| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Mr ProgFreak 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
 Posted: December 03 2009 at 15:19 |
 Negoba wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Negoba wrote:
No Mike you still don't get it. |
Enlighten me then.
|
Because scientific theory cannot address the subjective, you dismiss anything in that realm. Many traditional religions deal ONLY with the subjective.
They are like perpendicular axis, not opposing concepts.
You and I will never ever be able to know if we perceive the color red in the same way. That's a subjective reality, a perceptual reality. The wavelength that triggers us most "red" is something that has shared / objective qualities, and science can address.
If you negate the sum total of all subjective realities, you're missing a big part of the Universe. |
There's nothing "subjective" about evolution or natural selection. There is no need for persuasion, or for taking anyone's words for granted. You can examine all the evidence yourself and make up your own mind. Or you can let religious doctrine tell you that it can't be true, and science is an attempt to destroy your religion. If you think that is the case, better remember that the next time you play your electric guitar or use your computer.
|
 |
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 15:09 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Negoba wrote:
No Mike you still don't get it. |
Enlighten me then.
|
Because scientific theory cannot address the subjective, you dismiss anything in that realm. Many traditional religions deal ONLY with the subjective.
They are like perpendicular axis, not opposing concepts.
You and I will never ever be able to know if we perceive the color red in the same way. That's a subjective reality, a perceptual reality. The wavelength that triggers us most "red" is something that has shared / objective qualities, and science can address.
If you negate the sum total of all subjective realities, you're missing a big part of the Universe.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 15:03 |
KoS wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
yes, that's the key difference and is what all of us were talking to you pages ago... that you wanted proof and we don't.... we exactly the opposite... we don't want the proof... so... we agreed in one thing... |
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens.
|
Yes... that's his concept... and I don't need to be against him either...
BTW: love your avatar man...
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 15:00 |
jampa17 wrote:
yes, that's the key difference and is what all of us were talking to you pages ago... that you wanted proof and we don't.... we exactly the opposite... we don't want the proof... so... we agreed in one thing... |
Speak for yourself.
I must have evidence. Mike and others just won't be satisfied with the evidence I've been given, largely because it is historical and personal rather than "scientific."
(And, as I've mentioned, biblical faith (pisitis)- not even just biblical faith- but faith as ancient people...Greeks, Romans, Hebrews, etc...understood it is not "blind belief").
|
|
|
|
KoS
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 17 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Points: 16310
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 14:58 |
jampa17 wrote:
yes, that's the key difference and is what all of us were talking to you pages ago... that you wanted proof and we don't.... we exactly the opposite... we don't want the proof... so... we agreed in one thing... |
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 14:54 |
Negoba wrote:
No Mike you still don't get it. |
Enlighten me then.
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 14:52 |
You are using relativist points of view... and miss the whole point... I wonder what you believe if you see the son of God flying down in the sky... I wonder really what will you think about it...??? you will believe then...??? that's nice... all that you believe all your life if fake but you change of bus on the last minute... that would be nice to see in many of the disbelievers... I hope you can get my sarcasm with all my ellipses... 
Edited by jampa17 - December 03 2009 at 14:54
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 14:51 |
|
No Mike you still don't get it.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 14:48 |
yes, that's the key difference and is what all of us were talking to you pages ago... that you wanted proof and we don't.... we exactly the opposite... we don't want the proof... so... we agreed in one thing...
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 14:36 |
jampa17 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Negoba wrote:
So that begs the question "Well what part of God / Divinity can you say you do understand?" |
I certainly can't say. I could be looking at god now and never know. If I would say anything now, it couldn't be anything but conjecture.
Plus, without a definition, we have no idea what to look for or how we'll recognize it when we see it.
|
there's where faith takes places you see... that's why Theist take faith as their guide... because I cannot assure you nothing but my believes and my experience trhough my lifetime... but you want definition or "real" or "confirmed" definitions about God... things that should not happen because if we find a proof about God... then faith don't serve to nothing an all the deniers become into believers and there's nothing to search and understand for... all your post go in a way that comes close to anarchy... "as we are not sure of anything... I don't believe in anything..." I -and many believers- go in the exactly opposite... "as we are not sure of anything, I believe it and hope I'm true"... but I'm sure you won't get it either... |
You believe what you're taught without questioning it, while scientists question anything they're taught. That's the key difference.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 14:28 |
jampa17 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Negoba wrote:
So that begs the question "Well what part of God / Divinity can you say you do understand?" |
I certainly can't say. I could be looking at god now and never know. If I would say anything now, it couldn't be anything but conjecture.
