-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Faith in Christ is Completely Logical
- Thread starter Serenity7855
- Start date
Shad
Veteran Member
Only for those that do not understand it does it create confusion. Just as science creates confusion for those that do not understand it. It is not a science. Science was once natural philosophy before splitting off due to empiricism. It has its place in religion as it is a fundamental part of religion. Philosophy was a corner stone for a number of polymaths when science, theology and philosophy were interlinked in the past.
Why are you complaining about an unfair advantage? It is not unfair as one can enroll in a program if you wish and learn the field. Look at your thread title, logical. Logic is a fundamental part of philosophy, it is part of the field. Change your title, refrain from invoking logic and I will agree completely with your request. However you have no grounds to complain when you brought the field into discussion.
Rest of what? Merely invoking a number is useless. However given you poor research ability I question how many of these articles are peer-reviewed. Link a few peer-review articles from journals not random newspapers, blogs and quack websites. This time fact check what you link.
No, pointing out the fact that you asked me about my education not that I was bragging about it.
I agree religion is very personal. The plan is not falsifiable. However that also means one can not prove or disprove it. So it is not an agreement. So the truth of the plan is completely subjective not objective fact. A person could try to prove the plan is logical valid, as in premises of an argument led to the conclusion correctly. However they can not state the plan is logically sound, as in objectively true. For something to be logical true both validity and soundness of an argument must be met.
When someone says a point is not fasifable it is not an agreement that your views are logical or true. It means one can not prove or
No a statement.
Whatever you looked up was wrong then or you did not understand it. Informal Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
You need to differentiate between an evaluation and a personal attack. Let takes something you know, engineering. Let me be clear I know next to nothing about engineering so maybe you can fill in some of the blanks or my lack of proper terminology. Say a co-worker claims to be able to design and construct a building which is structurally sound. He/she is given the job of designing and supervising the construction of said building. However during the course of construction he/she makes a critical mistake or displays the fact that he/she can not design and/or construct a sound building. Let's say the building collapses due to errors made. The employer has every right to evaluate this person's education, skills, design and supervising abilities after this event. This person could of designed an unsound building, lied about their education, their education was not by an accredit school (didn't teach standard/proper practices), etc. This is an evaluation. The employer could fire the employee on the basis of one, any or all the previous points. So the employer can tell the employee they can not design a building properly, their education is inadequate, overestimates their skills, etc. Alternatively the worker may never be granted any sort of major responsibility again due to the evaluation. It is not a personal attack as the reasoning is valid and sound. The worker's creditability is questionable. This is what I have done. I pointed out flaws in your arguments and made an evaluation why these mistakes were made. The conclusion was that you do not understand logic and philosophical sound arguments.
If fallacious reasoning is not welcomed you should spend more time evaluating your arguments. Attempt to find errors before posting. This is a key factor in critical thinking and analysis. You could also remove logical from your title and refrain from using logic all together. However your thread would be pointless as it would become opinion based on logic based.
You never linked any more articles. This is your burden of proof not mine. You can not expect another person to research supposed articles you only mention but not reference. This is shifting the burden of proof.
I form opinions about people quickly when evidence is quickly produced showing flaws in their logic. There is a reason as per my previous comments over the last few pages. However I have to point out your views of atheist is a bias which you display far more quickly than I have done.
I doubt that.
You didn't link other articles. I could easily say "what about all the articles that show that your articles are wrong?" I can not expect you research and fact check "articles" which I claim exist without references. This is shifting the burden of proof.
No an observation since you failed to address any of my points. You dodged my argument going off into the tangent which I am responding to.
As per my first point in this post remove logical from the title then. For faith to be logical one must link God as the first cause which is part of causality. If one can not support as God as logically sound and valid causality is required otherwise it is an opinion only and can not be a sound argument, only valid.
See first section of my post
No an observation proven by my quote.
See previous comments about logic and causality
See causality comments
Yes I am using it to discredit you since you are inconsistent in your views.
