Rational Thoughts, A place for those of us who are not blinded by the poison of religion. Options

[Saint of Drippin...]

There is no God according to Liberals. I agree with that. And we all agree that equality does not exist. Let the best man win.

What flavor of god are you talking about? If we are strictly speaking of the polytheism of Hinduism, would that make us liberal with respect to polytheism (except for those who believe in polytheism)?

There is a difference between stating that god does not exist and stating that a god is not needed to explain phenomenon, no? But then again, if god is not needed to explain phenomenon, what is the purpose of believing in one, in the first place? I thought everything has a purpose, no?

There is a difference between stating that Bill Gates does not exist and stating that Bill Gates is not needed to explain Microsoft Windows, no? But then again, if Bill Gates is not needed to explain Microsoft Windows, what is the purpose of believing that Bill Gates exists, in the first place? I thought everything has a purpose, no?

Then again, how does one scientifically capture the creative genius of Bill Gates, that phenomenon that brought about Windows in the first place? Windows, through observation and only by using the platform of the hardware, can be explained after the fact, but just because it can be explained doesn't mean that Bill Gates was unnecessary. Nor does it in any way DEFINE or explain Bill Gates, no?

Yet you invert and twist that same logic when it comes to conceding the great probability that an Intelligence was the creative force behind time, space, energy and energy systems.


Please explain how, when it comes to 'GOD', logic (not scientific method, which is totally irrelevant in this case or the case of Bill Gates) somehow operates differently.

I could see your point, if the universe needed a design or designer. I believe Stephen Hawking has a book coming out soon that tries to tackle this very topic, I would suggest reading the book to gain his thoughts about the subject. So, I would say show why the universe needs a creative force and go win your Nobel prize. It appears to me that you seem to be rehashing a form of irreducible complexity.

This is turning into a real bad remake of the Matrix Trilogy, BTW.

Great probability that an intelligence was the creative force behind time, space, energy and energy systems? I need to hear this, please explain in greater detail....... Let's hear the logic behind this........

Really, why are you so quick to dismiss the scientific method? I think I see what you are trying to explain here, but I'm not really certain, please rephrase your last two paragraphs.

Also, can you please explain what you mean by "creative genius of Bill Gates"?

I could see your point, if Microsoft needed a design or designer. I believe Stephen Hawking has a book coming out soon that tries to tackle this very topic, I would suggest YOU read the book to gain his thoughts about the subject since he IS the expert. So, I would say show why Microsoft needs a creative force and go win your Nobel prize. It appears to me that you seem to be rehashing a form of time-in-the-gaps argument, aka "given enough time" Just-so story.

This is turning into a real bad remake of the Matrix Trilogy, BTW.

Great probability that an intelligence (why, that's absurd!) was the creative force behind Microsoft and the hardware platform it uses? I need to hear this, please explain in greater detail....... Let's hear the logic behind this........

Really, why are you so quick to assert that the scientific method will reveal all answers to all questions...eventually and with enough time? I think you see what I was "trying" to explain here, but if you are really not certain, please think through my last two paragraphs. You are intelligent. Hint: is logic dependent upon the scientific method or is it the other way around? Are there logical ways of explaining things OUTSIDE of the scientific method. Can you empirically verify the existence of logic itself, not to mention all of the many other intangibles in life? Can science even address things that can't be empirically tested without hijacking philosophy and presenting it as "science"?

Also, can you please explain what YOU think is meant by "creative genius of Bill Gates"? Maybe you can thoroughly explain it using the scientific method.

Many questions, many diversions...going round and round in a never-ending circular motion.

Well, I can see that this discussion has flown into sophism. When you want to leave the land of the Matrix, you let me know, ok?

First of all, Bill Gates is a biological being that can have his existence checked and doubled checked by countless people from different cultures...... We can also preform tests on Mr. Gates that can lead us to SOUND explanations (no need for a supernatural anything).......

Once you want to bring this discussion back to a form of reality that we can agree upon, I'll consider restarting it, until then have fun.

(IMG:http://forum.qssn.org/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

Rebutting your arguments using your own words to show the inconsistencies in your application of logic is hardly sophism. Your making of arguments that never reveal a solid premise upon which they are supposedly built and your blow-off implication that people like me (and SerenityMan, Frosty and Ohio) who don't agree with them must simply be living in the Matrix, more closely adheres to the definition of sophistry.

Study Bill Gates all you want to scientifically and you will come to the conclusion that, yes, he is a living biological system - we agree on that. And, yes, you can come up with SOUND explanations, hundreds of them, but you can never capture and produce what he did (copy, sure) , because no one else is Bill Gates. And, BTW, the simplest and best way to find out what influenced him, what motivated him and what was going on inside of him that led to the creation of the Microsoft system - is to ASK him. That necessitates him to reveal himself to you, which may be too unscientific and subjective for you, no? You may conclude, after studying Microsoft and how it works, that Microsoft would have arisen on its own - eventually, given enough time - no intelligence needed, no need for Bill Gates for an explanation. The computer hardware somehow "sensed" or was hardwired to "know" that if were to survive it would need to evolve a user-friendly operating system. Of course it's easy to come to that conclusion when YOU are simply the observer of things that have already occurred (that is the way the scientific method works, no?).

Reality...it is you that wants to define "reality" and I should just play along, no? Kind of similar to the (extremely limited) definition of "faith" you gave and insisted on (without waiting for any of us to agree to that definition) and were perturbed when I didn't play along.

I agree, this discussion is dead.

[chiefman31]

There is no God according to Liberals. I agree with that. And we all agree that equality does not exist. Let the best man win.

What flavor of god are you talking about? If we are strictly speaking of the polytheism of Hinduism, would that make us liberal with respect to polytheism (except for those who believe in polytheism)?

There is a difference between stating that god does not exist and stating that a god is not needed to explain phenomenon, no? But then again, if god is not needed to explain phenomenon, what is the purpose of believing in one, in the first place? I thought everything has a purpose, no?

There is a difference between stating that Bill Gates does not exist and stating that Bill Gates is not needed to explain Microsoft Windows, no? But then again, if Bill Gates is not needed to explain Microsoft Windows, what is the purpose of believing that Bill Gates exists, in the first place? I thought everything has a purpose, no?

Then again, how does one scientifically capture the creative genius of Bill Gates, that phenomenon that brought about Windows in the first place? Windows, through observation and only by using the platform of the hardware, can be explained after the fact, but just because it can be explained doesn't mean that Bill Gates was unnecessary. Nor does it in any way DEFINE or explain Bill Gates, no?

Yet you invert and twist that same logic when it comes to conceding the great probability that an Intelligence was the creative force behind time, space, energy and energy systems.


Please explain how, when it comes to 'GOD', logic (not scientific method, which is totally irrelevant in this case or the case of Bill Gates) somehow operates differently.

I could see your point, if the universe needed a design or designer. I believe Stephen Hawking has a book coming out soon that tries to tackle this very topic, I would suggest reading the book to gain his thoughts about the subject. So, I would say show why the universe needs a creative force and go win your Nobel prize. It appears to me that you seem to be rehashing a form of irreducible complexity.

This is turning into a real bad remake of the Matrix Trilogy, BTW.

Great probability that an intelligence was the creative force behind time, space, energy and energy systems? I need to hear this, please explain in greater detail....... Let's hear the logic behind this........

Really, why are you so quick to dismiss the scientific method? I think I see what you are trying to explain here, but I'm not really certain, please rephrase your last two paragraphs.

Also, can you please explain what you mean by "creative genius of Bill Gates"?

