Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 7, 2016 at 9:58 pm
(January 7, 2016 at 9:56 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: (January 7, 2016 at 9:54 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I have actually many arguments other then this one as well as other reflections that lead me to believe human morality and God go together and cannot be separated. But let's see if you understand this argument for starters.
I think if you understand it, they will open up, to other arguments. They all reinforce one another, and the reason is because light of time is mixed with that of eternity as far morality goes.
The foremost reason I believe this to be the case is because I can see the truth of it's eternity or link to the utmost high and absolute and I see it's living reality, not simply conceptual, not a program, no a real living reality.
That is besides the point. I can spray paint all my arguments about it here in one shot but let's discuss one argument at a time.
WTF are you talking about?! None of that constitutes an argument. You aren't SAYING anything. I wasn't saying another argument here. You asked me why I think morality requires God and I talked about that.
Also, be patient. Get sober. And we will continue this discussion inshallah.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 7, 2016 at 10:02 pm
(January 7, 2016 at 9:56 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: MysticKnight
(January 7, 2016 at 9:37 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Okay. So the sum and total of my response on the matter to you is: what if A (God exists) isn't true?
We are using Creator as place holder to understand the nature of morality. This creator can be the flying pasta monster like Atheists always talk about. It doesn't assume it exists in reality or that even if it's rationally possible. It's putting as a place holder in the argument, to show morality always existed.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is very real, and His Noodly Appendage can reach across 1 million universes to zap down and boil the unbeliever! 
Actually, its purpose is to satirize the utter silliness in people believing the myths of Yahweh, Hindu gods, Jesus, or Allah, or any one of thousands which so many very mortal and very unenlighted people have created in their own images. You choose not to believe you're being silly, but that doesn't change the facts.
FSM also exists to publicly lampoon all the special pleading of religious believers, and their activism has pointed out the problem of allowing religious exemptions to circumvent the purpose of public safety measures, such as the license photo.
I know who the FSM is. There is also Carl Sagan's invisible dragon, and my microscopic leprechaun. My question to you that you are not understanding is why do you feel we need a "placeholder" to understand the nature of morality? I am telling you that if you do an iota of Internet research you will find that science can explain human morality, and how it is advantageous to our survival as a species. The fact that you refuse to do any research tells me you are dead set in your world view, and "refuse to budge."
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 3631
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 7, 2016 at 10:02 pm
(January 7, 2016 at 9:54 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: (January 7, 2016 at 9:47 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: BELIEVE me...it's not the alcohol that is messing up this discussion, lol. I don't understand why you feel human morality can't exist without a creator God.
I have actually many arguments other then this one as well as other reflections that lead me to believe human morality and God go together and cannot be separated. But let's see if you understand this argument for starters.
I think if you understand it, they will open up, to other arguments. They all reinforce one another, and the reason is because light of time is mixed with that of eternity as far morality goes.
The foremost reason I believe this to be the case is because I can see the truth of it's eternity or link to the utmost high and absolute and I see it's living reality, not simply conceptual, not a program, no a real living reality.
We know what you claim to be able to "See". But what are you able to demonstrate?
Unless you can demonstrate it, it is nothing more than your personal belief.
LadyorCamus, or anyone else here isn't asking you to tell us what you believe, we are asking what you can demonstrate.
Quote:That is besides the point. I can spray paint all my arguments about it here in one shot but let's discuss one argument at a time.
If they are all as fallacious as the one above, or any of the others I've seen you post, not sure it is worth your bother.[/quote]
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 3631
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 7, 2016 at 10:05 pm
(January 7, 2016 at 9:58 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: (January 7, 2016 at 9:56 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: WTF are you talking about?! None of that constitutes an argument. You aren't SAYING anything. I wasn't saying another argument here. You asked me why I think morality requires God and I talked about that.
Also, be patient. Get sober. And we will continue this discussion inshallah.
None of your arguments require a sober mind in order to refute.
Most of then aren't even arguments, they are just unsupported bald assertions.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 7, 2016 at 10:06 pm
(January 7, 2016 at 9:56 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: MysticKnight:
Quote:We are using Creator as place holder to understand the nature of morality. This creator can be the flying pasta monster like Atheists always talk about. It doesn't assume it exists in reality or that even if it's rationally possible. It's putting as a place holder in the argument, to show morality always existed.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is very real, and His Noodly Appendage can reach across 1 million universes to zap down and boil the unbeliever!
Actually, its purpose is to satirize the utter silliness in people believing the myths of Yahweh, Hindu gods, Jesus, or Allah, or any one of thousands which so many very mortal and very unenlighted people have created in their own images. You choose not to believe you're being silly, but that doesn't change the facts.
