LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksthe claim of god needs to be resolved.Originally Posted by Daggdag
ignorance of this magnitude has to be resolved.
your resolve of nothing needs to be resolved is one thing that needs to be resolved.
polscie.
the claim of god needs to be resolved.
ignorance of this magnitude has to be resolved.
your resolve of nothing needs to be resolved is one thing that needs to be resolved.
polscie.
Correspondent
How to "resolve" ignorance? Not by killings again, I hope.
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.
Last edited by kowalskil; Jan 13 2012 at 05:49 AM.
Ludwik Kowalski, the author of a FREE ON_LINE book,
“Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.” The link is:
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html
This autobiography illustrates my evolution from one extreme to another--from a devoted Stalinist to an active anti-communist. This testimony is based on a diary I kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).
Banned
Contributor
I disagree. Religion is more than just 'faith', it is also a fundamental set of traditions and practices many of which are harmful and immoral.
Studies in Neuroscience and Psychology have come along way towards explaining how the human mind works and how it drives human behavior. There's still so much more to learn, and it's not very far away.
The belief in God without evidence is what I would call imagination. And imagination is part of the physical human mind so it is by no means outside the realm of science. Living braincells are difficult to study, for obvious reasons, it is by no means impossible.
Can't disagree with that.
If the existence of God relies 'completely' on what each person believes then you can simply believe God out of existence, no evidence is necessary. But if there is indeed good evidence that God existed then you couldn't just believe it out of existence, but rather you would have to evaluate that evidence on it's own merit. But all religions have explicit language and instructions on how to handle that; words like heresy, apostasy, blasphemy, infidel, etc.
Guru
You were doing good in expressing an opinion until you reached that point highlighted in red. At that point, you turned your opinion into a notice of uncertainty regarding the very opinion that you were expressing.I disagree. Religion is more than just 'faith', it is also a fundamental set of traditions and practices many of which are harmful and immoral.
Studies in Neuroscience and Psychology have come along way towards explaining how the human mind works and how it drives human behavior. There's still so much more to learn, and it's not very far away.
The belief in God without evidence is what I would call imagination. And imagination is part of the physical human mind so it is by no means outside the realm of science. Living braincells are difficult to study, for obvious reasons, it is by no means impossible.
Can't disagree with that.
If the existence of God relies 'completely' on what each person believes then you can simply believe God out of existence, no evidence is necessary. But if there is indeed good evidence that God existed then you couldn't just believe it out of existence, but rather you would have to evaluate that evidence on it's own merit. But all religions have explicit language and instructions on how to handle that; words like heresy, apostasy, blasphemy, infidel, etc.
"THOUGHT. The operation of the mind. No one can be punished for his mere thoughts however wicked they may be. Human laws cannot reach them, first, because they are unknown; and, secondly, unless made manifest by some action, they are not injurious to any one; but when they manifest themselves, then the act, which is the consequence, may be punished. Dig. 50 16, 225."
IF you continue to equivocate by using conditional statements in a post to sow doubt about the poster's certainty of an issue THEN you will only have found yet another way to flaunt the transductive reasoning of a preoperational child.
PS. Please note that this is not an uncertainty but a conditional statement.
Last edited by FreeWare; Feb 14 2012 at 04:17 AM.
”Gutta cavat lapidem non vi, sed saepe cadendo”
Guru
Really.. the ole "if", "then", "else" ploy. How sweet. You forgot to include the "else' portion of the conditional statement.
As for the "transductive reasoning of a preoperational child"..... Wow, are you way off base. See here:
https://www.msu.edu/~compeaua/piagettheory.html
Now aside from the unprovable context of what the theory suggests, there is also the problem of your claim being a 'theory'. Have you prepared yourself with sufficient data to prove the theory? If you have, then you can make a name for yourself, else you will need to keep on fishing for more information.
(Notice in the last sentence above, the correct usage and structure of the 'if', 'then', 'else' conditional statement.) Now what do you suppose will happen when your conditional statement is proven to be false? You have opted to presuppose the conditional statement to be 'true'.
"THOUGHT. The operation of the mind. No one can be punished for his mere thoughts however wicked they may be. Human laws cannot reach them, first, because they are unknown; and, secondly, unless made manifest by some action, they are not injurious to any one; but when they manifest themselves, then the act, which is the consequence, may be punished. Dig. 50 16, 225."
Banned
Contributor
I was accepting the premise that I was responding to, and giving my example of why it was not a good premise.
Also, uncertainty should be the default position until all arguments are evaluated and understood.
Last edited by YukonBloamie; Feb 14 2012 at 10:55 AM. Reason: add
Guru
Then my apologies for what might have been received as a harsh comment on my part; however, I must also note that my comment was a mere observation regarding your choice of words. No harm intended from my side of the fence. Note also, that along with the evaluation which you speak about, there should (idealistically speaking) also be resolution in regard to the arguments.
We are not at odds on what you initially stated.
"THOUGHT. The operation of the mind. No one can be punished for his mere thoughts however wicked they may be. Human laws cannot reach them, first, because they are unknown; and, secondly, unless made manifest by some action, they are not injurious to any one; but when they manifest themselves, then the act, which is the consequence, may be punished. Dig. 50 16, 225."
Sr. Correspondent
What do you mean by "evidence doesn't have to be logical"? Are you talking about the nature of the evidence or the reasoning used to interpret it?
I have the body of an 18 year old. I keep it in the fridge.
spike milligan
Sr. Correspondent
Can you give an example of an unexplained, illogical phenomena?
I have the body of an 18 year old. I keep it in the fridge.
spike milligan
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks