17 of 26
17
i am a born again, evangelical christian
Posted: 06 May 2009 09:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 241 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03

Further, your URLs once again are childish.

that response seems pure lack of reasonable arguments and creativity , to answer to my postings….

modern science didn’t begin until the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

then i suggest, you give a look at this homepage :

Christianity: A Cause of Modern Science?

http://www.rae.org/jaki.html

While you are more than welcome to spar with people here so long as you follow the rules, I would recommend you make yourself aware of rule 3(h) in particular: “repetitive posting of the same comments, information, or links without meaningful development or responsive discussion will be considered a form of spamming or trolling.”

if the participants come again and again with the same arguments, i will again and again respond , linking to the same homepages, which do reflect my point of view.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2009 09:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 242 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2169
Joined  2007-04-26
Adonai888 - 06 May 2009 08:58 AM
macgyver - 06 May 2009 07:07 AM

Rather than looking for reliable and authoritative sources of information to back up your claims you simply throw a bunch of low quality website links at everyone which leads us to the obvious conclusion that you don’t really understand the material.

hahaha. Please ignore my quotes of Einstein, Planck, and other high caliber scientists, to sustain your assertion

None of the quotes you gave from any of these men provide evidence for the existence of god. You provided a link to a youtube video created by some unknown individual with no credentials who claims to have evidence for the existence of god who is clearly very fond of himself but provides no evidence what so ever.

When I ask you for reliable sources of evidence the best you can do is provide quotes from a few scientists who believe in god. What you need to do is provide a theory from a respected physicist explaining how quantum theory proves the existence of god, because I don’t see the link. Providing quotes that imply a particular scientist might believe in god is not evidence for the existence of god at all. Scientists are free to believe what ever they want on their own time, and no doubt there is a minority number of scientists who have religious beliefs, but ( and most if not all of them will probably agree with this) their religious beliefs are anything but scientific.

I have not ignored your quotes. They simply add nothing to the discussion. They are evidence of nothing.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2009 09:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 243 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2169
Joined  2007-04-26
Adonai888 - 06 May 2009 09:28 AM

Further, your URLs once again are childish.

that response seems pure lack of reasonable arguments and creativity , to answer to my postings….

Doug’s comment is correct. I already demonstrated in my post several pages back “reasonable arguments” showing how childish this website is. I gave four separate examples of the false claims made on the site. As usual you ignored the post. You seem to have plenty of time to answer the things you want to, but faced with solid evidence of your faulty reasoning you suddenly become silent.

 

Adonai888 - 06 May 2009 09:28 AM

While you are more than welcome to spar with people here so long as you follow the rules, I would recommend you make yourself aware of rule 3(h) in particular: “repetitive posting of the same comments, information, or links without meaningful development or responsive discussion will be considered a form of spamming or trolling.”

if the participants come again and again with the same arguments, i will again and again respond , linking to the same homepages, which do reflect my point of view.

We are repeating many of the same arguments exactly because you are NOT responding. You respond only to the things that you can post vague philisophical responses to. When you are presented with a question or problem that you are unable to answer or uncomfortable with you just ignore it. This make any sort of progress in the discussion impossible.

[ Edited: 06 May 2009 10:52 AM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2009 11:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 244 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
macgyver - 06 May 2009 09:40 AM

I have not ignored your quotes.

Yes, you have. Keep on also ignoring all presented facts from godandscience website .

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2009 11:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 245 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
macgyver - 06 May 2009 09:54 AM

We are repeating many of the same arguments exactly because you are NOT responding. You respond only to the things that you can post vague philisophical responses to. When you are presented with a question or problem that you are unable to answer or uncomfortable with you just ignore it. This make any sort of progress in the discussion impossible.

thats REALLY a cheap escape !!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2009 11:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 246 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  324
Joined  2009-04-23
PLaClair - 05 May 2009 05:38 PM
Chicken - 05 May 2009 02:22 PM

Could not the child love and hate the family member, or even better, parent?  (3) Does the disharmony in that scenario come from the parent or family member? (4) If so, does that make the child’s love for that parent or family member not true or their hate not real?  It is an interesting thing to ponder.