I could see your point, if Microsoft needed a design or designer. I believe Stephen Hawking has a book coming out soon that tries to tackle this very topic, I would suggest YOU read the book to gain his thoughts about the subject since he IS the expert. So, I would say show why Microsoft needs a creative force and go win your Nobel prize. It appears to me that you seem to be rehashing a form of time-in-the-gaps argument, aka "given enough time" Just-so story.

This is turning into a real bad remake of the Matrix Trilogy, BTW.

Great probability that an intelligence (why, that's absurd!) was the creative force behind Microsoft and the hardware platform it uses? I need to hear this, please explain in greater detail....... Let's hear the logic behind this........

Really, why are you so quick to assert that the scientific method will reveal all answers to all questions...eventually and with enough time? I think you see what I was "trying" to explain here, but if you are really not certain, please think through my last two paragraphs. You are intelligent. Hint: is logic dependent upon the scientific method or is it the other way around? Are there logical ways of explaining things OUTSIDE of the scientific method. Can you empirically verify the existence of logic itself, not to mention all of the many other intangibles in life? Can science even address things that can't be empirically tested without hijacking philosophy and presenting it as "science"?

Also, can you please explain what YOU think is meant by "creative genius of Bill Gates"? Maybe you can thoroughly explain it using the scientific method.

Many questions, many diversions...going round and round in a never-ending circular motion.

Well, I can see that this discussion has flown into sophism. When you want to leave the land of the Matrix, you let me know, ok?

First of all, Bill Gates is a biological being that can have his existence checked and doubled checked by countless people from different cultures...... We can also preform tests on Mr. Gates that can lead us to SOUND explanations (no need for a supernatural anything).......

Once you want to bring this discussion back to a form of reality that we can agree upon, I'll consider restarting it, until then have fun.

(IMG:http://forum.qssn.org/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

Here is the main point, the analogy you used tends to pit a biological being (Bill Gates) to a Supernatural being (Creator). That is where the sophism occurs.

The analogy I was using posts a supernatural (your god) vs. supernatural (pick any god). So, the question remains......... Lay out your evidence for a supernatural being. And a definition of supernatural would be helpful as well, I would hate to continue speaking in sophism...... Why should anybody believe in any supernatural cause, and once you define what a supernatural cause is, I'll continue to ask questions to show how is it that you know that your supernatural explanation is the correct one..... Ummmmm k.

This post has been edited by chiefman31: Today, 01:36 PM

[SerenityMan]

There is no God according to Liberals. I agree with that. And we all agree that equality does not exist. Let the best man win.

What flavor of god are you talking about? If we are strictly speaking of the polytheism of Hinduism, would that make us liberal with respect to polytheism (except for those who believe in polytheism)?

There is a difference between stating that god does not exist and stating that a god is not needed to explain phenomenon, no? But then again, if god is not needed to explain phenomenon, what is the purpose of believing in one, in the first place? I thought everything has a purpose, no?

There is a difference between stating that Bill Gates does not exist and stating that Bill Gates is not needed to explain Microsoft Windows, no? But then again, if Bill Gates is not needed to explain Microsoft Windows, what is the purpose of believing that Bill Gates exists, in the first place? I thought everything has a purpose, no?

Then again, how does one scientifically capture the creative genius of Bill Gates, that phenomenon that brought about Windows in the first place? Windows, through observation and only by using the platform of the hardware, can be explained after the fact, but just because it can be explained doesn't mean that Bill Gates was unnecessary. Nor does it in any way DEFINE or explain Bill Gates, no?

Yet you invert and twist that same logic when it comes to conceding the great probability that an Intelligence was the creative force behind time, space, energy and energy systems.


Please explain how, when it comes to 'GOD', logic (not scientific method, which is totally irrelevant in this case or the case of Bill Gates) somehow operates differently.

I could see your point, if the universe needed a design or designer. I believe Stephen Hawking has a book coming out soon that tries to tackle this very topic, I would suggest reading the book to gain his thoughts about the subject. So, I would say show why the universe needs a creative force and go win your Nobel prize. It appears to me that you seem to be rehashing a form of irreducible complexity.

This is turning into a real bad remake of the Matrix Trilogy, BTW.

Great probability that an intelligence was the creative force behind time, space, energy and energy systems? I need to hear this, please explain in greater detail....... Let's hear the logic behind this........

Really, why are you so quick to dismiss the scientific method? I think I see what you are trying to explain here, but I'm not really certain, please rephrase your last two paragraphs.

Also, can you please explain what you mean by "creative genius of Bill Gates"?

I could see your point, if Microsoft needed a design or designer. I believe Stephen Hawking has a book coming out soon that tries to tackle this very topic, I would suggest YOU read the book to gain his thoughts about the subject since he IS the expert. So, I would say show why Microsoft needs a creative force and go win your Nobel prize. It appears to me that you seem to be rehashing a form of time-in-the-gaps argument, aka "given enough time" Just-so story.

This is turning into a real bad remake of the Matrix Trilogy, BTW.

Great probability that an intelligence (why, that's absurd!) was the creative force behind Microsoft and the hardware platform it uses? I need to hear this, please explain in greater detail....... Let's hear the logic behind this........

Really, why are you so quick to assert that the scientific method will reveal all answers to all questions...eventually and with enough time? I think you see what I was "trying" to explain here, but if you are really not certain, please think through my last two paragraphs. You are intelligent. Hint: is logic dependent upon the scientific method or is it the other way around? Are there logical ways of explaining things OUTSIDE of the scientific method. Can you empirically verify the existence of logic itself, not to mention all of the many other intangibles in life? Can science even address things that can't be empirically tested without hijacking philosophy and presenting it as "science"?

Also, can you please explain what YOU think is meant by "creative genius of Bill Gates"? Maybe you can thoroughly explain it using the scientific method.

Many questions, many diversions...going round and round in a never-ending circular motion.

(IMG:http://forum.qssn.org/style_emoticons/default/worthy.gif)

[Saint of Drippin...]

There is no God according to Liberals. I agree with that. And we all agree that equality does not exist. Let the best man win.

What flavor of god are you talking about? If we are strictly speaking of the polytheism of Hinduism, would that make us liberal with respect to polytheism (except for those who believe in polytheism)?

There is a difference between stating that god does not exist and stating that a god is not needed to explain phenomenon, no? But then again, if god is not needed to explain phenomenon, what is the purpose of believing in one, in the first place? I thought everything has a purpose, no?

There is a difference between stating that Bill Gates does not exist and stating that Bill Gates is not needed to explain Microsoft Windows, no? But then again, if Bill Gates is not needed to explain Microsoft Windows, what is the purpose of believing that Bill Gates exists, in the first place? I thought everything has a purpose, no?

Then again, how does one scientifically capture the creative genius of Bill Gates, that phenomenon that brought about Windows in the first place? Windows, through observation and only by using the platform of the hardware, can be explained after the fact, but just because it can be explained doesn't mean that Bill Gates was unnecessary. Nor does it in any way DEFINE or explain Bill Gates, no?

Yet you invert and twist that same logic when it comes to conceding the great probability that an Intelligence was the creative force behind time, space, energy and energy systems.


Please explain how, when it comes to 'GOD', logic (not scientific method, which is totally irrelevant in this case or the case of Bill Gates) somehow operates differently.

I could see your point, if the universe needed a design or designer. I believe Stephen Hawking has a book coming out soon that tries to tackle this very topic, I would suggest reading the book to gain his thoughts about the subject. So, I would say show why the universe needs a creative force and go win your Nobel prize. It appears to me that you seem to be rehashing a form of irreducible complexity.

This is turning into a real bad remake of the Matrix Trilogy, BTW.