FSM also exists to publicly lampoon all the special pleading of religious believers, and their activism has pointed out the problem of allowing religious exemptions to circumvent the purpose of public safety measures, such as the license photo.
Dude, I pray to the FSM every night....he is pasta and I am Italian...therefor he is real! Sound logic, right?!
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 7, 2016 at 10:07 pm
(January 7, 2016 at 10:05 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: (January 7, 2016 at 9:58 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I wasn't saying another argument here. You asked me why I think morality requires God and I talked about that.
Also, be patient. Get sober. And we will continue this discussion inshallah.
None of your arguments require a sober mind in order to refute.
Most of then aren't even arguments, they are just unsupported bald assertions.
Keep reading...you'll get there.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 7, 2016 at 10:10 pm
(January 7, 2016 at 10:02 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: (January 7, 2016 at 9:54 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I have actually many arguments other then this one as well as other reflections that lead me to believe human morality and God go together and cannot be separated. But let's see if you understand this argument for starters.
I think if you understand it, they will open up, to other arguments. They all reinforce one another, and the reason is because light of time is mixed with that of eternity as far morality goes.
The foremost reason I believe this to be the case is because I can see the truth of it's eternity or link to the utmost high and absolute and I see it's living reality, not simply conceptual, not a program, no a real living reality.
We know what you claim to be able to "See". But what are you able to demonstrate?
Unless you can demonstrate it, it is nothing more than your personal belief.
LadyorCamus, or anyone else here isn't asking you to tell us what you believe, we are asking what you can demonstrate.
Quote:That is besides the point. I can spray paint all my arguments about it here in one shot but let's discuss one argument at a time.
If they are all as fallacious as the one above, or any of the others I've seen you post, not sure it is worth your bother. [/quote]
He thinks he can demonstrate it, but all he can do is throw around words like, "light, truth, goodness, eternal, some shit, I don't fucking know! Believe me!!!" Sorry...wine, lol.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 1314
Threads: 14
Joined: December 1, 2015
Reputation:
9
RE: Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 7, 2016 at 10:14 pm
(This post was last modified: January 7, 2016 at 10:16 pm by God of Mr. Hanky.)
(January 7, 2016 at 10:02 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: (January 7, 2016 at 9:56 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: MysticKnight
We are using Creator as place holder to understand the nature of morality. This creator can be the flying pasta monster like Atheists always talk about. It doesn't assume it exists in reality or that even if it's rationally possible. It's putting as a place holder in the argument, to show morality always existed.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is very real, and His Noodly Appendage can reach across 1 million universes to zap down and boil the unbeliever!
Actually, its purpose is to satirize the utter silliness in people believing the myths of Yahweh, Hindu gods, Jesus, or Allah, or any one of thousands which so many very mortal and very unenlighted people have created in their own images. You choose not to believe you're being silly, but that doesn't change the facts.
FSM also exists to publicly lampoon all the special pleading of religious believers, and their activism has pointed out the problem of allowing religious exemptions to circumvent the purpose of public safety measures, such as the license photo.
I know who the FSM is. There is also Carl Sagan's invisible dragon, and my microscopic leprechaun. My question to you that you are not understanding is why do you feel we need a "placeholder" to understand the nature of morality? I am telling you that if you do an iota of Internet research you will find that science can explain human morality, and how it is advantageous to our survival as a species. The fact that you refuse to do any research tells me you are dead set in your world view, and "refuse to budge."
I think I failed to put the right quote in its own bubble, not sure if I got confused where I pressed the "Reply" button. Edited to show the reply with FSM joke was directed at MysticKnight's god-centric assessment of FSM.
Mr. Hanky loves you!
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 7, 2016 at 10:16 pm
(This post was last modified: January 7, 2016 at 10:18 pm by Mystic.)
LadyForCamus, I'm not hoping these arguments will give you faith in God even though I do believe they point to an eternal source to the universe, what I am hoping for, is that they will spark a search of self-discovery and unseen journey that will lead you to vision of the absolute.
The arguments as strong as they are, are a means, not an end. The end is to know God by God, to witness Her through Her being you and you being Her and then realizing how insignificant you are, and how significant she is.
There is many more arguments. From perpetual identity, to the nature of inheriting our actions, argument from rank, etc...just wait and see. There is many arguments a lot.
They all remind and point to the source, and to me personally prove it conclusively.
However if you ask me why I personally believe, it has nothing to do with these arguments. God is the manifest King to me. I don't follow some dead code called "morality", I follow a living guidance/light who is the light of the universe and all those in it.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 7, 2016 at 10:17 pm
No, I think the mistake was probably by me, because I thought Mystic was talking about the FSM! WINE!!! [emoji23]
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
|
