RE: Freedom of Religion
February 10, 2012 at 7:29 pm
(This post was last modified: February 10, 2012 at 7:47 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
We should probably try to break these down into smaller posts in the future. It's a bit clunky on both our parts.
No, no, I understood that you claimed...that you were making no claims to evidence. I doubted that this was actually the case, and it turns out that my doubts were well founded. Repeating your "leptons, quarks and bosons," line of reasoning will never lend it any more validity than the first time you decided to use it.
I'm not asking you to provide me with every detail of your cosmic mind, I'm trying to get some elaboration on just one, or a few parts of your proposal. You don't have to have complete knowledge, but I'd like to see some knowledge, otherwise I'm going to start wondering if there's anything behind the claims, or if they are new age buzzwords and platitudes (ever the risk...quantum this and that is all the rage now).
Scientists accept no such thing, just stop. If you continue along with this sort of bullshit I;m going to call you out on ever having been involved in science in any way shape or form. The universe came from "we don't know". That's the current position of science on the subject. This whole "something from nothing" bullshit is irritating. Where did your cosmic mind come from? Something or nothing?
How many times are you going to let the lepton sentence fall out of your mouth? The "leg-up", that secular explanations have is called evidence.
What does my imagination have to do with what does or does not exist Abra? Absolutely nothing, and neither does yours.
No, I'm not asking you to be close-minded. I'm asking you for evidence, valid and sound arguments, in short, reasons other than "because I can imagine it".
Age does not magically confer wisdom or access to truth. If you could competently explain it, it's entirely likely that I could fully comprehend it. Which is why I'm asking you to explain the proposition.
"Reasonable doubts" work in the courtroom, but I'm coming from truth claims made by scientific inquiry, where evidence, and not "reasonable doubt" is what's required. I'd settle for a good argument. I'd point out that an argument in and of itself does not determine what actually exists, but I do appreciate a well thought out argument.
What's unfair about asking your for evidence or arguments in support of your claims? If you know something I don't I want to know what it is.
Firstly, I'm not demanding anything, you can end this conversation at any point (as can I). I'm merely pointing out that you have made claims to evidence, and that the arguments you presented are, in each and every case so far, logical fallacies.
Yes, that was your claim, and if you are unable to elaborate upon that claim then how can you determine that it is true? How am I to determine whether or not you really do know something that I don't as an observer? I cannot read your mind.
NP, your reasons are vast, lets just pick one, stick to it, elaborate upon it, and we'll see where it takes us yes?
You're pulling the "I believe, I believe, I believe" bit right now. There still hasn't been any evidence, and you continue to repeat arguments that are invalid, belief is all that is left.
Agnostic, as in you believe, but do not know? See above.
"It cannot be ruled out" is not your only claim, not at all. Reread your own posts.
Sure, my computer "experiences" those thoughts as far as it's capacity allows (bits are physical, not spiritual, there is a very physical thing going on, which my computer monitors and expresses, which is exactly what we designed it to do). Sometimes language is ambiguous when you try to make comparisons between two things that are only very remotely related. The way a computer works and the way the human brain works are similar in effect (marginally) but vastly different in the specifics. Precisely why the cosmic mind does what, exactly?
Well, you should write that book then, everyone has at least one book in them. I'm not asking you to explain everything Abr, I'm asking you to explain something...anything.
If you think that explaining these things to me is a waste of time then you shouldn't attempt to explain them to me. I have no idea why you bother, again, I can't read minds.
What happens, or what you believe happens? You're basing this again off of no evidence correct? Why should I take any of this seriously? "Given enough thought" appears to mean "as long as you have very low standards of evidence and are willing to believe in magic". Is that another "eastern mystery"...the ability of a sentence to mean anything except what is written, or everything except that which you do not believe? Are these not claims by the way (as per your "only claim I'm making" comment)?
If you make a claim that you cannot support with evidence that runs counter to a claim which is supported by evidence, then yes, science is, in effect, "ruling out" the validity of your claim Abra. Truth claims are a put-up or shut-up game. As I've said, I'd accept a valid and sound argument as well. You said you had reasons to believe, that you were being reasonable, that this was philosphy, you've made the claim that much of this is "well established" in physics. Those are your own metric, now I'm asking you to meet the bar you set. If your only argument is "You cannot prove me wrong" then that is called "shifting the burden of proof", which does not meet the bar you set. Science is in a great position to rule out a great many things. Simply because you don't wish for it to be so does not make it so. If you make a falsifiable claim (which you have done, even though you probably haven't intended to) then you put yourself under the spotlight, you make yourself subject to science when you invoke science as support for a claim.
Science proposes or rules out this or that based on available evidence. Your definition of a god is obviously extremely permissive Abra.