Great probability that an intelligence was the creative force behind time, space, energy and energy systems? I need to hear this, please explain in greater detail....... Let's hear the logic behind this........

Really, why are you so quick to dismiss the scientific method? I think I see what you are trying to explain here, but I'm not really certain, please rephrase your last two paragraphs.

Also, can you please explain what you mean by "creative genius of Bill Gates"?

I could see your point, if Microsoft needed a design or designer. I believe Stephen Hawking has a book coming out soon that tries to tackle this very topic, I would suggest YOU read the book to gain his thoughts about the subject since he IS the expert. So, I would say show why Microsoft needs a creative force and go win your Nobel prize. It appears to me that you seem to be rehashing a form of time-in-the-gaps argument, aka "given enough time" Just-so story.

This is turning into a real bad remake of the Matrix Trilogy, BTW.

Great probability that an intelligence (why, that's absurd!) was the creative force behind Microsoft and the hardware platform it uses? I need to hear this, please explain in greater detail....... Let's hear the logic behind this........

Really, why are you so quick to assert that the scientific method will reveal all answers to all questions...eventually and with enough time? I think you see what I was "trying" to explain here, but if you are really not certain, please think through my last two paragraphs. You are intelligent. Hint: is logic dependent upon the scientific method or is it the other way around? Are there logical ways of explaining things OUTSIDE of the scientific method. Can you empirically verify the existence of logic itself, not to mention all of the many other intangibles in life? Can science even address things that can't be empirically tested without hijacking philosophy and presenting it as "science"?

Also, can you please explain what YOU think is meant by "creative genius of Bill Gates"? Maybe you can thoroughly explain it using the scientific method.

Many questions, many diversions...going round and round in a never-ending circular motion.

This post has been edited by Saint of Dripping: Today, 12:00 PM

[Donnie]

I haven't posted for a while. Just thought I would throw out a new thought for commentary. I was reading an article The Jehovah's Witnesses redefine irony.

The article was about an article in a magazine produced by the JWs called Awake where the JWs were warning members about a new group of Atheist not content to keep their views to themselves. The article isn't as important as one of the comments to it, reproduced below:

Posted by: a.human.ape | September 6, 2010 3:33 PM
I recently looked at an Awake magazine I found on a bus here in south Florida. It had the usual Discovery Institute bullshit "If it's complex the designer did it".
A few months ago while I was waiting for a bus a man stopped his car, got out, and tried to give me the Awake thing. I told him I was an atheist. He said "That's too bad". I should have said "It's too bad you're a fucking idiot". Instead I repeatedly told him his religion is bullshit until he got the hint and left.
I often wonder what it must be like to live in a real country instead of the insane asylum called the United States of Jeebus.
-- Human Ape
[emphasis mine]

As a agnostic (which I believe to be a religious minority in this country) I found this comment ironic. I love the freedom of religion we have here. I'm willing to allow others to believe the way they want to in order to maintain my right to believe as I want. I wonder what "real country" he is referring to.

Should there be limits on the rights of anyone to evangelize their beliefs? What should those limits be? It is rational to place limits on anyone?

Also I thought a new line may infuse new thoughts in here, we seem at an impasse on the current conversation.

This post has been edited by Donnie: Today, 11:15 AM

[chiefman31]

There is no God according to Liberals. I agree with that. And we all agree that equality does not exist. Let the best man win.

What flavor of god are you talking about? If we are strictly speaking of the polytheism of Hinduism, would that make us liberal with respect to polytheism (except for those who believe in polytheism)?

There is a difference between stating that god does not exist and stating that a god is not needed to explain phenomenon, no? But then again, if god is not needed to explain phenomenon, what is the purpose of believing in one, in the first place? I thought everything has a purpose, no?

There is a difference between stating that Bill Gates does not exist and stating that Bill Gates is not needed to explain Microsoft Windows, no? But then again, if Bill Gates is not needed to explain Microsoft Windows, what is the purpose of believing that Bill Gates exists, in the first place? I thought everything has a purpose, no?

Then again, how does one scientifically capture the creative genius of Bill Gates, that phenomenon that brought about Windows in the first place? Windows, through observation and only by using the platform of the hardware, can be explained after the fact, but just because it can be explained doesn't mean that Bill Gates was unnecessary. Nor does it in any way DEFINE or explain Bill Gates, no?

Yet you invert and twist that same logic when it comes to conceding the great probability that an Intelligence was the creative force behind time, space, energy and energy systems.


Please explain how, when it comes to 'GOD', logic (not scientific method, which is totally irrelevant in this case or the case of Bill Gates) somehow operates differently.

I could see your point, if the universe needed a design or designer. I believe Stephen Hawking has a book coming out soon that tries to tackle this very topic, I would suggest reading the book to gain his thoughts about the subject. So, I would say show why the universe needs a creative force and go win your Nobel prize. It appears to me that you seem to be rehashing a form of irreducible complexity.

This is turning into a real bad remake of the Matrix Trilogy, BTW.

Great probability that an intelligence was the creative force behind time, space, energy and energy systems? I need to hear this, please explain in greater detail....... Let's hear the logic behind this........

Really, why are you so quick to dismiss the scientific method? I think I see what you are trying to explain here, but I'm not really certain, please rephrase your last two paragraphs.

Also, can you please explain what you mean by "creative genius of Bill Gates"?

[Saint of Drippin...]

There is no God according to Liberals. I agree with that. And we all agree that equality does not exist. Let the best man win.

What flavor of god are you talking about? If we are strictly speaking of the polytheism of Hinduism, would that make us liberal with respect to polytheism (except for those who believe in polytheism)?

There is a difference between stating that god does not exist and stating that a god is not needed to explain phenomenon, no? But then again, if god is not needed to explain phenomenon, what is the purpose of believing in one, in the first place? I thought everything has a purpose, no?

There is a difference between stating that Bill Gates does not exist and stating that Bill Gates is not needed to explain Microsoft Windows, no? But then again, if Bill Gates is not needed to explain Microsoft Windows, what is the purpose of believing that Bill Gates exists, in the first place? I thought everything has a purpose, no?

Then again, how does one scientifically capture the creative genius of Bill Gates, that phenomenon that brought about Windows in the first place? Windows, through observation and only by using the platform of the hardware, can be explained after the fact, but just because it can be explained doesn't mean that Bill Gates was unnecessary. Nor does it in any way DEFINE or explain Bill Gates, no?

Yet you invert and twist that same logic when it comes to conceding the great probability that an Intelligence was the creative force behind time, space, energy and energy systems.

Please explain how, when it comes to 'GOD', logic (not scientific method, which is totally irrelevant in this case or the case of Bill Gates) somehow operates differently.

[chiefman31]

There is no God according to Liberals. I agree with that. And we all agree that equality does not exist. Let the best man win.

What flavor of god are you talking about? If we are strictly speaking of the polytheism of Hinduism, would that make us liberal with respect to polytheism (except for those who believe in polytheism)?

There is a difference between stating that god does not exist and stating that a god is not needed to explain phenomenon, no? But then again, if god is not needed to explain phenomenon, what is the purpose of believing in one, in the first place? I thought everything has a purpose, no?

[3boysdad]

There is no God according to Liberals. I agree with that. And we all agree that equality does not exist. Let the best man win.

[Saint of Drippin...]

Chief,

Here is the reason I kept answering you the way I did: What you kept on replying with to the original post regarding prayer, and whether or not prayer was effective or not and where prayer fit in - had nothing to do with the possible effectiveness of prayer. Instead it had to do with whether or not there is a god, or what religions or different modes of thinking I had engaged in. In short, it had to do with Theism vs. Atheism - which is a different subject altogether and should be posted in the Theism vs. Atheism forum. After all, the great atheistic religion of Buddhism promotes prayer and meditation. To assume prayer is only tied to theistic religions is a false assumption. Therefore to tie prayer only to Theism is an irrational extension, or "it follows that...", of the effectiveness of prayer argument.

