god told me to post this here

Once again you have to resort to fallacious argumentation.

Did you read the next line, or are you taking things
out of context on purpose???

Here it is again:

"Listen closely, so you will get it this time:
THIS IS NOT THE CASE

Its an inconsistent system. I have proven this beyond doubt.
You have FAILED to justify it.
"



In the first sentence I STATE that it is NOT the case
that the reason I reject reason is because it failed me.
You can take that at face value or call me a liar.
The VERY NEXT SENTENCE, I provide THE reason, as I did before,
why I rejected it. *** BECAUSE ITS AN INCONSISTENT SYSTEM ***.

I have already explained this SEVERAL times, so it astounds me
that you would think that my statement that this is not the
case is my only reason. You either cant read, or choose
NOT to listen to my reasoning even though I stated this
clearly several times already.

The smiley face was not my argument. You chose to ignore
my argument and quote me out of context instead.


peace

axeman


Quote from ARogueTrader:



Oh, if I say THIS IS NOT THE CASE followed by a smiley face, this makes it so.

Interesting school of thought.
More...
 
Yet another flawed argument based on the assumption
that god already exists.

Your using gods attributes to support his existence, yet
you have not first proven this god exists.

And yet... your analogies still fall apart.

A child, of lower intelligence, can easily detect the existence
of someone with higher intelligence.

A dog, with lower intelligence, can easily detect his masters existence.

Yet your god is completely undetectable externally from your
mind as a stand alone entity, by science.

He can not be verified by science or any rational means,
just like Sagans dragon.


Claiming that my 3 headed unicorn is FAR BEYOND any human
intelligence, thereby making him impossible to grasp, does NOT
lend any credibility to the mystical creature.

You have provided us with ZERO rational reason to believe
that your fairy tale of a god truly exists other than
circular arguments which first ASSUME his existence and
ridiculous notions that faith is a tool of discovering truth, which
directly contradicts the reality of its inconsistent contradictory nature.

peace

axeman


Quote from ARogueTrader:

Part of man's folly is as follows.

Man can intellectually postulate that there may be an intelligence higher than his own. Man knows he is limited in intelligence, very limited, yet he can imagine something greater, something even greater, and finally something which is greatest.

He may not believe this, and may be holding out for proof, but the proof needs to be something he can understand.

If the intelligence is higher, how could he understand? How could you speak to someone who was convinced his limited mind and understanding were wrong, unless that person was willing to admit to this?

The atheists demand that a higher intelligence, if that intelligence exists must necessarily conform to a lower standard than the higher intelligence.

If God did appear before man, and jumped through all the hoops, the man would say, you are not God, but simply a man. God could say, "but my world is different than your world, it is the opposite of your world, so you can't understand with your limited mind as there is nothing in this world to create a point of reference, but to say that my world is the exact opposite of this world. So, intellectually, it is impossible for you to understand.....However, I can show you if you trust me, if you follow me."

Now, when we talk of God, we are talking about the supreme intelligence, above which there is no higher intelligence. Conceptually, an intelligence that was able to create the entire universe. How many men have the degree of intelligence to do that? Hardly anyone can catch a fly with their bare hands.

So, if you can get the atheist to accept for the sake of argument that such an intelligence and a personality in which that intelligence resided did in fact exist, ask they how they would know that to be true?

They then drag out their limited knowledge and hoops and place them in front of you and demand that the higher intelligence must meet those terms. Why must they meet his terms? Because that is the limit of his understanding.

The atheist would demand that a higher intelligence step down to his level so that he can understand, so that he can be convinced according to his level of understanding, so that he can trust.

He even believes that a higher intelligence would necessarily be able to convince him according to his standards, but this conclusion is circular as the conclusion is based on his own limited understanding.

Try going to someone who is smarter than you and demand that they prove something they that they know, something that you don't know, and demand that it must be done according to your level of understanding, tell the higher intelligence that you are unwilling to follow any instruction to increase your existing intelligence in order to gain understanding, that you are not willing to change your fixed point of view. Not ask mind you, but demand belligerently that they must meet your needs of proof.

This is the mind of a child, who places intellectual demands on a higher intelligence in order to evolve from their current level of understanding.

Another term for it is stubbornness, or vanity, or ego.

Learning begins when some admits they don't know, that they need help to know, and they are willing to take the necessary steps to gain that knowledge.

If people are happy with their limited intelligence, that is their choice. Others seek more, as they have been honest enough with themselves to admit they don't know it all.
More...
 
Quote from Doubter:

Axeman - did you say that your trading systems were 100% accurate based on logic and reason?

If so are they for sale and guaranteed?