No its the attitude of most profession fields above that of a common labor jobs. A certificate is a guarantee that I am qualified to hold positions within my chosen career path. It means I have a formal education and not some hack that claims an expertise I do not have. Hence why people go to post-secondary institutions. I would love to see a uncertified person get a job in fields which require certification. How many medical doctors do you know that have no certification proving a formal education as a medical practitioner? None that are not quacks or liars. Would you see a doctor that has no proof that they went to medical school? What about a lawyer that has never passed the bar test? Welcome to the real world.
I do not need qualifications to form an justified opinion of you nor another's permission.
Observation.
Nope not if you bothered to read any work by the philosophers I have mentioned. Agent causality is a reemerging argument for God and free-will. I thought you would find such work useful. However your bias blinded you.
I doubt that since you went right off on a tangent.
See first part of this post. It benefits me because I am right. Hence why I use it.
See first comment of this post.
Actually a number of people have pointed out your fallacious shifting burden of proof. I am probably more blunt than others in point it out as well. Those that have not are just equally ignorant of logical fallacies as you are.
I reiterated the point which you still fail to grasp.
See first part of this post.
I have a closed 4.12/4.33 GPA, Canadian standard. I lost a few points in my literature classes for my WQB requirements.
Last edited:
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
J
Because you are expecting posters to use philosophical protocol and convention just because that is your field of expertise. We do not need or want that protocol with its inefficient rules in a debate centred arojnd the Plan of Salvation, and up until now we have not needed it. It has its place and that place is not here. You cannot expect those who are not educated in philosophy to post as if they are. It is unfair as you have the advantage. You expect us to use your methodology and when we don't you insist that we are thick and uneducated. You are creating the illusion of superiority because you have a knowledge, in a particular subject, that few individuals have, or want, and then condescendingly berate them when they fail to comply. That is sophistry.
Why are you refusing to accept known scientific research.
All the other articles by different scientists researching the same theory and publishing the same results in their papers. Such as this one and hundreds more like it. Whatever you may think about these articles there is a general consensus that the heart has the same characteristics as the brain does.
I glibly inserted the words "I am educated, are you?". That is not asking for a list of your qualifications or whether they were obtain through accredited methods. For whatever reason, you decided to provide that information. Given the profile that I have determined that you possess, it is my opinion that you were, in fact, bragging.
My objective was to read the words that it is not falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable then it is plausible and logical, even rational. If it were to exist, and I believe that it does, then it would in fact work. That this possibility exists is sufficient cause for and inquisitive mind to take a closer look at it, as I did. The plan in intricate and complex but was written, and played out, thousands of years ago. That such a plan exists under these conditions and works perfectly gives rise to the likelihood that it's author was in fact God. The entire thread is an exercise in possibilities and probabilities. If the plan was falsifiable then the house of cards would fall and religion would go with it.
Nothing in religion can be proved. All the proof that exists is between the individual and God. It is gods way of keeping his anonymity
Yes, I am well aware of that.
TO BE CONTINUED
Because you are expecting posters to use philosophical protocol and convention just because that is your field of expertise. We do not need or want that protocol with its inefficient rules in a debate centred arojnd the Plan of Salvation, and up until now we have not needed it. It has its place and that place is not here. You cannot expect those who are not educated in philosophy to post as if they are. It is unfair as you have the advantage. You expect us to use your methodology and when we don't you insist that we are thick and uneducated. You are creating the illusion of superiority because you have a knowledge, in a particular subject, that few individuals have, or want, and then condescendingly berate them when they fail to comply. That is sophistry.
Why are you refusing to accept known scientific research.
All the other articles by different scientists researching the same theory and publishing the same results in their papers. Such as this one and hundreds more like it. Whatever you may think about these articles there is a general consensus that the heart has the same characteristics as the brain does.