You laid out some thought experiments that are good thought experiments, but it would be a matter of courtesy to lay out the conclusions you have reached regarding these thought experiments before you insist on others provide you their conclusions - since you are the one who presented them. THEN we can have some fruitful, honest and rational discussion.

And bullying...how in the heck did you rationally come to that conclusion??? You can believe whatever you want to believe. At the same time, you were throwing red herrings into the discussion at hand, topics that do merit discussion on their own, certainly, but not offered as a distraction nor substitute to what is being discussed. It is understood that both of us hold beliefs that are a mix of theory, fact and opinion. If that were not the case, then we couldn't properly be defined as "human" - we would be more on the "god" level. The best we can do is discover the kernel of truth or truths contained within each and respectfully recognize those truths within our "opponents'" stance, not to ignore them or blow them off untested.

I've done extensive research on all major religions out there, as well as extensive research on humanist thought as well. For 14 years I steeped myself in humanist thought and I was a "faithful" follower of its dogma. Been there, done that. Bottom line, I find truth in ALL of these philosophies, and I find error in ALL of these philosophies. Doesn't mean I have it all figured out - far from it. Doesn't mean I'm BETTER than everyone else who doesn't see things like I see them. I have a high respect for Syner even though we fundamentally disagree on several topics, because he has a respect for faith and religion, even though he doesn't choose to follow that path himself. And I challenge anyone to demonstrate when, where and how I've wrapped my personal philosophy up in nice shiny wrapping and presented it to ANYONE as THE Truth.

So I propose that we both drop all assumptions about the other (I know I've been guilty of it, too) and realize that neither of us have it all figured out, or that either one of us is totally in error. And let's quit the "gotcha" games. Do let us assume that both of us are rational beings who have given much rational thought to these things. We can start with dictionary definitions of words, but definitions by themselves present more of a two-dimensional, black and white, view of the subjects, but add very little depth or color; e.g. a dictionary definition of "human" in the dictionary does not and cannot encapsulate the totality of what being human means, nor can the definition assign experiential value. Humans are not just what the dictionary says they are. After all, humans came up with the definitions and those definitions can be erroneous or layman's misinterpretations or perception of what a word means. Here's an example:

Theist

Whoever provided this definition got the first part right, but the second part (especially "especially") should not be included. Pantheism is still theism but doesn't recognize a personal god, nor do many polytheistic religions recognize the gods as necessarily being the creators of the world. They would be shaking their collective heads at the second part.

Another example is FAITH. It would seem best defined by people who actually engage in Faith, so we shake our heads at some definitions that were obviously presented by someone who knows not the first thing about the exercise of faith.

I'm sure you are well aware of the various CONTROLLED studies with regards to prayer:

Here are two very well known case studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17253449

What I find interesting is the last group, those who were TOLD they were being prayed for and actually received a higher mark for reporting actual problems/issues. I'm not going to attempt to speculate.

Don't shoot the messenger, my friend.........

If you want your faith to be understood by some individuals, I suggest you present such cases (in a controlled setting, we all know that human beings have a strange way of using biases and other human controlling means to get their point across), paying careful attention to which biases you may be projecting. This is why double blind tests and experiments are critical in determining what things actually work and which things appear to work. The double blind studies actually reduce many common human held biases.

That is all......

You are talking clinical, whereas I am talking personal, or subjective experience. And the studies being conducted are concerning intercessory prayer with the assumption that these prayers are for the purpose of somehow goading God to magically heal that person, as if God is some kind of puppet on a string - which is exactly NOT prayer, nor the purpose of prayer as taught by Jesus.

In addition, this was not the type of prayer being discussed up to this point. There is a difference between the two.

Prayer is not about words recited, prayer focuses in on and captures the attitude of the heart - and that's exactly what cannot be captured in any clinical study. The clinical study can only capture the words spoken, or if they are not spoken, then one has to rely upon the word of the person praying that a prayer was actually "said" - not very clinical, to say the least.

As to the recipient of the prayer...well, the study doesn't really capture the belief system of each recipient, nor their disposition toward prayer, which is in my opinion, a flaw in the study and a basic misunderstanding of the purpose of intercessory prayer in the first place.

Chief, let me be very clear: I don't need you to understand my faith. I'm not out there desperately trying to get you or any other secularist to "validate" my faith. You continue to try to project onto me an image of intellectual inferiority as if you somehow need to patiently "educate" me and "warn" me about "biases", without seeing the massive BEAM of bias protruding from your own eye. You want clinical answers to life and you want those answers to suffice.

So be it.

Hope it works for you.

[chiefman31]

Chief,

Here is the reason I kept answering you the way I did: What you kept on replying with to the original post regarding prayer, and whether or not prayer was effective or not and where prayer fit in - had nothing to do with the possible effectiveness of prayer. Instead it had to do with whether or not there is a god, or what religions or different modes of thinking I had engaged in. In short, it had to do with Theism vs. Atheism - which is a different subject altogether and should be posted in the Theism vs. Atheism forum. After all, the great atheistic religion of Buddhism promotes prayer and meditation. To assume prayer is only tied to theistic religions is a false assumption. Therefore to tie prayer only to Theism is an irrational extension, or "it follows that...", of the effectiveness of prayer argument.

You laid out some thought experiments that are good thought experiments, but it would be a matter of courtesy to lay out the conclusions you have reached regarding these thought experiments before you insist on others provide you their conclusions - since you are the one who presented them. THEN we can have some fruitful, honest and rational discussion.

And bullying...how in the heck did you rationally come to that conclusion??? You can believe whatever you want to believe. At the same time, you were throwing red herrings into the discussion at hand, topics that do merit discussion on their own, certainly, but not offered as a distraction nor substitute to what is being discussed. It is understood that both of us hold beliefs that are a mix of theory, fact and opinion. If that were not the case, then we couldn't properly be defined as "human" - we would be more on the "god" level. The best we can do is discover the kernel of truth or truths contained within each and respectfully recognize those truths within our "opponents'" stance, not to ignore them or blow them off untested.

I've done extensive research on all major religions out there, as well as extensive research on humanist thought as well. For 14 years I steeped myself in humanist thought and I was a "faithful" follower of its dogma. Been there, done that. Bottom line, I find truth in ALL of these philosophies, and I find error in ALL of these philosophies. Doesn't mean I have it all figured out - far from it. Doesn't mean I'm BETTER than everyone else who doesn't see things like I see them. I have a high respect for Syner even though we fundamentally disagree on several topics, because he has a respect for faith and religion, even though he doesn't choose to follow that path himself. And I challenge anyone to demonstrate when, where and how I've wrapped my personal philosophy up in nice shiny wrapping and presented it to ANYONE as THE Truth.

So I propose that we both drop all assumptions about the other (I know I've been guilty of it, too) and realize that neither of us have it all figured out, or that either one of us is totally in error. And let's quit the "gotcha" games. Do let us assume that both of us are rational beings who have given much rational thought to these things. We can start with dictionary definitions of words, but definitions by themselves present more of a two-dimensional, black and white, view of the subjects, but add very little depth or color; e.g. a dictionary definition of "human" in the dictionary does not and cannot encapsulate the totality of what being human means, nor can the definition assign experiential value. Humans are not just what the dictionary says they are. After all, humans came up with the definitions and those definitions can be erroneous or layman's misinterpretations or perception of what a word means. Here's an example:

Theist

Whoever provided this definition got the first part right, but the second part (especially "especially") should not be included. Pantheism is still theism but doesn't recognize a personal god, nor do many polytheistic religions recognize the gods as necessarily being the creators of the world. They would be shaking their collective heads at the second part.

