These advances in physical accomplishments have evolved from man's increasing grasp of science, the very principles of which you are presently shitting upon.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Atheism is a or is a product of mental illness...
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
Quote from Thunderdog:
These advances in physical accomplishments have evolved from man's increasing grasp of science, the very principles of which you are presently shitting upon.
no, the dream comes first...then science creates it-- the dream does not come from science...rather science from the dream.
your missing the point tdog. science and philosophy/religion are two different thought processes. the tools of science have a purpose as does the religious experience.
the design implicity reveals a creator. can man know this creator? that is the correct question.
if your seriously interested, and not just a curmudgeon, read "techgnosis" by erik davis for an excellent exegisis on science, tech, magic and religion--- how it all fits together to make the whole through the ages.
surf
Man has a deeper understanding of the physical mechanics of the physical world, but he has no better understanding of why...
In fact, man is probably further away from the why than he has ever been collectively...
In fact, man is probably further away from the why than he has ever been collectively...
Quote from Thunderdog:
These advances in physical accomplishments have evolved from man's increasing grasp of science, the very principles of which you are presently shitting upon.
And yet here you are, mixing the two together. Read Dawkins's The God Delusion and then get back to me. Disagree with him if you like, but at least understand the weakness of your arguments so that you may better bolster them in subsequent posts. This circular nonsense is giving me vertigo.Quote from marketsurfer:
...your missing the point tdog. science and philosophy/religion are two different thought processes...
See, you are doing it again...
"Read so and so, watch so and so..."
If you can't counter the argument effectively on your own, you don't own your own position...
"Read so and so, watch so and so..."
If you can't counter the argument effectively on your own, you don't own your own position...
Quote from Thunderdog:
And here you are, mixing the two together. Read Dawkins's The God Delusion and then get back to me. Disagree with him if you like, but at least understand the weakness of your arguments so that you may better bolster them in subsequent posts. This circular nonsense is giving me vertigo.
To address it properly, I would have to devote far more time than I have done already. For example, if you chose to disbelieve algebra, I would perhaps present a few equations and try to show you how it can apply in real life. However, if you chose to remain obtuse about it, I would be disinclined to become your tutor and teach you the course. I would direct you to suitable resource material that you could review and then decide for yourself. If you were to read the algebra text, then we could at least discuss some of the finer points. However, until then, we are just circling the introductory chapter. Further, if you feel you already know all there is to know and that it ends at arithmetic, then why would I add to the sunk cost of my already wasted time?Quote from OPTIONAL777:
See, you are doing it again...
"Read so and so, watch so and so..."
If you can't counter the argument effectively on your own, you don't own your own position...
I am not being obtuse at all.
I am being direct.
You can't counter the argument.
Step back and think about it for a moment.
Say person A makes some argument. Person B says "Read John 3:16 in the Bible and then get back to me" in their response. Person C says "Read Richard Dawkins and then get back to me" in their response.
Both B and C are implementing an appeal to authority fallacy.
If you don't agree with some argument, then counter it on your own.
Show others how they are wrong in their thinking, don't just pass it off to some appeal to the authority which you happen to subscribe to...
I am being direct.
You can't counter the argument.
Step back and think about it for a moment.
Say person A makes some argument. Person B says "Read John 3:16 in the Bible and then get back to me" in their response. Person C says "Read Richard Dawkins and then get back to me" in their response.
Both B and C are implementing an appeal to authority fallacy.
If you don't agree with some argument, then counter it on your own.
Show others how they are wrong in their thinking, don't just pass it off to some appeal to the authority which you happen to subscribe to...
Quote from Thunderdog:
To address it properly, I would have to devote far more time than I have done already. For example, if you chose to disbelieve algebra, I would perhaps present a few equations and try to show you how it can apply in real life. However, if you chose to remain obtuse about it, I would be disinclined to become your tutor and teach you the course. I would direct you to suitable resource material that you could review and then decide for yourself. If you were to read the algebra text, then we could at least discuss some of the finer points. However, until then, we are just circling the introductory chapter. Further, if you feel you already know all there is to know and that it ends at arithmetic, then why would I add to the sunk cost of my already wasted time?
Over the years, I have done so repeatedly. It gets old.Quote from OPTIONAL777:
...If you don't agree with some argument, then counter it on your own...
As for reading the bible, it largely requires the suspension of critical thinking. Beyond a temporary "feel good," I don't see the value in this process, and I don't see how it can advance any argument on the basis of merit.
It gets old because you don't own it and it is not ever new in your own mind.
I have no problem with you elevating Richard Dawkins to "Master Dawkins" and that you make him your guru...
No problem at all, just like I have no problem with those who have made Jesus their Master.
I am a staunch critic of the right wing Christians in America, not because of what their Master Jesus said, but because they don't follow what their master said.
If you are following someone who is a Master of reason (in your mind) then show your own mastery of reason and counter the arguments on your own.
If you can't do that, then you are just another true believer parroting someone else...
I have no problem with you elevating Richard Dawkins to "Master Dawkins" and that you make him your guru...
No problem at all, just like I have no problem with those who have made Jesus their Master.
I am a staunch critic of the right wing Christians in America, not because of what their Master Jesus said, but because they don't follow what their master said.
If you are following someone who is a Master of reason (in your mind) then show your own mastery of reason and counter the arguments on your own.
If you can't do that, then you are just another true believer parroting someone else...
Quote from Thunderdog:
Over the years, I have done so repeatedly. It gets old.