Plus, without a definition, we have no idea what to look for or how we'll recognize it when we see it.
|
there's where faith takes places you see... that's why Theist take faith as their guide... because I cannot assure you nothing but my believes and my experience trhough my lifetime... but you want definition or "real" or "confirmed" definitions about God... things that should not happen because if we find a proof about God... then faith don't serve to nothing an all the deniers become into believers and there's nothing to search and understand for... all your post go in a way that comes close to anarchy... "as we are not sure of anything... I don't believe in anything..." I -and many believers- go in the exactly opposite... "as we are not sure of anything, I believe it and hope I'm true"... but I'm sure you won't get it either... |
That's really hard to understand with all the ellipses. I'm sorry. "and there's nothing to search and understand for" Nah, you can still uncover things about the universe. Tons of things. Never everything.
|
|
|
|
KoS
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 17 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Points: 16310
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 14:28 |
jampa17 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Negoba wrote:
So that begs the question "Well what part of God / Divinity can you say you do understand?" |
I certainly can't say. I could be looking at god now and never know. If I would say anything now, it couldn't be anything but conjecture.
Plus, without a definition, we have no idea what to look for or how we'll recognize it when we see it.
|
there's where faith takes places you see... that's why Theist take faith as their guide... because I cannot assure you nothing but my believes and my experience trhough my lifetime... but you want definition or "real" or "confirmed" definitions about God... things that should not happen because if we find a proof about God... then faith don't serve to nothing an all the deniers become into believers and there's nothing to search and understand for... all your post go in a way that comes close to anarchy... "as we are not sure of anything... I don't believe in anything..." I -and many believers- go in the exactly opposite... "as we are not sure of anything, I believe it and hope I'm true"... but I'm sure you won't get it either... |
 I think that would pose more questions then answers.
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 14:25 |
stonebeard wrote:
Negoba wrote:
So that begs the question "Well what part of God / Divinity can you say you do understand?" |
I certainly can't say. I could be looking at god now and never know. If I would say anything now, it couldn't be anything but conjecture.
Plus, without a definition, we have no idea what to look for or how we'll recognize it when we see it.
|
there's where faith takes places you see... that's why Theist take faith as their guide... because I cannot assure you nothing but my believes and my experience trhough my lifetime... but you want definition or "real" or "confirmed" definitions about God... things that should not happen because if we find a proof about God... then faith don't serve to nothing an all the deniers become into believers and there's nothing to search and understand for... all your post go in a way that comes close to anarchy... "as we are not sure of anything... I don't believe in anything..." I -and many believers- go in the exactly opposite... "as we are not sure of anything, I believe it and hope I'm true"... but I'm sure you won't get it either...
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 14:05 |
Negoba wrote:
So that begs the question "Well what part of God / Divinity can you say you do understand?" |
I certainly can't say. I could be looking at god now and never know. If I would say anything now, it couldn't be anything but conjecture. Plus, without a definition, we have no idea what to look for or how we'll recognize it when we see it.
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 14:00 |
stonebeard wrote:
Negoba wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
AmbianceMan wrote:
It's perfectly reasonable to outline what aspects a creator should have.
|
What? LOL how does that even make any sense? Think about what you just said. Let's say you make a drawing. Does that drawing get to tell you what kind of person you should be? No, it has no power over you. |
Perfectly reasonable in that you have to outline what kind of thing you're talking about for an argument. God is usually omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, at least. We define it because an argument would be meaningless without a definition. You could say "God is beyond definition," but that would make anything you have to say (or indeed think) about the subject of God meaningless. This is a problem, because God may indeed be outside any human thought or perception if any sort of thing like that exists, but then if it is, it's not worth talking, or thinking, or worrying about.
|
I disagree. Because what we're talking about (whether named God, Nature, Math, Science, or Grover) is the governing force of the Universe, it's worth talking about. And whether we're talking about the Natural Forces that govern the Universe or God, some aspect almost certainly is beyond the human capacity for understanding or definition. |
If we can't talk with meaning about anything, I don't see much worth in it, aside from flexing my logic and hearing myself/other talk about things with an air of sophistication...
|
Well for me (and for scientists) there's a big difference in not being able to understand ALL of it vs being able to understand some but knowing we can't grasp the whole thing. You must realize that science and theology are searching answers to questions about the nature of the Universe.
So that begs the question "Well what part of God / Divinity can you say you do understand?"
And that is a question I wish we were all giving answers to, for ourselves, rather than trying to take down what we perceive to be other's answer to the question.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 13:55 |
Negoba wrote:
I have two girls so I got to duck the question. Because my wife is firmly against. I'm neutral because intellecutally I think it's pointless but every man in my family and most in my culture are, there's still a part of me that leans that way.