I glibly inserted the words "I am educated, are you?". That is not asking for a list of your qualifications or whether they were obtain through accredited methods. For whatever reason, you decided to provide that information. Given the profile that I have determined that you possess, it is my opinion that you were, in fact, bragging.
My objective was to read the words that it is not falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable then it is plausible and logical, even rational. If it were to exist, and I believe that it does, then it would in fact work. That this possibility exists is sufficient cause for and inquisitive mind to take a closer look at it, as I did. The plan in intricate and complex but was written, and played out, thousands of years ago. That such a plan exists under these conditions and works perfectly gives rise to the likelihood that it's author was in fact God. The entire thread is an exercise in possibilities and probabilities. If the plan was falsifiable then the house of cards would fall and religion would go with it.
Nothing in religion can be proved. All the proof that exists is between the individual and God. It is gods way of keeping his anonymity
Yes, I am well aware of that.
TO BE CONTINUED
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Serenity
Puting me on ignore, and then referring to me in your posts as having made claims i have not made is shamefully dishonest. It is about as low and disgusting a tactic as I can imagine any person resorting to.
Please desist from such painfully disreputable deceptions. I did not make the claim you attribute to me, nor did you quote me doing so as you have said - I made no such claims.
I ask again (for the fourth time) that you desist from misrepresenting me and from referring to me.
Puting me on ignore, and then referring to me in your posts as having made claims i have not made is shamefully dishonest. It is about as low and disgusting a tactic as I can imagine any person resorting to.
Please desist from such painfully disreputable deceptions. I did not make the claim you attribute to me, nor did you quote me doing so as you have said - I made no such claims.
I ask again (for the fourth time) that you desist from misrepresenting me and from referring to me.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Shad
Given that I appear to be a tool in Serenities exchange with you, but he is blissfully unconcerned with matters of honesty, fairplay or accountability to the point where a claim I specifically reject is being attributed to me no matter how often I point out that I made no such comment. I just wanted to make it clear to you that the claim Serentity is attributong to me is an invention of his, not something I have said.
It disgusts me that people sink to such levels.
No, I did not at any point claim that natural law breaks down at the quantum level.
Given that I appear to be a tool in Serenities exchange with you, but he is blissfully unconcerned with matters of honesty, fairplay or accountability to the point where a claim I specifically reject is being attributed to me no matter how often I point out that I made no such comment. I just wanted to make it clear to you that the claim Serentity is attributong to me is an invention of his, not something I have said.
It disgusts me that people sink to such levels.
No, I did not at any point claim that natural law breaks down at the quantum level.
Shad
Veteran Member
Look up sophistry. It is a fallacious arguments not putting your argument under scrutiny when you invoked logic in the title of your thread. You set the field in logic, not I. Change the title of the thread if you wish do avoid a discussion with logic and philosophy. You invoke logic 3 times in your OP.
I am asking your for the studies not the website claiming studies.
You seem to be mistaken again. I accept the one study I linked which does not make the outlandish claims your other sources do. Do you know how to do basic research? I did find a study, which is your burden of proof so kindly learn proper citation methods. What is interesting is again this one does not corroborate memories within the heart which cause transfers of characteristics to transplant patients. See the issue here is you have three sources making basic claims then spinning these into something outside these studies. Namely the memory transfer to another person due to heart transplants. This is call a lack corroboration. The first two studies do not support the claims of the 3rd source. You have linked 3 sources, 2 say Y and one says X. You would know this if you actually bothered to read anything you link and knew how to do proper research. The only thing your sources corroborate is that emotions effect the heart which is nothing new. So far the two studies I have read say nothing about memory of experiences like my grandmother or a birthday two weeks ago in the heart. Rather one study was on emotional effects on the heart. The other was emotions in conjunction with electric stimulus on the heart. Again nothing new. Now your organ memory transfer is poorly sourced.
If you didn't notice that your sources use quotation of brain. When a word is in quotation it has a figurative meaning not a literal meaning. Anyways lets look at your 3rd article. Thinking from the Heart – Heart Brain Science « Articles « Applied Consciousness International (ACI) | Home of Intuitive Intelligence and Remote Viewing Training | Dr. Dominique Surel
Now at the bottom are the sources which is what really matter, this is the meat of article. The sources either prove the article is right or wrong. So here is the first source a blog of a study. Cellular Memory — Organ Recipients With Characteristics of Donor | Bob's NewHeart
Near the bottom of this article is a source which no longer exists on the page it links to nor is the paper on the university's data basis. So the quote becomes useless as it can not be corroborated. However notice in her own words the medical field is skeptical of memory transfers thus her claims are unproven. Even the blog author is skeptical but he is no authority. Just an interest point.
Let look at the 2nd source. (Warning: It is umm very descriptive to say the least. It has sexual content so read it at your own risk. I will comment on a few and crack some jokes with the others. I will not link it. Keep in mind Serenity was first to link this not I. I followed the logical step by verifying the source which contain said content.)
Case 1: Does being a love of your donor in another time make sense to you? Developing an interest in music after hearing the music of their donor is not unreasonable. Mind you after hearing not before. In this case the person didn't develop any characteristics changes until after getting information from the donor's parents. Also look at her age. A teenage being rebellious, becoming ill and later calming down is no surprise. Its part of a teenage becoming an adult.. Take a look at her disease and heart failures. It would sap the life out of a person... This is a far more rational explanation give the series of events. This is also not a study to see if she recalled more memories, something she would never know. It is just a report from an ill teenage which is questionable due to contamination from donor parents and patient contact. This is an example of an uncritical researcher giving into their bias. It is no study...
Case 2: A 16 month old calling the donor parents mama is not memory transfer. My own nieces and nephews called me "dada" when learning how to talk. He called my mother mama. Maybe this is a case of projection and their parents taking control of our bodies..... Contaminated "study" (figurative). A church during a social gathering after meeting the donor's mother which would be present. Uncritical researcher, more of a statement rather than a study.
Case 3: Alternative explanations. Collage, pity, put on the spot, bragging and practice. Collage...
Case 4: I do not even want to post this alternative, but yah... Must resist Asian joke gggaaahh
Case 5: What just happened?! Holy crap we just cured gay. Honestly she sounds confused or was experimenting.
Case 6: Side effects and having a heart that works better helps.
I will leave the rest for you and other members. I have created alternatives for each one or found inconsistency in each report. I will get to your other points later after what I just had to read I am taking a break.
Did you work in the comedy industry by chance?
Last edited:
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
You are making yourself look very naïve and over-fastidious. The point I was making was a simplistic point, and, just like a philosopher, you have read things of no relevance to my point in it. God has said that he has written his laws upon the hearts of all men. I then drew the readers attention to current studies in the comparison between the heart and the brain. One premise just simple compliments the other. You have split hairs and taken it all to literally by looking at the specific details of each research, as philosophers do, which is a prime example of how philosophy causes confusion and adds unnecessary complexity to debates. The need to look at the minute detail. Nobody likes a smart ***.
Just couldn't help yourself, could you?
Last edited:
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
CONTINUED
Yes, of course
The comparison you make is unsound. One relates to hypothesis and the other to reality. Secondly, you make it all sound clinical in this example. Nowhere have you said, as you pretty much said to me, you screwed up you imbecile. You are being aggressive, insulting and intentionally deceptive in your excuses for using ad hominem throughout your entire post.
If my argument were critical, then I would. I am on a religious forum discussing my personal beliefs with other posters who do not use fallacious reasoning either. Should we all change that to appease you?
No, that would take the enjoyment out of it because you would need to be overly fastidious. Only through errors can we learn. As you are error free you must be void of any kind of learning.
My thread is intentionally opinionated.
The constraints of space on the forum prevents the posting of a unnecessary additional articles, plus, the point is not that critical to warrant such extreme action. No proof is necessary just an awareness that science is investigating the phenomenon.