Do you only pull the trigger when you are 100% logically sure your 100% accurate systems are 100% accurate.
More...

I know I'm unable to debate at axeman's level of skill, but I can field this one:

Let's say I offer you the following game: You roll a six sided die. if numbers 1,2,3, or 4 come up you win a dollar. If the die shows 5 or 6 you lose a dollar. While you are not 100% guaranteed to win in the long run, elementary comprehention of simple odds makes this an obvious 'good bet'. You don't need any sort of mystic faith to understand that the odds are in your favor, just basic grade school math.
_____
By the way, Rouge when you say axe 'failed' at faith, that's like saying he 'failed' to believe that rubbing a rabbit's foot gives him luck, or he 'failed' to believe that breaking a mirror causes seven years of bad luck. I hope I FAIL at all such superstitions...
 
Quote from axeman:

Once again you have to resort to fallacious argumentation.

Did you read the next line, or are you taking things
out of context on purpose???

Here it is again:

"Listen closely, so you will get it this time:
THIS IS NOT THE CASE

Its an inconsistent system. I have proven this beyond doubt.
You have FAILED to justify it.
"



In the first sentence I STATE that it is NOT the case
that the reason I reject reason is because it failed me.
You can take that at face value or call me a liar.
The VERY NEXT SENTENCE, I provide THE reason, as I did before,
why I rejected it. *** BECAUSE ITS AN INCONSISTENT SYSTEM ***.

I have already explained this SEVERAL times, so it astounds me
that you would think that my statement that this is not the
case is my only reason. You either cant read, or choose
NOT to listen to my reasoning even though I stated this
clearly several times already.

The smiley face was not my argument. You chose to ignore
my argument and quote me out of context instead.


peace

axeman
More...

It is not an inconsistent system, it is inconsistently applied.
 
Quote from Rearden Metal:



I know I'm unable to debate at axeman's level of skill, but I can field this one:

Let's say I offer you the following game: You roll a six sided die. if numbers 1,2,3, or 4 come up you win a dollar. If the die shows 5 or 6 you lose a dollar. While you are not 100% guaranteed to win in the long run, elementary comprehention of simple odds makes this an obvious 'good bet'. You don't need any sort of mystic faith to understand that the odds are in your favor, just basic grade school math.
_____
By the way, Rouge when you say axe 'failed' at faith, that's like saying he 'failed' to believe that rubbing a rabbit's foot gives him luck, or he 'failed' to believe that breaking a mirror causes seven years of bad luck. I hope I FAIL at all such superstitions...
More...

If in fact it were true that faith were the means to know God, and the definition of that faith would be zero doubt, then the proof or disproof of this would be in application of zero doubt.

I contend that axe did not have zero doubt. He made an adult, conscious choice to accept his intellectual doubt as true, rather than to reject the doubt and trust in God.

He did not practice faith consistently, as when he had doubt, he decided to trust that doubt rather than trust in God.

If you say that doubt is the ground state, and that we should start from doubt first, then only accept that which is proven, my question is how would you decide what criteria to use to evaluate a proof? Logic and reason? Accepting that without some external objective proof is irrational. We constantly refer to logic, but it is just a system of rules based on limited perceptions and limited intellect. We conclude what is real on the basis of our human experience, yet we have no check on that conclusion. It is human opinion what is truth, until such time that man himself is beyond internal inconsistencies. People try to act as if they are fully rational, and we all know that is false and untrue. They attempt to create some comfort in an intellectual philosophy, but the reality is that they are not Vulcan, and are as much heart as mind. Shutting off the heart just makes people bitter, which we have seen from the atheists.

People select an intellectual and sensory perceptual critera that God must conform to....but on what basis? They refuse to doubt that they have made an incorrect decision on what criteria should be applied to God.

I would never suggest that one not apply reason, common sense, physical perception, etc. to that which is of a material nature. But God, by definition is not material. You need to apply the right tool for the right job, and as much as faith is the wrong tool for understanding this world, intellectualism is the wrong tool for understanding that which is not material in nature.

Mankind has the ability to practice faith, it is part of our nature, as much as sense of humor, understanding of love, wonder, etc. are part of our nature.

It is a personal choice.
 
Quote from LongShot:




you are an idiot :-|
More...

How clever. I assume by calling me an idiot, you are placing yourself in a position of not being an idiot, but what was the logic of your statement?

You apparently have some need to try to minimize me in order to elevate yourself. Apparently you need some sense of elevation.

Psychologists have terms for that, such as low self esteem, narcissism, etc.
 
