Philosophy: The study of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
BILL S, ET AL: A PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION WORTH SOME DEEP THOUGHT--IT IS DEISM

Philosophy studies belief, it in itself such as deism, is not a belief. It (Philosophy) seeks to extend itself beyond any particular belief system
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Apparently, over the years this philosophy has attracted a lot scientists and all who appreciate and value the moral and true use of KNOWLEDGE (science)--for good, and not for evil.

That is your belief and opinion, not necessarily the reality of scientific opinion, which doesn't share your ideas of good and evil.
You've been trying to get Bryan to engage with you regarding your ideals, and you seem to give him credit as being a scientist. Here is what he says about good and bad:
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

We simply are. Good and bad are human concepts that lack any sort of existence in the real world.
Bryan

Originally Posted By: Revlgking

UNIDEISM? Interestingly, I just checked and found that this word is not in Wikipedia, yet. Perhaps we need this neologism. Hmmmmm! Goes well with the idea of unitheism.

In the ideal world anything can be idealized to fit the personal belief system.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

We have the power to say yes, or no, to choose good, or evil.

Identification with good and evil creates the borderline between idealized personal belief systems. It's how the church manipulated humanity into destroying the enemies of the church. All you need is to identify the good and the evil and you set the stage for division and judgment.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Neutrality tends to support evil.
Especially when evil is not supporting the system of division and influence, to define reality and God.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

As the famous quote of Edmund Burke goes: "All that evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing."
Yet blindly following idealisms without knowledge, understanding and experience, is just plain ignorance.

There are plenty who will take up a standard and a sword to fight for a cause, and many of them have nothing to fight for but a belief.

Interpretation of nature and reality is going to be subjective.

If we use the ongoing disagreement in the terms and beliefs of science as demonstrated by Orac and ImagingGeek/Bryan in the "scars of human evolution" discussion, we can observe that science has not formed a unified agreement in determinations, or policies of observaton.

_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#48215 - 03/02/13 09:20 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Tutor Turtle]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

This is a false equivalence. I don't have to believe in a thing - or a possibility of a thing - to discuss it.
Then there wouldn't be any commonality to speak of when discussing the subject.

So? To limit discussion to those with which we have commonality would be to limit our discussions to those who believe only what we believe. That would be a) boring, b) limiting, and c) ensure that we never challange our own conceptions.

Indeed, it is exactly what many religions encourage, in order to keep their flock from drifting laugh

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
I'd say something and then you would deny it has any relevance to your beliefs, or experiences, and it isn't possible etc. etc. What would be the point?

Since your wrong on the former claim, the later question is irrelevant. I hate to break it to you, but as a scientist I continually deal with, discuss and evaluate hypotheses which disagree with my own. And rather than dismissing them, I do a good job of understanding, debating, and discussing them. I even change my mind, when the data is there.

In other words, you're found yet other false excuse to avoid providing your definition of god. It is roughly the 100th such excuse you've offered up.

I can only conclude that you are either:
a) incapable of describing your beliefs, or
b) afraid to put your beliefs up for the scrutiny by others.

Quite frankly, there is no point furthering this discussion until you can either enunciate your beliefs and/or develop the courage to offer them up for discussion.

But I want to touch on one last point:

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Anything which can be conceptualized can be discussed.

In order for a concept to exist, it has to have a foundation in reality, otherwise it wouldn't exist.

Firstly, if we take your argument at face value, it means god as you interpret it doesn't exist - otherwise you'd be able to conceptualize it in a way you could describe to us.

Secondly, the premise is false. We (well, everyone but you) can, and do, discuss concepts and ideas that are based on non-existing things all the time. One can talk about the aether, despite the fact its existence has been conclusively disproven. Indeed teaching students about the concept behind the aether is a useful tool in taking them from understanding classical waves (i.e. waves in water) to how electromagnetic waves work.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#48223 - 03/03/13 12:06 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: ImagingGeek]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

This is a false equivalence. I don't have to believe in a thing - or a possibility of a thing - to discuss it.
Then there wouldn't be any commonality to speak of when discussing the subject.

So? To limit discussion to those with which we have commonality would be to limit our discussions to those who believe only what we believe. That would be a) boring, b) limiting, and c) ensure that we never challange our own conceptions.

Indeed, it is exactly what many religions encourage, in order to keep their flock from drifting laugh

I would agree with your reply in principle....
Yet your words:
Originally Posted By: geek
Doesn't exist = no words

and your previous comments don't imply that you are bored, nor challenged by the word God, and that any concepts are already known and cancelled by current understanding and data.

You've already assigned a face value to the word and any concepts around the word associated with my beliefs/experiences/knowledge/understandings and closed the case.
Now this conversation has simply come to be a testimony to the fact that I won't define God and all the reasons that has become unreasonable to you. wink
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#48227 - 03/03/13 12:53 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Tutor Turtle]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
I would agree with your reply in principle....
Yet your words:
Originally Posted By: geek
Doesn't exist = no words

and your previous comments don't imply that you are bored, nor challenged by the word God, and that any concepts are already known and cancelled by current understanding and data.

Ahh, I see. Chalk it upto a bit of mis-reading on my part...

I thought you were giving me the usual line christian line of "everyone knows the word of god", rather than referring to the word 'god' as a term (as compared to writings in a holy book).

So now that's cleared up, we can move forward. So, what is your definition?

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

Now this conversation has simply come to be a testimony to the fact that I won't define God and all the reasons that has become unreasonable to you. wink

Excuse #101. So what is it - still unable to define your own beliefs, or still too scared to tell us what those beliefs are?

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#48230 - 03/03/13 04:40 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: ImagingGeek]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Ahh, I see. Chalk it upto a bit of mis-reading on my part...

I thought you were giving me the usual line christian line of "everyone knows the word of god", rather than referring to the word 'god' as a term (as compared to writings in a holy book).

So now that's cleared up, we can move forward. So, what is your definition?

No definitions, not possible. Ineffable

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

So what is it - still unable to define your own beliefs, or still too scared to tell us what those beliefs are?
Beliefs change. What I experience within changing experiences doesn't, regardless of whether the experience or belief changes.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#48237 - 03/03/13 03:51 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#48238 - 03/03/13 05:42 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
So, in other words, you're too scared to put your beliefs upto scrutiny.

Guess the thread ends here.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
Page 104 of 120 < 1 2 ... 102 103 104 105 106 ... 119 120 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.