You are incredibly pedantic, hypercritical and judgemental, aren't you?
Matthew 7:1-3 (KJV)
7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
It is only proactive and aggressive atheists, who are not just happy to differ, but need to try and falsify it as well. To them I say "mind your own business"
I never intentionally lie, regardless of consequences.
But I posted the fact that there were thousands of other articles. Why didn't you request that I show more of them?
What points?
Only if you look at it philosophically, but that only confuses and complicates the point. God as the first cause of what?
You are my judge and jury then?
This is a Religious Forum. Where do you think we are. In an interview room trying to get a position as head doctor in a surgery. I have never seen my doctors credentials or my lawyers certificates. I know that they are professional people by the knowledge and capabilities. You are being an elitist.
You said "As per the mistakes you have made in the course of this thread." In order for your judgement of me to be acceptable you need to be qualified withing the same field as you judge me. You are not. If you are referring to mistakes within phylosophy, then there are no mistakes. Just opinions and thoughts.
What ever.
No, that was you.
You are right? Ok
How on earth do I respond to such judgemental, self righteous and mealy-mouthed drivel. Only you have pointed out that I am being fallacious, in any form. If anyone else is saying it then they must be on my ignore list and they are there for good reason. They are more confrontational, haughty, self-important and arrogant then you are. What sanctimonious, unadulterated, nonsensical claptrap. You surpass even yourself.
Yes, of course
The comparison you make is unsound. One relates to hypothesis and the other to reality. Secondly, you make it all sound clinical in this example. Nowhere have you said, as you pretty much said to me, you screwed up you imbecile. You are being aggressive, insulting and intentionally deceptive in your excuses for using ad hominem throughout your entire post.
If my argument were critical, then I would. I am on a religious forum discussing my personal beliefs with other posters who do not use fallacious reasoning either. Should we all change that to appease you?
No, that would take the enjoyment out of it because you would need to be overly fastidious. Only through errors can we learn. As you are error free you must be void of any kind of learning.
My thread is intentionally opinionated.
The constraints of space on the forum prevents the posting of a unnecessary additional articles, plus, the point is not that critical to warrant such extreme action. No proof is necessary just an awareness that science is investigating the phenomenon.
You are incredibly pedantic, hypercritical and judgemental, aren't you?
Matthew 7:1-3 (KJV)
7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
It is only proactive and aggressive atheists, who are not just happy to differ, but need to try and falsify it as well. To them I say "mind your own business"
I never intentionally lie, regardless of consequences.
But I posted the fact that there were thousands of other articles. Why didn't you request that I show more of them?
What points?
Only if you look at it philosophically, but that only confuses and complicates the point. God as the first cause of what?
You are my judge and jury then?
This is a Religious Forum. Where do you think we are. In an interview room trying to get a position as head doctor in a surgery. I have never seen my doctors credentials or my lawyers certificates. I know that they are professional people by the knowledge and capabilities. You are being an elitist.
You said "As per the mistakes you have made in the course of this thread." In order for your judgement of me to be acceptable you need to be qualified withing the same field as you judge me. You are not. If you are referring to mistakes within phylosophy, then there are no mistakes. Just opinions and thoughts.
What ever.
No, that was you.
You are right? Ok
How on earth do I respond to such judgemental, self righteous and mealy-mouthed drivel. Only you have pointed out that I am being fallacious, in any form. If anyone else is saying it then they must be on my ignore list and they are there for good reason. They are more confrontational, haughty, self-important and arrogant then you are. What sanctimonious, unadulterated, nonsensical claptrap. You surpass even yourself.
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
"Current studies"?
Seriously?
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
I have put you on ignore because I choose not to enter into confrontational exchanges with you. I have some very good acquaintances on here who have not, as yet, put you on ignore. Whenever you become odiously crass and caustic I usually get a pm to that effect, otherwise you do not exist to me.