Let me get this straight, you haven't offered any reason to believe in a single cosmic mind or god, and you just upped the ante to an entire civilization of gods and cosmic minds? Well, as much as I;d like to drive this entire conversation into the ground based on this and this alone...I'm going to pass it over. I'm perfectly content to be shown any evidence, or any reason, to believe in just one of these creatures. You've made quite a few claims about the "true nature" of god right here, in this very post. You have a philosophy comprised of logical fallacies, and again, you have invoked (bad)science in support of this philosophy.
So, all of chemistry and physics are on auto-pilot......care to list whats left? If you can't give me a concrete list then why did you even bring it up? Do me a favor in the future, if you distinguish between things like whats on auto-pilot and what isn't..avoid making the claim that some things are on auto-pilot and some things aren't, because you obviously have no fucking clue which is which. So goddamned irritating. Make a claim..retreat from that claim....please don't do this again or you'll find our discussion less than pleasant, and less than serious.
Care to elaborate upon free will, or demonstrate that it exists? I can clear up any misconceptions you have about magic's reach if you'd like. Exactly nothing, no such thing.
Computers would never have evolved (and never did evolve...strange sentence structure) because they are not objects subject to evolution. I don't know exactly what you think this means, but it's more than likely that you aren't entirely sure of what evolution is or what it can and can't do/how computers work if you're referencing a computer........We can "control" evolution insomuch as we can become the selective force, sure. That's how we ended up with domesticated animals and agricultural crops.
A conscious mind, in and of itself, doesn't appear to have the ability to "control" any part of the universe whatsoever. Which explains exactly why people jump on the word "magic".
Who am I to say that the universe is not designed? A person who is considering the evidence available against the definition of the word designed, and determining that we have no evidence for any design or designer...that's who. Do you have anything to add? Any scientist who claims that the universe was not designed is merely making a statement of fact with respect to all available evidence.....do you have anything to add? If you designed the dice, and carved the 4 on one of it's faces, then yes, you designed the 4....... That's it, I'm calling massive bullshit, you haven't been honest with me, I'm not having a conversation with a person who understands science in the very least. You're an apologist. No different than the christians you're criticizing in this very post. Your predetermined design is exactly equivalent to the christian ID concept.
I think that I'm done with this conversation, which is dissappointing, because I was reading your response and replying point by point and then I see this garbage? Well, good luck with your beliefs, good luck with your claims that arent claims, and your evidence that isn't evidence. What a joke.
If you'd ever like to reengage in this conversation, bring something other than one giant argument from ignorance.
No, no, I understood that you claimed...that you were making no claims to evidence. I doubted that this was actually the case, and it turns out that my doubts were well founded. Repeating your "leptons, quarks and bosons," line of reasoning will never lend it any more validity than the first time you decided to use it.
I'm not asking you to provide me with every detail of your cosmic mind, I'm trying to get some elaboration on just one, or a few parts of your proposal. You don't have to have complete knowledge, but I'd like to see some knowledge, otherwise I'm going to start wondering if there's anything behind the claims, or if they are new age buzzwords and platitudes (ever the risk...quantum this and that is all the rage now).
Scientists accept no such thing, just stop. If you continue along with this sort of bullshit I;m going to call you out on ever having been involved in science in any way shape or form. The universe came from "we don't know". That's the current position of science on the subject. This whole "something from nothing" bullshit is irritating. Where did your cosmic mind come from? Something or nothing?
How many times are you going to let the lepton sentence fall out of your mouth? The "leg-up", that secular explanations have is called evidence.
What does my imagination have to do with what does or does not exist Abra? Absolutely nothing, and neither does yours.
No, I'm not asking you to be close-minded. I'm asking you for evidence, valid and sound arguments, in short, reasons other than "because I can imagine it".
Age does not magically confer wisdom or access to truth. If you could competently explain it, it's entirely likely that I could fully comprehend it. Which is why I'm asking you to explain the proposition.
"Reasonable doubts" work in the courtroom, but I'm coming from truth claims made by scientific inquiry, where evidence, and not "reasonable doubt" is what's required. I'd settle for a good argument. I'd point out that an argument in and of itself does not determine what actually exists, but I do appreciate a well thought out argument.
What's unfair about asking your for evidence or arguments in support of your claims? If you know something I don't I want to know what it is.
Firstly, I'm not demanding anything, you can end this conversation at any point (as can I). I'm merely pointing out that you have made claims to evidence, and that the arguments you presented are, in each and every case so far, logical fallacies.
Yes, that was your claim, and if you are unable to elaborate upon that claim then how can you determine that it is true? How am I to determine whether or not you really do know something that I don't as an observer? I cannot read your mind.
NP, your reasons are vast, lets just pick one, stick to it, elaborate upon it, and we'll see where it takes us yes?