Another example is FAITH. It would seem best defined by people who actually engage in Faith, so we shake our heads at some definitions that were obviously presented by someone who knows not the first thing about the exercise of faith.

I'm sure you are well aware of the various CONTROLLED studies with regards to prayer:

Here are two very well known case studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17253449

What I find interesting is the last group, those who were TOLD they were being prayed for and actually received a higher mark for reporting actual problems/issues. I'm not going to attempt to speculate.

Don't shoot the messenger, my friend.........

If you want your faith to be understood by some individuals, I suggest you present such cases (in a controlled setting, we all know that human beings have a strange way of using biases and other human controlling means to get their point across), paying careful attention to which biases you may be projecting. This is why double blind tests and experiments are critical in determining what things actually work and which things appear to work. The double blind studies actually reduce many common human held biases.

That is all......

This post has been edited by chiefman31: Sep 3 2010, 09:39 PM

[Saint of Drippin...]

Chief,

Here is the reason I kept answering you the way I did: What you kept on replying with to the original post regarding prayer, and whether or not prayer was effective or not and where prayer fit in - had nothing to do with the possible effectiveness of prayer. Instead it had to do with whether or not there is a god, or what religions or different modes of thinking I had engaged in. In short, it had to do with Theism vs. Atheism - which is a different subject altogether and should be posted in the Theism vs. Atheism forum. After all, the great atheistic religion of Buddhism promotes prayer and meditation. To assume prayer is only tied to theistic religions is a false assumption. Therefore to tie prayer only to Theism is an irrational extension, or "it follows that...", of the effectiveness of prayer argument.

You laid out some thought experiments that are good thought experiments, but it would be a matter of courtesy to lay out the conclusions you have reached regarding these thought experiments before you insist on others provide you their conclusions - since you are the one who presented them. THEN we can have some fruitful, honest and rational discussion.

And bullying...how in the heck did you rationally come to that conclusion??? You can believe whatever you want to believe. At the same time, you were throwing red herrings into the discussion at hand, topics that do merit discussion on their own, certainly, but not offered as a distraction nor substitute to what is being discussed. It is understood that both of us hold beliefs that are a mix of theory, fact and opinion. If that were not the case, then we couldn't properly be defined as "human" - we would be more on the "god" level. The best we can do is discover the kernel of truth or truths contained within each and respectfully recognize those truths within our "opponents'" stance, not to ignore them or blow them off untested.

I've done extensive research on all major religions out there, as well as extensive research on humanist thought as well. For 14 years I steeped myself in humanist thought and I was a "faithful" follower of its dogma. Been there, done that. Bottom line, I find truth in ALL of these philosophies, and I find error in ALL of these philosophies. Doesn't mean I have it all figured out - far from it. Doesn't mean I'm BETTER than everyone else who doesn't see things like I see them. I have a high respect for Syner even though we fundamentally disagree on several topics, because he has a respect for faith and religion, even though he doesn't choose to follow that path himself. And I challenge anyone to demonstrate when, where and how I've wrapped my personal philosophy up in nice shiny wrapping and presented it to ANYONE as THE Truth.

So I propose that we both drop all assumptions about the other (I know I've been guilty of it, too) and realize that neither of us have it all figured out, or that either one of us is totally in error. And let's quit the "gotcha" games. Do let us assume that both of us are rational beings who have given much rational thought to these things. We can start with dictionary definitions of words, but definitions by themselves present more of a two-dimensional, black and white, view of the subjects, but add very little depth or color; e.g. a dictionary definition of "human" in the dictionary does not and cannot encapsulate the totality of what being human means, nor can the definition assign experiential value. Humans are not just what the dictionary says they are. After all, humans came up with the definitions and those definitions can be erroneous or layman's misinterpretations or perception of what a word means. Here's an example:

Theist

Whoever provided this definition got the first part right, but the second part (especially "especially") should not be included. Pantheism is still theism but doesn't recognize a personal god, nor do many polytheistic religions recognize the gods as necessarily being the creators of the world. They would be shaking their collective heads at the second part.

Another example is FAITH. It would seem best defined by people who actually engage in Faith, so we shake our heads at some definitions that were obviously presented by someone who knows not the first thing about the exercise of faith.

This post has been edited by Saint of Dripping: Sep 3 2010, 09:47 AM

[chiefman31]

Of course, QSSN only works if I put out the effort. God doesn't do it for me. That's why I didn't include the habit of prayer in the three things above.[/color]

This right here is probably the most telling part of your whole post. Why can't you extend this line of thought just a little further....

No, Chief, YOU go ahead and extend it to where you think it needs to go. Are you trying to bend my words and use them against me or show how my thoughts contradict what you suppose I stand for or how you've stereotyped me? Quit playing the games, they are tiring.

And if you are not playing a game, please get to the point. If you've got a "aha, gotcha" moment, then please, don't keep me in suspense.

None of the above, Saint. That would be projecting.

I don't know every single thought you have ever had. Therefore, I'm not going to tell you where I think your thought should go.

And I'm NOT going to tell you that you have not put enough thought into being a Christian, either.

Then you delight in speaking in riddles. I don't understand the purpose of your "telling" post. Something was "telling" YOU something. Simple question, what was it telling you?

(IMG:http://forum.qssn.org/style_emoticons/default/twitch.gif)

I have a theory. Most people (probably all people at some point in their lives) like to project their contradictions on either A) Someone else or (IMG:http://forum.qssn.org/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) Something else, instead of introspectively coming to conclusions. I think it makes it easier for most people to deal with there own shit.

Once we come to the realization that contradictions are alive and well in the form of paradoxes, and no supernatural being is needed for the explanation or potential solution, the world takes on a whole different view.

I can honestly say that I live with beliefs that are in contradiction with each other. And I also realize that contradiction is in part being human (no supernatural explanation needed). If there is a god, I view it as something to shoot or strive (idealism) for (a goal) but I also give myself compassion and understanding for falling short (I am not a god). God as a place holder or gap filler, is probably the most logical form a god can take. But that doesn't mean that one exists.

I can also honestly say that I don't know all the answers, and I can also say that I don't tell people that I have the absolute truth wrapped up in a little bottle and ask them to partake in such a journey.

Anyone who is in recovery from addiction, who has had a major paradigm shift in their life knows the truth of the paradoxes of life, projecting and contradiction in beliefs and actions - that is not a theory. But that is different than what your theory is proposing.
All wrapped up in your theory are assumptions that you are binding on Theists, including myself. Your theory is very poorly supported - I would call it a "hunch" more than anything - a hunch based on a total misunderstanding of what Christianity teaches.

You are dismissing something you don't understand and don't care to understand. Instead, you are so busy looking for rational cracks in the teachings of Christianity, then you seize upon one that you think might bear fruit in your favor (example: the "telling" post). Then pointing to YOUR "honesty" (making us theists not-as-honest, or just not up to being as honest with our current beliefs??). And implying (the implication is clear) that we claim to have contained the absolute truth in a bottle and that YOU, of course, would never try to persuade anyone to follow you in a god-less journey. YOU don't try to persuade people in that way. Not you. You are above that.

That, to me, is arrogance. and a crock of shit.

Your theories are opinion. Which you are entitled to. Hope it works for ya.

As a reminder: the subject matter was prayer.