You did say that natural laws break down pre-bigbang. Here is just one of your quotes to confirm it.
And again you said it here
If you actually believe this then may I suggest you read the book "Mien Kampf"
Now please, back to the ignore list where you belong. Tattletale are too dangerous to communicate with.
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
Ouch.
So the fact is he did NOT say that they break down.
One wonders if you are still going to promote that particular bold faced lie.
Shad
Veteran Member
This is how you review a study. You linked 3 source and 2 say nothing about memories due to transplants in actual studies, which you are unable to find yourself even when it is at the bottom of the page. You would know this if you read what you linked. Now I can understand engineers are not researcher, you follow a technical trade not a science trade, but I am just amazed how badly you do research. I am doubting you even have the degrees you claim you have. You do know science uses forms of logic right? Deduction, inductive and abductive logic. Splitting hairs by looking at details... really? You must of never done a single research project in your life. When one actually looks at the details it either confirms or denies the conclusion made by the "researcher" and those that are ignorant in research, like yourself, jumping to false conclusion. Engineering involves math. Tell me this, if someone draws up plans using incorrect math, weight loads and material not capable of containing said load what happens to a building? It collapses. Why? Since the math, details, are wrong. I did the same thing for your joke of a "study". I didn't just look at the conclusion. I read the report. Even the author mentioned coincidence a number of times and said there needs to be further study. The author can not even put forward the claim that his study proves anything.
You whine but this is how science works. When one forms a hypothesis they are obligated to challenge their own research in order to prove it wrong. Your joke of a study fails even this basic test. Hence the need for peer-review, which the joke study never passed. Yes how dare I take science, also known as knowledge in Latin, literal. See, son, science is not metaphorical like religion. You applied your wishful thinking to science not only exposes your bias but that you are completely ignorant of how science and research works.
Some people do not like a smart asses sure. However I rather think you do not like being exposed for your poor research, confirmation bias following a few jokes at your expense.
What do you mean by "laws"? Is it morality? Find me the cells in the heart with morality. Is it ethics? Find me the cells in the heart that contain ethics. I think you turn "law" into whatever ambiguous term you want in your head but never tell anyone else what you mean. You also do this with the "studies" you are unable to find or link. You have to distort information, terminology and basic words to even get off the ground . You cry wolf when someone espouses you are ignorance and distortion.
You are like a person in a race that runs slower than everyone else then complain about the faster runners having an unfair advantage. You blame others for your disadvantage rather than yourself. Seems like an inferiority complex to me
Last edited:
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
This is a debate on the Plan of Redemption. It is not a science project.
Look for the person who developed the first vertically mounted refrigeration unit to reduce the drag coefficient for light to medium commercial vehicles and you will find the project engineer who took it from Auto CAD drawings to the production line to its promotion worldwide. If you check his credentials you will see that I am not lying about my claimed qualifications. But you believe whatever you wish. I have no need to convince you of anything, least of all my qualifications. It is just a religious debate not research into a life changing discovery. You are taking it far to serious and spoiling the debate in the process.
If Darwin were to have listelistened to his critics trying to disheartened him in his research, I wonder if we would have the theory of evolution today, probably, but what a disgustingly disagreeable thing for one human being to say to another. Typical of the conceited, self-important atheists who use unethical tactics to achieve their despicable and contemptible agenda. You, sir, are not worthy of honest debate with us uncultured, uncultivated, sub-human beings who are void of the art and protocol of philosophy. We know about people like you. The scriptures give us plenty of warning.
Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
1 Corinthians 1:20-21
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
James 3:13
Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom.
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Thank you, I just spilt my coffee laughing.
Shad
Veteran Member
No it relate a hypothesis become a reality, if it function in reality. If the hypothesis is correct. When a hypothesis fails in reality it is dismissed or reformulate. Hypothesis are about reality since the observations in a hypothesis is gathered from.... reality. I seem insulting since you take my exposer of your ignorance personal. Put your big boy pants on.