(5) One thing further, I have always considered fear a response to ignorance not the opposite of love.  I think ignorance motivates fear of all types whether it be a fear of spiders or a fear of Communist invasion.

(1) Sure, but people still call it love. It’s an emotion, which means it doesn’t have to be rational.

(2) Of course. Who says that Love and hate can’t co-exist - not peacefully, but they co-exist just the same.

(3) I don’t know what “come from” means. Can you elaborate?

Whatever the elaboration may be, aren’t you positing an obvious false choice?

(4) All emotions are real.

(5) That may be true, but you don’t appear to be looking at it as an experience. You’re looking at “response” and “motivation,” which move across time; I’m looking at Love as an experience in the here-and-now. That’s a different “animal.”

To answer 3:  I’m referring to the disharmony being caused by one party versus the other in the relationship, i.e. the young man who “just has to kill her” steers the love off course in your scenario (causes the disharmony) as opposed to the girl.  In the situation I pose, I ask if the disharmony is “caused”, “comes from” the parent (in that scenario).  I do not understand your “positing an obvious false choice” question in regards to my question, but I’m sure you can clarify it if it still applies.

However, I think I understand what you are saying through your numbered answers (nice and tidy, I appreciate that).  I was debating the idea of hate being a consequence and therefore not the opposite of love.  I read in here somewhere that you consider both indifference and hate to be the opposite of love.  After reading your answers to my questions/scenarios, I’m not sure if that is still the case. 

Since I’ve been “kicked-off” of this thread by Angelo (this is totally a joke, I know I could keep beating my head against the brick wall that is Angelo’s logic), I just wanted to clarify something for all in the room.  I totally did not mean to hurt anyone’s feelings, even Angelo’s, or be disrespectful.  I thought we were debating some ideas; and, for me, debating is fun and I’m sometimes a little sarcastic and verbose.  I recognize those characteristics in many of the people in this forum, and that was why I was drawn here in the first place.  I thought I brought up some good counterpoints to Angelo’s arguments and it is in my nature to call someone out loud and clear when I think they are avoiding or evading.  Regardless or irregardless, I was just being playful and meant no harm.  I wouldn’t mind moving the “is hate the opposite of love” question over to a philosophy thread if anyone is interested.  cheese

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2009 11:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 247 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2169
Joined  2007-04-26
Adonai888 - 06 May 2009 11:00 AM
macgyver - 06 May 2009 09:40 AM

I have not ignored your quotes.

Yes, you have. Keep on also ignoring all presented facts from godandscience website .

Are you completely dense. I HAVE read the quotes. Show me a single one that presents ANY evidence for the existence of god rather than just a belief in god. And for the third time look at my post several pages back where I quote four separate items from that lame web site of yours. You never responded to that. I read the site. Its full of rubbish. Look at the quotes I presented from your precious web site. The claims that the bible predicted certain “scientific principals” are a complete joke. I could probably take quotes from Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn that do a better job of predicting modern day theories. But go ahead and look at the quotes I’ve taken from your web site and explain how they in any way predicted the scientific principals they purport to have foreseen. Stop wasting our time and answer the questions that have been put to you.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2009 12:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 248 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15358
Joined  2006-02-14
Adonai888 - 06 May 2009 11:01 AM
macgyver - 06 May 2009 09:54 AM

We are repeating many of the same arguments exactly because you are NOT responding. You respond only to the things that you can post vague philisophical responses to. When you are presented with a question or problem that you are unable to answer or uncomfortable with you just ignore it. This make any sort of progress in the discussion impossible.

thats REALLY a cheap escape !!

macgyver is correct, Adonai. I and others have made exactly the same point to you before. Your responses seem to amount to little more than picking from a small set of third-rate URLs and quoting more or less randomly from the Bible. The latter responses are particularly gratuitous, because you have been presented any number of arguments that the Bible is not a credible source. So far as I can tell you have yet to respond to a single one of them.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2009 01:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 249 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
dougsmith - 06 May 2009 12:18 PM

This is called, once again, “arguing in bad faith”, otherwise known as mendacity. You yourself ignored the quote that I provided HERE (#180) as to Einstein’s complete lack of belief in a personal God.