Yep, I can honestly say that some of my theories are opinions, and I can say that some of my beliefs are based on varying degree of opinion and fact. I guess the question is, can your beliefs be held in the same regard? Can you accept the possibility that your beliefs are varying degrees of facts and opinions passed down from generation to generation? Or in your eyes, are all your beliefs facts? Can you give me something tangible to work with here?

Chief - are you really straining so hard at gnats? You are trying really hard to present my position as something that it is not. You have taken this beyond a rational discussion and are about to sink knee-deep in a shit-load of logical fallacies.

Anybody else here can clearly see that I'm not as dogmatic as you would like to paint me. To even the most unschooled observer there is no "question".

This discussion is now pointless. You keep perseverating on the same issues over and over without even realizing that the conversation ended long ago. You are living too much in your own mind, in my opinion.

It appears I asked questions and did not make statements that pertained to you. It also appears to me that you are tying a slight of hand trick by taking your position and presenting as my position.

It also appears to me that for some reason, the questions I asked above are ones that you don't want to answer. It also appears by this statement, "You have taken this beyond a rational discussion and are about to sink knee-deep in a shit-load of logical fallacies." you are getting real close to a form of bullying. Instead of stating it, why not list it all out..... This is the rational thread is it not?

With regards to your post about the scientific method in your other post, I have a thought experiment that I would like you to contemplate:

A person is accused of murdering another individual and the following evidence is presented at the court hearing.

1. Eyewitness account - One person saw a person matching the description of the accused leaving the scene of the crime.
2. Footprints leaving the scene matched shoes that were found on the accused.
3. DNA evidence was left at the scene (blood from the accused was found mixed with blood of the victim).
4. Weapon was found in the grass with accused fingerprints.
5. The accused has a history of violent behavior.
6. Another eyewitness had a feeling that the accuser would do bodily harm to another individual.

Please list the evidence from most relevant to least relevant. And please give reasons why you feel that the evidence above should be listed in that manner. And for a further thought experiment keep removing the most relevant piece of evidence (from your constructed list) until you get to a point where you would no longer feel comfortable sending the accused to jail.

Let me throw out a couple of terms for you to ponder while comprising the list:
A. Cognitive Bias
B. Perception Bias
C. Repeatability
D. Group Bias
E. Personal Bias
F. Confirmation Bias

I have another thought experiment for you to contemplate as well:

How much time have you spent looking into the other religions of the world? Can you please list the religions in order of time spent looking and approximate time looking at each specific religion (you originally brought this line of thinking, not me)? Why do you think your list is comprised as such? Do any of the above listed biases arise in why you selected the religion you did?

And by no means did I state you were illogical, irrational, or that you were untruthful (all positions that you tried to attribute to me though out the course of our discussion). Just because you tried to present these as me thinking you were does not make it so, does it?

P.S.

Falsifiability and certainty/uncertainty are HUGE deals when discussing ideas relating to rationality, please don't attempt to sweep these under the rug.......

That is all.......

This post has been edited by chiefman31: Sep 1 2010, 11:55 PM

[Saint of Drippin...]

Of course, QSSN only works if I put out the effort. God doesn't do it for me. That's why I didn't include the habit of prayer in the three things above.[/color]

This right here is probably the most telling part of your whole post. Why can't you extend this line of thought just a little further....

No, Chief, YOU go ahead and extend it to where you think it needs to go. Are you trying to bend my words and use them against me or show how my thoughts contradict what you suppose I stand for or how you've stereotyped me? Quit playing the games, they are tiring.

And if you are not playing a game, please get to the point. If you've got a "aha, gotcha" moment, then please, don't keep me in suspense.

None of the above, Saint. That would be projecting.

I don't know every single thought you have ever had. Therefore, I'm not going to tell you where I think your thought should go.

And I'm NOT going to tell you that you have not put enough thought into being a Christian, either.

Then you delight in speaking in riddles. I don't understand the purpose of your "telling" post. Something was "telling" YOU something. Simple question, what was it telling you?

(IMG:http://forum.qssn.org/style_emoticons/default/twitch.gif)

I have a theory. Most people (probably all people at some point in their lives) like to project their contradictions on either A) Someone else or (IMG:http://forum.qssn.org/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) Something else, instead of introspectively coming to conclusions. I think it makes it easier for most people to deal with there own shit.

Once we come to the realization that contradictions are alive and well in the form of paradoxes, and no supernatural being is needed for the explanation or potential solution, the world takes on a whole different view.

I can honestly say that I live with beliefs that are in contradiction with each other. And I also realize that contradiction is in part being human (no supernatural explanation needed). If there is a god, I view it as something to shoot or strive (idealism) for (a goal) but I also give myself compassion and understanding for falling short (I am not a god). God as a place holder or gap filler, is probably the most logical form a god can take. But that doesn't mean that one exists.

I can also honestly say that I don't know all the answers, and I can also say that I don't tell people that I have the absolute truth wrapped up in a little bottle and ask them to partake in such a journey.

Anyone who is in recovery from addiction, who has had a major paradigm shift in their life knows the truth of the paradoxes of life, projecting and contradiction in beliefs and actions - that is not a theory. But that is different than what your theory is proposing.
All wrapped up in your theory are assumptions that you are binding on Theists, including myself. Your theory is very poorly supported - I would call it a "hunch" more than anything - a hunch based on a total misunderstanding of what Christianity teaches.

You are dismissing something you don't understand and don't care to understand. Instead, you are so busy looking for rational cracks in the teachings of Christianity, then you seize upon one that you think might bear fruit in your favor (example: the "telling" post). Then pointing to YOUR "honesty" (making us theists not-as-honest, or just not up to being as honest with our current beliefs??). And implying (the implication is clear) that we claim to have contained the absolute truth in a bottle and that YOU, of course, would never try to persuade anyone to follow you in a god-less journey. YOU don't try to persuade people in that way. Not you. You are above that.

That, to me, is arrogance. and a crock of shit.

Your theories are opinion. Which you are entitled to. Hope it works for ya.

As a reminder: the subject matter was prayer.

So you understand something that is supernatural in nature? And if you do, can you please explain to the rest of us how you know it's supernatural?

And around and around we go in circles. Look up the definition of "super", Chief, then consider if your question is logical...

I'll leave you with one thing to consider:
We all agree that there is such a thing as the sub-conscious mind
We all know there is the conscious mind
To be logically consistent, we would have to posit that there is such a thing as the super-conscious mind.

That would be rational, no?

over an out

So what you are saying is that it's completely rational to think that something that can't be defined or quantified, absolutely exists? BTW, what in your mind would qualify as showing your position to be falsified? If the answer is absolutely nothing, then I believe we have hit a dogmatic principle, no?

Chief, once again you are putting words in my mouth. Also, there is a difference between a logical inference and a scientific theory. A logical inference or any statement based on a valid logical premise does not require falsification - only full-fledged theories do - scientific theories. You couch everything, it seems, in scientific terms and view all problems as being solvable and falsifiable through the scientific method. The above statement regarding the super-conscious mind is not a dogmatic statement, it's simply a logical possibility within human (I'm not talking about God's consciousness - I'm talking about ours) consciousness. This is PRE-scientific.
I never said anything , nor did I imply, that would assign "absoluteness" to that possibility.

Sorry - you strike out again.

[Saint of Drippin...]

Of course, QSSN only works if I put out the effort. God doesn't do it for me. That's why I didn't include the habit of prayer in the three things above.[/color]

This right here is probably the most telling part of your whole post. Why can't you extend this line of thought just a little further....