"I know I'm unable to debate at axeman's level of skill, but I can field this one"


Study your objectivism to a greater depth, and you will
easily do so :)


Your analysis is precisely right.


peace

axeman
 
It certainly IS an inconsistent system.

You have completely FAILED to explain why EVERYONE
else in the world who faiths any contradictory knowledge
to the knowledge you have faithed is WRONG.

It just doesn't get any more inconsistent than this.

Person A, through faith, concludes that his god is the one
and only god, and NOT the god that person B worships.

Person B, through faith, concludes that HIS god is the one
and only god, and NOT the god that person A worships.

Expand this to millions of people faithing all kinds of things
which contradict what millions of other people have
"faithed" and what do we have?

A big huge mystical mess where it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine
who is correct, and who inconsistently used faith.

You have no way of determining when someone faithed
inconsistently or not.

You CLAIM that I used faith inconsistently, but you have NO
authority to do so. I can just as easily CLAIM that my faith
was correct and YOURS was wrong BECAUSE you found god.

Its all just silly. Through faith, I can believe whatever the hell
I want, and that is precisely why it must be wrong.

I think just about anyone can see this huge glaring inconsistent
hole in your assertion that faith can produce any knowledge about anything.

You certainly have not proven that faith is consistent by any means.

My FAITH tells me that you are using YOUR faith inconsistently. LOL :D
See how absurd it is?

peace

axeman




Quote from ARogueTrader:



It is not an inconsistent system, it is inconsistently applied.
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

It certainly IS an inconsistent system.

You have completely FAILED to explain why EVERYONE
else in the world who faiths any contradictory knowledge
to the knowledge you have faithed is WRONG.

It just doesn't get any more inconsistent than this.

Person A, through faith, concludes that his god is the one
and only god, and NOT the god that person B worships.

Person B, through faith, concludes that HIS god is the one
and only god, and NOT the god that person A worships.

Expand this to millions of people faithing all kinds of things
which contradict what millions of other people have
"faithed" and what do we have?

A big huge mystical mess where it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine
who is correct, and who inconsistently used faith.

You have no way of determining when someone faithed
inconsistently or not.

You CLAIM that I used faith inconsistently, but you have NO
authority to do so. I can just as easily CLAIM that my faith
was correct and YOURS was wrong BECAUSE you found god.

Its all just silly. Through faith, I can believe whatever the hell
I want, and that is precisely why it must be wrong.

I think just about anyone can see this huge glaring inconsistent
hole in your assertion that faith can produce any knowledge about anything.

You certainly have not proven that faith is consistent by any means.

My FAITH tells me that you are using YOUR faith inconsistently. LOL :D
See how absurd it is?

peace

axeman
More...

So you see contradictory systems, I see men who practice contradictions.

Here is the flaw in your thinking.

You have the concept of faith as only a mental process, that doesn't achieve an experience that is true.

My concept of faith is that faith is a path to the truth. When faith in that which is true is 100% then truth becomes reality.

If you can understand the concept of supreme, they you can understand the concept of nothing greater.

If two people worship their own God who is in fact supreme, even though they may think they are worshiping a different God than that of another religion, they are in essence worshiping the same supreme God.

As mentioned before, the same supreme God has an infinite number of forms at His disposal, in the same way that at a great actor has a multitude of personalities at his disposal. The actor appears differently, but is always the same actor underneath.

God, the supreme may appear differently to different people, and those who have not achieved Him via perfect faith continue to view life from a limited and relativistic perspective. Those who have achieved unity with God the supreme, they see the same God appearing in different forms.

Just as one who knows who Robert De Niro is sees Robert De Niro appearing differently in films, someone who did not know Robert De Niro and saw a single movie would think the actor Robert De Niro really is the Godfather, or a casino manager, or a gangster, etc.

There is but one supreme God, and anyone who worships God who is supreme comes to know God in whatever form the worshiper chooses to know him.

That is why some worship an angry form of God, and some worship a loving form of God, but if they worship the angry form of supreme God where someone else worships the loving form of supreme God, God is the same in both cases. God does not change, he just appear differently in different situations. In the same way H2O remains the same as it sometime appears as a solid, sometimes a liquid, sometimes as a gas. In every case, it is still H20.

There is no inconsistency from God's perspective, nor is their inconsistency when you use your intelligence and imagination to imagine that particular point of view.

You have not proven faith is inconsistent, as you have not proven men are consistent in the practice of faith. If you could prove that men are consistent in the practice of faith, then and only then could you conclude that faith in itself is inconsistent if it yields inconsistent results.

We all know human beings are wildly inconsistent when it comes to their choices of faith, but this has nothing to do with faith, it has to do with confused intellectualism.

Right tool, right job, used rightly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top