Einstein :


“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”


“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”

Einstein compared the remarkable design and order of the cosmos and could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth?Einstein’s failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html

[ Edited: 06 May 2009 02:06 PM by Adonai888 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2009 02:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 250 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7665
Joined  2008-04-11

From a letter written in 1941
A previously unknown letter of Einstein’s recently came up for sale at auction. It is a remarkable document because it contains the great physicist’s candid comments on religion.

Einstein wrote that “the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

The opinions he expressed in this new letter run entirely contrary to the remark that is often quoted to sum up Einstein’s views on religion. “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

You can see the entire text of the letter (which sold for over $400,000 recently) here:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/ein1-j23.shtml

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2009 02:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 251 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15358
Joined  2006-02-14

What was the point of quoting from that website, Adonai? It corroborates precisely what I said: that Einstein did not believe in a personal God.

Your using Einstein as an example of a believer in God involves a fallacy of equivocation. His God is not the God of the Bible, it is the God of Spinoza—a God who is not a person, who is neither omniscient, nor omnipotent nor perfectly good, and who does not respond to prayer.

Do you really have such limited understanding that all you can do is mindlessly quote from the same URLs, even when they fail to support what you yourself argue for?

I should add that I find it hypocritical for you to quote from a website which claims “to understand the motives of God” after you said that one could not suppose to know what is acceptable to God ... once again, arguing in bad faith.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2009 02:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 252 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15358
Joined  2006-02-14
asanta - 06 May 2009 02:16 PM

From a letter written in 1941
A previously unknown letter of Einstein’s recently came up for sale at auction. It is a remarkable document because it contains the great physicist’s candid comments on religion.

Einstein wrote that “the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

The opinions he expressed in this new letter run entirely contrary to the remark that is often quoted to sum up Einstein’s views on religion. “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

You can see the entire text of the letter (which sold for over $400,000 recently) here:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/ein1-j23.shtml

Yeah, I’ve already quoted this letter to him twice, starting HERE ... he will walk in darkness so long as he wishes to blind himself to reality.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2009 02:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 253 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7547
Joined  2007-03-02
Adonai888 - 06 May 2009 11:01 AM
macgyver - 06 May 2009 09:54 AM

We are repeating many of the same arguments exactly because you are NOT responding. You respond only to the things that you can post vague philisophical responses to. When you are presented with a question or problem that you are unable to answer or uncomfortable with you just ignore it. This make any sort of progress in the discussion impossible.

thats REALLY a cheap escape !!

He’s right Adonai.  If you have no educated come back or what have you, you ignore the posts that address you.  Then all we read are childish come backs.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2009 02:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 254 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
asanta - 06 May 2009 02:16 PM

Einstein wrote that “the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

Einstein and God

http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/torrance.htm

“To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?”

“As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”

“You accept the historical Jesus?”

“Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. The deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. 20


... ” everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.”


That “God does not play dice” highlights the fact that chance is after all a negative way of thinking, or rather a way not to think. This is a lesson I believe that many scientists today, especially perhaps in biology, need to learn-their appeal to “chance” too often appears to be a sort of “scientist’s God of the gaps”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2009 03:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 255 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15358
Joined  2006-02-14
Adonai888 - 06 May 2009 02:54 PM

“In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.”

I suggest you re-read that sentence you quoted from Einstein, and consider who he is talking about when he mentions “the religiosity of someone more naive”.

Who do you think that person might be, and why?

Adonai888 - 06 May 2009 02:54 PM

That “God does not play dice” highlights the fact that chance is after all a negative way of thinking, or rather a way not to think. This is a lesson I believe that many scientists today, especially perhaps in biology, need to learn-their appeal to “chance” too often appears to be a sort of “scientist’s God of the gaps”

You are aware that Einstein was making those comments about “God playing dice” as an expression of his distaste for quantum mechanics?

You are aware that Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics?

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
   
17 of 26
17