unreason? that's what's your putting before intellect. since when has unreason ever been a reliable device for discovery
Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
unreason? that's what's your putting before intellect. since when has unreason ever been a reliable device for discovery
Given that you can't reason on your own, and perpetually have stujism all over your mouth...it is contradictory that you have such faith in reason...or perhaps more accurately, faith in stujism.
See, you do practice faith, faith in stujism.
Reason cannot itself be the validation of reason...which is of course a product of reason, which illustrates the nature of the basic contradictory nature of reason when it is used to look at itself.
The greatest reasoning process is one which examines itself...and fully understands its own limitations...and if one is happy with those limitations, that is fine. Stujism on your lips makes you smile...fine by me.
If someone seeks something more, they seek it.
It is not for me to decide what is right for another...and anyone who is doing so, is not practicing reason. Golden rule.
You have your faith in stujism, I have my faith in something else...
See, you do practice faith, faith in stujism.
Reason cannot itself be the validation of reason...which is of course a product of reason, which illustrates the nature of the basic contradictory nature of reason when it is used to look at itself.
The greatest reasoning process is one which examines itself...and fully understands its own limitations...and if one is happy with those limitations, that is fine. Stujism on your lips makes you smile...fine by me.
If someone seeks something more, they seek it.
It is not for me to decide what is right for another...and anyone who is doing so, is not practicing reason. Golden rule.
You have your faith in stujism, I have my faith in something else...
Quote from killthesunshine:
unreason? that's what's your putting before intellect. since when has unreason ever been a reliable device for discovery
the UTILITY of reason has been proven time and time again a wonderful reliable tool when the rubber meets the road. "it's not what you "know" it's what you can prove.
your fanciful beliefs (your neighbor's , Lord K-Y's delusions etc) are unreliable and untrustworthy, that TOO has been proven time and time again in human history. if you claim otherwise, assert the "god-thingy" PROVE IT with an evidence -based argument. Begin with known FACT, and prove it. This goes for your cronies Lord K-Y, jem, M&M's etc.
But just make sure you BEGIN with FACTUAL premises! because I (and stu) won't stand for anything less!
The UTILITY of a hammer has been proven time and time again to drive a nail.
Is a hammer the right tool to paint a painting?
I don't understand what your reason is actually to attack the beliefs of others.
I'm not attacking the beliefs of atheists...I wish they would be more intellectually honest and just admit to them, but I have not said their beliefs are wrong, or that mine are superior. Quite the contrary. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.
It is an unreasonable man who doesn't understand and accept the limits of his own reasoning, or grasp that it is not a tool that can be used to produce knowledge that actually establishes reality independent of the reason or the reasoning process.
Logical inconsistencies exist, that's a fact, but you know what?
Reason and logic can't explain precisely why they do exist...
Now that question may not matter to you, as to why logic and math, and physics all have inconsistencies and contradictions...but to some it is a most important question.
Is a hammer the right tool to paint a painting?
I don't understand what your reason is actually to attack the beliefs of others.
I'm not attacking the beliefs of atheists...I wish they would be more intellectually honest and just admit to them, but I have not said their beliefs are wrong, or that mine are superior. Quite the contrary. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.
It is an unreasonable man who doesn't understand and accept the limits of his own reasoning, or grasp that it is not a tool that can be used to produce knowledge that actually establishes reality independent of the reason or the reasoning process.
Logical inconsistencies exist, that's a fact, but you know what?
Reason and logic can't explain precisely why they do exist...
Now that question may not matter to you, as to why logic and math, and physics all have inconsistencies and contradictions...but to some it is a most important question.
I AM: therefore God exists.
Have fun disproving it.
Ok gents - enuf fucking around....
I apologize to Stu and KTS for any offense.
All I got left to say on this is:
I (personally) have NO FUCKIN' CLUE on whether A Supreme Being (not to be confused with The Supremes) exists.
But...I'll keep an open mind.......
You can keep your mind open or closed on the subject - it really doesn't affect anybody else.
(But like Janet Tavakoli said - not so open that your brains fall out).
I apologize to Stu and KTS for any offense.
All I got left to say on this is:
I (personally) have NO FUCKIN' CLUE on whether A Supreme Being (not to be confused with The Supremes) exists.
But...I'll keep an open mind.......
You can keep your mind open or closed on the subject - it really doesn't affect anybody else.
(But like Janet Tavakoli said - not so open that your brains fall out).
but thats the point... Stu and his sock puppets are not open minded.
stu will come back and misrepresent facts by saying thats like keeping an open mind about a teapot in orbit around jupiter.
and I will say, why don't chief troll and his sock puppets learn some science and realize there is evidence of design in the fact that science knows if there is only one universe it did not get to support life by chance.
Sorry, but there is no actual evidence of design.
The scientists will say it looks like design...because no reasonable person would say it doesn't look designed...but they can't "scientifically" make the leap to assert that there is evidence of design.
Which is odd, because they make the leap to "random" causes being a necessary factor in their evolutionary theory, when there is no scientific evidence of a random force at work...apart from a lack of a known ordered and planned cause...so they opt for ignorance, meaning they assume random without actual knowledge and/or fact of random causation.
So in one situation, they consider a lack of evidence proper evidence to assume random, and in other situations they demand evidence before they can assume design.
It is logically inconsistent...but what the heck, they are scientists and are not bound to logical consistency.
That's why I take the position that we assume neither, and just stick to what is actually worthy of the term "evidence" when we teach science to children in public schools. Let the kids learn theory when they are past the stage of indoctrination, said indoctrination which happens when children are in primary and secondary schools.
Let them learn about the theories, when the have a firm foundation of science first, and are able to properly question their teachers on the theories that are presented. If that was done, we wouldn't have generations who believe dogmatically (without evidence mind you) that humans evolved from lower species by random chance.
Genuine scientific evidence is one thing, the opinions of scientists is another, and they are not equivalents.
The scientists will say it looks like design...because no reasonable person would say it doesn't look designed...but they can't "scientifically" make the leap to assert that there is evidence of design.
Which is odd, because they make the leap to "random" causes being a necessary factor in their evolutionary theory, when there is no scientific evidence of a random force at work...apart from a lack of a known ordered and planned cause...so they opt for ignorance, meaning they assume random without actual knowledge and/or fact of random causation.
So in one situation, they consider a lack of evidence proper evidence to assume random, and in other situations they demand evidence before they can assume design.
It is logically inconsistent...but what the heck, they are scientists and are not bound to logical consistency.
That's why I take the position that we assume neither, and just stick to what is actually worthy of the term "evidence" when we teach science to children in public schools. Let the kids learn theory when they are past the stage of indoctrination, said indoctrination which happens when children are in primary and secondary schools.
Let them learn about the theories, when the have a firm foundation of science first, and are able to properly question their teachers on the theories that are presented. If that was done, we wouldn't have generations who believe dogmatically (without evidence mind you) that humans evolved from lower species by random chance.
Genuine scientific evidence is one thing, the opinions of scientists is another, and they are not equivalents.