No, Chief, YOU go ahead and extend it to where you think it needs to go. Are you trying to bend my words and use them against me or show how my thoughts contradict what you suppose I stand for or how you've stereotyped me? Quit playing the games, they are tiring.

And if you are not playing a game, please get to the point. If you've got a "aha, gotcha" moment, then please, don't keep me in suspense.

None of the above, Saint. That would be projecting.

I don't know every single thought you have ever had. Therefore, I'm not going to tell you where I think your thought should go.

And I'm NOT going to tell you that you have not put enough thought into being a Christian, either.

Then you delight in speaking in riddles. I don't understand the purpose of your "telling" post. Something was "telling" YOU something. Simple question, what was it telling you?

(IMG:http://forum.qssn.org/style_emoticons/default/twitch.gif)

I have a theory. Most people (probably all people at some point in their lives) like to project their contradictions on either A) Someone else or (IMG:http://forum.qssn.org/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) Something else, instead of introspectively coming to conclusions. I think it makes it easier for most people to deal with there own shit.

Once we come to the realization that contradictions are alive and well in the form of paradoxes, and no supernatural being is needed for the explanation or potential solution, the world takes on a whole different view.

I can honestly say that I live with beliefs that are in contradiction with each other. And I also realize that contradiction is in part being human (no supernatural explanation needed). If there is a god, I view it as something to shoot or strive (idealism) for (a goal) but I also give myself compassion and understanding for falling short (I am not a god). God as a place holder or gap filler, is probably the most logical form a god can take. But that doesn't mean that one exists.

I can also honestly say that I don't know all the answers, and I can also say that I don't tell people that I have the absolute truth wrapped up in a little bottle and ask them to partake in such a journey.

Anyone who is in recovery from addiction, who has had a major paradigm shift in their life knows the truth of the paradoxes of life, projecting and contradiction in beliefs and actions - that is not a theory. But that is different than what your theory is proposing.
All wrapped up in your theory are assumptions that you are binding on Theists, including myself. Your theory is very poorly supported - I would call it a "hunch" more than anything - a hunch based on a total misunderstanding of what Christianity teaches.

You are dismissing something you don't understand and don't care to understand. Instead, you are so busy looking for rational cracks in the teachings of Christianity, then you seize upon one that you think might bear fruit in your favor (example: the "telling" post). Then pointing to YOUR "honesty" (making us theists not-as-honest, or just not up to being as honest with our current beliefs??). And implying (the implication is clear) that we claim to have contained the absolute truth in a bottle and that YOU, of course, would never try to persuade anyone to follow you in a god-less journey. YOU don't try to persuade people in that way. Not you. You are above that.

That, to me, is arrogance. and a crock of shit.

Your theories are opinion. Which you are entitled to. Hope it works for ya.

As a reminder: the subject matter was prayer.

Yep, I can honestly say that some of my theories are opinions, and I can say that some of my beliefs are based on varying degree of opinion and fact. I guess the question is, can your beliefs be held in the same regard? Can you accept the possibility that your beliefs are varying degrees of facts and opinions passed down from generation to generation? Or in your eyes, are all your beliefs facts? Can you give me something tangible to work with here?

Chief - are you really straining so hard at gnats? You are trying really hard to present my position as something that it is not. You have taken this beyond a rational discussion and are about to sink knee-deep in a shit-load of logical fallacies.

Anybody else here can clearly see that I'm not as dogmatic as you would like to paint me. To even the most unschooled observer there is no "question".

This discussion is now pointless. You keep perseverating on the same issues over and over without even realizing that the conversation ended long ago. You are living too much in your own mind, in my opinion.

[chiefman31]

Of course, QSSN only works if I put out the effort. God doesn't do it for me. That's why I didn't include the habit of prayer in the three things above.[/color]

This right here is probably the most telling part of your whole post. Why can't you extend this line of thought just a little further....

No, Chief, YOU go ahead and extend it to where you think it needs to go. Are you trying to bend my words and use them against me or show how my thoughts contradict what you suppose I stand for or how you've stereotyped me? Quit playing the games, they are tiring.

And if you are not playing a game, please get to the point. If you've got a "aha, gotcha" moment, then please, don't keep me in suspense.

None of the above, Saint. That would be projecting.

I don't know every single thought you have ever had. Therefore, I'm not going to tell you where I think your thought should go.

And I'm NOT going to tell you that you have not put enough thought into being a Christian, either.

Then you delight in speaking in riddles. I don't understand the purpose of your "telling" post. Something was "telling" YOU something. Simple question, what was it telling you?

(IMG:http://forum.qssn.org/style_emoticons/default/twitch.gif)

I have a theory. Most people (probably all people at some point in their lives) like to project their contradictions on either A) Someone else or (IMG:http://forum.qssn.org/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) Something else, instead of introspectively coming to conclusions. I think it makes it easier for most people to deal with there own shit.

Once we come to the realization that contradictions are alive and well in the form of paradoxes, and no supernatural being is needed for the explanation or potential solution, the world takes on a whole different view.

I can honestly say that I live with beliefs that are in contradiction with each other. And I also realize that contradiction is in part being human (no supernatural explanation needed). If there is a god, I view it as something to shoot or strive (idealism) for (a goal) but I also give myself compassion and understanding for falling short (I am not a god). God as a place holder or gap filler, is probably the most logical form a god can take. But that doesn't mean that one exists.

I can also honestly say that I don't know all the answers, and I can also say that I don't tell people that I have the absolute truth wrapped up in a little bottle and ask them to partake in such a journey.

Anyone who is in recovery from addiction, who has had a major paradigm shift in their life knows the truth of the paradoxes of life, projecting and contradiction in beliefs and actions - that is not a theory. But that is different than what your theory is proposing.
All wrapped up in your theory are assumptions that you are binding on Theists, including myself. Your theory is very poorly supported - I would call it a "hunch" more than anything - a hunch based on a total misunderstanding of what Christianity teaches.

You are dismissing something you don't understand and don't care to understand. Instead, you are so busy looking for rational cracks in the teachings of Christianity, then you seize upon one that you think might bear fruit in your favor (example: the "telling" post). Then pointing to YOUR "honesty" (making us theists not-as-honest, or just not up to being as honest with our current beliefs??). And implying (the implication is clear) that we claim to have contained the absolute truth in a bottle and that YOU, of course, would never try to persuade anyone to follow you in a god-less journey. YOU don't try to persuade people in that way. Not you. You are above that.

That, to me, is arrogance. and a crock of shit.

Your theories are opinion. Which you are entitled to. Hope it works for ya.

As a reminder: the subject matter was prayer.

Yep, I can honestly say that some of my theories are opinions, and I can say that some of my beliefs are based on varying degree of opinion and fact. I guess the question is, can your beliefs be held in the same regard? Can you accept the possibility that your beliefs are varying degrees of facts and opinions passed down from generation to generation? Or in your eyes, are all your beliefs facts? Can you give me something tangible to work with here?

This post has been edited by chiefman31: Aug 31 2010, 06:07 PM

[chiefman31]

Of course, QSSN only works if I put out the effort. God doesn't do it for me. That's why I didn't include the habit of prayer in the three things above.[/color]

This right here is probably the most telling part of your whole post. Why can't you extend this line of thought just a little further....

No, Chief, YOU go ahead and extend it to where you think it needs to go. Are you trying to bend my words and use them against me or show how my thoughts contradict what you suppose I stand for or how you've stereotyped me? Quit playing the games, they are tiring.

And if you are not playing a game, please get to the point. If you've got a "aha, gotcha" moment, then please, don't keep me in suspense.

None of the above, Saint. That would be projecting.

I don't know every single thought you have ever had. Therefore, I'm not going to tell you where I think your thought should go.