So her strong feelings and my wiffle-waffling probably would have ended in no procedure if we had had sons. |
I'm glad to see you say that, Jay. You have my respect.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 13:53 |
Negoba wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
AmbianceMan wrote:
It's perfectly reasonable to outline what aspects a creator should have.
|
What? LOL how does that even make any sense? Think about what you just said. Let's say you make a drawing. Does that drawing get to tell you what kind of person you should be? No, it has no power over you. |
Perfectly reasonable in that you have to outline what kind of thing you're talking about for an argument. God is usually omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, at least. We define it because an argument would be meaningless without a definition. You could say "God is beyond definition," but that would make anything you have to say (or indeed think) about the subject of God meaningless. This is a problem, because God may indeed be outside any human thought or perception if any sort of thing like that exists, but then if it is, it's not worth talking, or thinking, or worrying about.
|
I disagree. Because what we're talking about (whether named God, Nature, Math, Science, or Grover) is the governing force of the Universe, it's worth talking about. And whether we're talking about the Natural Forces that govern the Universe or God, some aspect almost certainly is beyond the human capacity for understanding or definition. |
If we can't talk with meaning about anything, I don't see much worth in it, aside from flexing my logic and hearing myself/other talk about things with an air of sophistication...
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 13:53 |
p0mt3 wrote:
Negoba wrote:
When I did these, it was because it was a cultural norm and the parents requested it.
A nerve block is used and the actual removal is accomplished through a blunt crushing method that insures control of bleeding and better healing. No baby boy ever went into shock during my experience with these procedures.
There is a small signal that circumcised males transmit HPV less which means less cervical cancer in their partners. But the signal is small. There is also no evidence that any sexual dysfunction is caused. So medically it's a wash. But in general, we don't do pointless surgeries, this being a cultural exception. Many cultures pierce baby girl's ears which is a (significantly) lesser but similar cultural body alteration done against their will that hurts temporarily.
I'm actually glad that I don't have to do them anymore. |
Well, I'll certainly take your account as truth, then. Thanks for clearing that stuff up.
Now to a possibly difficult question: have you/would you allow your children to be circumcised, and if so, how would you justify it in your mind, since you yourself just said it was a pointless procedure?
Please don't take offense, I AM asking to make a point.
|
I have two girls so I got to duck the question. Because my wife is firmly against. I'm neutral because intellecutally I think it's pointless but every man in my family and most in my culture are, there's still a part of me that leans that way.
So her strong feelings and my wiffle-waffling probably would have ended in no procedure if we had had sons.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 13:50 |
stonebeard wrote:
AmbianceMan wrote:
It's perfectly reasonable to outline what aspects a creator should have.
|
What? LOL how does that even make any sense? Think about what you just said. Let's say you make a drawing. Does that drawing get to tell you what kind of person you should be? No, it has no power over you. |
Perfectly reasonable in that you have to outline what kind of thing you're talking about for an argument. God is usually omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, at least. We define it because an argument would be meaningless without a definition. You could say "God is beyond definition," but that would make anything you have to say (or indeed think) about the subject of God meaningless. This is a problem, because God may indeed be outside any human thought or perception if any sort of thing like that exists, but then if it is, it's not worth talking, or thinking, or worrying about.
|
I disagree. Because what we're talking about (whether named God, Nature, Math, Science, or Grover) is the governing force of the Universe, it's worth talking about. And whether we're talking about the Natural Forces that govern the Universe or God, some aspect almost certainly is beyond the human capacity for understanding or definition.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 13:50 |
Negoba wrote:
When I did these, it was because it was a cultural norm and the parents requested it.
A nerve block is used and the actual removal is accomplished through a blunt crushing method that insures control of bleeding and better healing. No baby boy ever went into shock during my experience with these procedures.
There is a small signal that circumcised males transmit HPV less which means less cervical cancer in their partners. But the signal is small. There is also no evidence that any sexual dysfunction is caused. So medically it's a wash. But in general, we don't do pointless surgeries, this being a cultural exception. Many cultures pierce baby girl's ears which is a (significantly) lesser but similar cultural body alteration done against their will that hurts temporarily.
I'm actually glad that I don't have to do them anymore. |
Well, I'll certainly take your account as truth, then. Thanks for clearing that stuff up. However, I HAVE seen footage of kids going into shock during the procedure. And yes, I CAN provide that footage (Not here, because it would be in poor taste, but I can pm you if you wish to see what I'm talking about). Now to a possibly difficult question: have you/would you allow your children to be circumcised, and if so, how would you justify it in your mind, since you yourself just said it was a pointless procedure? Please don't take offense, I AM asking to make a point.
Edited by p0mt3 - December 03 2009 at 13:53
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Evolution vs. Creationism