You're pulling the "I believe, I believe, I believe" bit right now. There still hasn't been any evidence, and you continue to repeat arguments that are invalid, belief is all that is left.
Agnostic, as in you believe, but do not know? See above.
"It cannot be ruled out" is not your only claim, not at all. Reread your own posts.
Sure, my computer "experiences" those thoughts as far as it's capacity allows (bits are physical, not spiritual, there is a very physical thing going on, which my computer monitors and expresses, which is exactly what we designed it to do). Sometimes language is ambiguous when you try to make comparisons between two things that are only very remotely related. The way a computer works and the way the human brain works are similar in effect (marginally) but vastly different in the specifics. Precisely why the cosmic mind does what, exactly?
Well, you should write that book then, everyone has at least one book in them. I'm not asking you to explain everything Abr, I'm asking you to explain something...anything.
If you think that explaining these things to me is a waste of time then you shouldn't attempt to explain them to me. I have no idea why you bother, again, I can't read minds.
What happens, or what you believe happens? You're basing this again off of no evidence correct? Why should I take any of this seriously? "Given enough thought" appears to mean "as long as you have very low standards of evidence and are willing to believe in magic". Is that another "eastern mystery"...the ability of a sentence to mean anything except what is written, or everything except that which you do not believe? Are these not claims by the way (as per your "only claim I'm making" comment)?
If you make a claim that you cannot support with evidence that runs counter to a claim which is supported by evidence, then yes, science is, in effect, "ruling out" the validity of your claim Abra. Truth claims are a put-up or shut-up game. As I've said, I'd accept a valid and sound argument as well. You said you had reasons to believe, that you were being reasonable, that this was philosphy, you've made the claim that much of this is "well established" in physics. Those are your own metric, now I'm asking you to meet the bar you set. If your only argument is "You cannot prove me wrong" then that is called "shifting the burden of proof", which does not meet the bar you set. Science is in a great position to rule out a great many things. Simply because you don't wish for it to be so does not make it so. If you make a falsifiable claim (which you have done, even though you probably haven't intended to) then you put yourself under the spotlight, you make yourself subject to science when you invoke science as support for a claim.
Science proposes or rules out this or that based on available evidence. Your definition of a god is obviously extremely permissive Abra.
Let me get this straight, you haven't offered any reason to believe in a single cosmic mind or god, and you just upped the ante to an entire civilization of gods and cosmic minds? Well, as much as I;d like to drive this entire conversation into the ground based on this and this alone...I'm going to pass it over. I'm perfectly content to be shown any evidence, or any reason, to believe in just one of these creatures. You've made quite a few claims about the "true nature" of god right here, in this very post. You have a philosophy comprised of logical fallacies, and again, you have invoked (bad)science in support of this philosophy.So, all of chemistry and physics are on auto-pilot......care to list whats left? If you can't give me a concrete list then why did you even bring it up? Do me a favor in the future, if you distinguish between things like whats on auto-pilot and what isn't..avoid making the claim that some things are on auto-pilot and some things aren't, because you obviously have no fucking clue which is which. So goddamned irritating. Make a claim..retreat from that claim....please don't do this again or you'll find our discussion less than pleasant, and less than serious.
Care to elaborate upon free will, or demonstrate that it exists? I can clear up any misconceptions you have about magic's reach if you'd like. Exactly nothing, no such thing.
Computers would never have evolved (and never did evolve...strange sentence structure) because they are not objects subject to evolution. I don't know exactly what you think this means, but it's more than likely that you aren't entirely sure of what evolution is or what it can and can't do/how computers work if you're referencing a computer........We can "control" evolution insomuch as we can become the selective force, sure. That's how we ended up with domesticated animals and agricultural crops.
A conscious mind, in and of itself, doesn't appear to have the ability to "control" any part of the universe whatsoever. Which explains exactly why people jump on the word "magic".
Who am I to say that the universe is not designed? A person who is considering the evidence available against the definition of the word designed, and determining that we have no evidence for any design or designer...that's who. Do you have anything to add? Any scientist who claims that the universe was not designed is merely making a statement of fact with respect to all available evidence.....do you have anything to add? If you designed the dice, and carved the 4 on one of it's faces, then yes, you designed the 4....... That's it, I'm calling massive bullshit, you haven't been honest with me, I'm not having a conversation with a person who understands science in the very least. You're an apologist. No different than the christians you're criticizing in this very post. Your predetermined design is exactly equivalent to the christian ID concept.
I think that I'm done with this conversation, which is dissappointing, because I was reading your response and replying point by point and then I see this garbage? Well, good luck with your beliefs, good luck with your claims that arent claims, and your evidence that isn't evidence. What a joke.
If you'd ever like to reengage in this conversation, bring something other than one giant argument from ignorance.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