And I'm NOT going to tell you that you have not put enough thought into being a Christian, either.

Then you delight in speaking in riddles. I don't understand the purpose of your "telling" post. Something was "telling" YOU something. Simple question, what was it telling you?

(IMG:http://forum.qssn.org/style_emoticons/default/twitch.gif)

I have a theory. Most people (probably all people at some point in their lives) like to project their contradictions on either A) Someone else or (IMG:http://forum.qssn.org/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) Something else, instead of introspectively coming to conclusions. I think it makes it easier for most people to deal with there own shit.

Once we come to the realization that contradictions are alive and well in the form of paradoxes, and no supernatural being is needed for the explanation or potential solution, the world takes on a whole different view.

I can honestly say that I live with beliefs that are in contradiction with each other. And I also realize that contradiction is in part being human (no supernatural explanation needed). If there is a god, I view it as something to shoot or strive (idealism) for (a goal) but I also give myself compassion and understanding for falling short (I am not a god). God as a place holder or gap filler, is probably the most logical form a god can take. But that doesn't mean that one exists.

I can also honestly say that I don't know all the answers, and I can also say that I don't tell people that I have the absolute truth wrapped up in a little bottle and ask them to partake in such a journey.

Anyone who is in recovery from addiction, who has had a major paradigm shift in their life knows the truth of the paradoxes of life, projecting and contradiction in beliefs and actions - that is not a theory. But that is different than what your theory is proposing.
All wrapped up in your theory are assumptions that you are binding on Theists, including myself. Your theory is very poorly supported - I would call it a "hunch" more than anything - a hunch based on a total misunderstanding of what Christianity teaches.

You are dismissing something you don't understand and don't care to understand. Instead, you are so busy looking for rational cracks in the teachings of Christianity, then you seize upon one that you think might bear fruit in your favor (example: the "telling" post). Then pointing to YOUR "honesty" (making us theists not-as-honest, or just not up to being as honest with our current beliefs??). And implying (the implication is clear) that we claim to have contained the absolute truth in a bottle and that YOU, of course, would never try to persuade anyone to follow you in a god-less journey. YOU don't try to persuade people in that way. Not you. You are above that.

That, to me, is arrogance. and a crock of shit.

Your theories are opinion. Which you are entitled to. Hope it works for ya.

As a reminder: the subject matter was prayer.

So you understand something that is supernatural in nature? And if you do, can you please explain to the rest of us how you know it's supernatural?

And around and around we go in circles. Look up the definition of "super", Chief, then consider if your question is logical...

I'll leave you with one thing to consider:
We all agree that there is such a thing as the sub-conscious mind
We all know there is the conscious mind
To be logically consistent, we would have to posit that there is such a thing as the super-conscious mind.

That would be rational, no?

over an out

So what you are saying is that it's completely rational to think that something that can't be defined or quantified, absolutely exists? BTW, what in your mind would qualify as showing your position to be falsified? If the answer is absolutely nothing, then I believe we have hit a dogmatic principle, no?

[Saint of Drippin...]

Of course, QSSN only works if I put out the effort. God doesn't do it for me. That's why I didn't include the habit of prayer in the three things above.[/color]

This right here is probably the most telling part of your whole post. Why can't you extend this line of thought just a little further....

No, Chief, YOU go ahead and extend it to where you think it needs to go. Are you trying to bend my words and use them against me or show how my thoughts contradict what you suppose I stand for or how you've stereotyped me? Quit playing the games, they are tiring.

And if you are not playing a game, please get to the point. If you've got a "aha, gotcha" moment, then please, don't keep me in suspense.

None of the above, Saint. That would be projecting.

I don't know every single thought you have ever had. Therefore, I'm not going to tell you where I think your thought should go.

And I'm NOT going to tell you that you have not put enough thought into being a Christian, either.

Then you delight in speaking in riddles. I don't understand the purpose of your "telling" post. Something was "telling" YOU something. Simple question, what was it telling you?

(IMG:http://forum.qssn.org/style_emoticons/default/twitch.gif)

I have a theory. Most people (probably all people at some point in their lives) like to project their contradictions on either A) Someone else or (IMG:http://forum.qssn.org/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) Something else, instead of introspectively coming to conclusions. I think it makes it easier for most people to deal with there own shit.

Once we come to the realization that contradictions are alive and well in the form of paradoxes, and no supernatural being is needed for the explanation or potential solution, the world takes on a whole different view.

I can honestly say that I live with beliefs that are in contradiction with each other. And I also realize that contradiction is in part being human (no supernatural explanation needed). If there is a god, I view it as something to shoot or strive (idealism) for (a goal) but I also give myself compassion and understanding for falling short (I am not a god). God as a place holder or gap filler, is probably the most logical form a god can take. But that doesn't mean that one exists.

I can also honestly say that I don't know all the answers, and I can also say that I don't tell people that I have the absolute truth wrapped up in a little bottle and ask them to partake in such a journey.

Anyone who is in recovery from addiction, who has had a major paradigm shift in their life knows the truth of the paradoxes of life, projecting and contradiction in beliefs and actions - that is not a theory. But that is different than what your theory is proposing.
All wrapped up in your theory are assumptions that you are binding on Theists, including myself. Your theory is very poorly supported - I would call it a "hunch" more than anything - a hunch based on a total misunderstanding of what Christianity teaches.

You are dismissing something you don't understand and don't care to understand. Instead, you are so busy looking for rational cracks in the teachings of Christianity, then you seize upon one that you think might bear fruit in your favor (example: the "telling" post). Then pointing to YOUR "honesty" (making us theists not-as-honest, or just not up to being as honest with our current beliefs??). And implying (the implication is clear) that we claim to have contained the absolute truth in a bottle and that YOU, of course, would never try to persuade anyone to follow you in a god-less journey. YOU don't try to persuade people in that way. Not you. You are above that.

That, to me, is arrogance. and a crock of shit.

Your theories are opinion. Which you are entitled to. Hope it works for ya.

As a reminder: the subject matter was prayer.

So you understand something that is supernatural in nature? And if you do, can you please explain to the rest of us how you know it's supernatural?

And around and around we go in circles. Look up the definition of "super", Chief, then consider if your question is logical...

I'll leave you with one thing to consider:
We all agree that there is such a thing as the sub-conscious mind
We all know there is the conscious mind
To be logically consistent, we would have to posit that there is such a thing as the super-conscious mind.

That would be rational, no?

over an out

[Ohioman1972]

Guess I was just way off. I saw hints of an attempt to proselytize...

Ummmm, did you not read my last sentence?

I was referring to the last sentence...

Of course, QSSN only works if I put out the effort. God doesn't do it for me. That's why I didn't include the habit of prayer in the three things above.

This right here is probably the most telling part of your whole post. Why can't you extend this line of thought just a little further....

Emphasis mine

That wasn't my last sentence when I posted that post. Sorry for the misunderstanding, if there was one.......

Ok.... but to be fair, at 12:01pm eastern time, that was your full post.
Not that there are any major breakthroughs with that knowledge!

On a lighter note, the Reds are up 6 games in the NL Central.
Oh wait, I have to report that to myself for being off topic...

[chiefman31]

Guess I was just way off. I saw hints of an attempt to proselytize...

Ummmm, did you not read my last sentence?

I was referring to the last sentence...

Of course, QSSN only works if I put out the effort. God doesn't do it for me. That's why I didn't include the habit of prayer in the three things above.

This right here is probably the most telling part of your whole post. Why can't you extend this line of thought just a little further....

Emphasis mine

That wasn't my last sentence when I posted that post. Sorry for the misunderstanding, if there was one.......