You use science to back your religious claims. Hence you are being critical since science involves critical thinking and evaluation. Cry wolf more. You do not even know what fallacious reasoning is... this is demonstrated by you repeated over this whole thread.
You mean you want gain the emotion high from your bias when one pokes holes in your arguments? You are not learning, you are being stubbornly ignorant. People with an open mind learn about their mistakes, not make new mistakes based on the same errors they made before.
Remove you use of logic and science from the thread. Neither are opinion based.
You can put up link, you do not need to copy/paste the whole thing. I have seen you provide links before. This is not a defense but a cop-out. A hilarious cop-out since it is proved you can provide links previously. did links sudden break for you? Hilarious.
Only when people take about subjects they are ignorant about, take pride in their ignorance and are too stubborn to learn something new.
Doubtful
And I posted there are thousands saying you are wrong (not really just making a point) Unsubstantiated claims can be dismissed on the ground of being unsubstantiated
I own a bridge in NYC which I want to sell. I need not provide evidence I own a bridge, just accept it. Would you like to buy it? You can see it after I have my money.
Read slower and/or take an English comprehension course. See you avoid points I make. Instead you only respond to my evaluation of your character.
Only for those that do not understand it. I do not understand engineer but I do not complain to an engineer about how confusing it is as a cop out. If I want to understand engineering I will enroll in engineering programs so I learn thus have no confusion. Cop-out and crying wolf again.
I never said I was. I formed an opinion of you based on our exchanges. No one is obligated to accept my opinion as their own. You do know what an opinion is right?
You used science first not I. You invoked logic first not I. When people throw around the word elitists at someone education in the field they attempt to use this is really says "I have no idea what I am talking about so I will just blame the person that does know" Cop out.
You know why they are doctors? They have went to school and have credentials which allows them to legally practice medicine. You do not seem to understand how medical education works and the laws involved which allow one to practice it. See the government has laws in which only certified people from accredited schools can practice it. So these people must go to school, pass and become accredited. They can then practice medicine legally.
I am qualified as per my education. Besides I do not need to be qualified to form an opinion of you. Philosophy is not about opinions nor illogical thoughts which you hold.
No I talked about causality in my first post and mentioned a few people you may want to read. You went off on to a completely different topic and have yet to really talk about my first post. You mentioned timeless which is just incoherent. One can apply an incoherent idea to anything they want since it is.... incoherent
Thank you /sarcasm
Form coherent rebuttal against points I have made. Avoid your personal emotion dictating what you focus on. Show some will power. This is your personal issue, figure it out yourself. Do I need to hold your hand for you to figure out how to form an argument?
You should read the thread again. In the first few pages people are pointing out your errors. However since you do not understand logic you can not figure out these criticism unless someone directly tells you your argument are fallacious.
Arrogance is often confused for confidence in one's abilities. It is also used as a scape-goat when the ignorant are exposed.
Shad
Veteran Member
Refrain from using science to prove your points then. Cry wolf more.
I believe it is unethical when an ignorant person tries to confirm their bias then cry wolf when someone disagrees. It is a good thing Darwin didn't listen since the critics had no merit behind their arguments. He knew they had no merit since the majority were religious and putting forward their religious bias above that of science. Like yourself. Darwin also knew how to do proper research, unlike yourself. His critics took a bronze/iron age book more seriously then science.
Hilarious considering the most prominent advocates for Christianity actually made coherent points, in their time, used philosophy to do it. You should enroll in a history class covering Christianity. What is more amusing is that those verses put forward the idea ignorance as a virtue. This is to be expected in a backwater province in a Empire which created actual innovations which we use today. Inferiority complex supported by ignorance in the form of faith. Yet what is hilarious is that you attempt to use philosophy and science, which once was natural philosophy, to prove your religion. Hypocrite.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Actually Darwin was noT as original as he is given credit for. Aside from several sources close to his time (including his grandfather), the Roman poet Lucretius (1st Century BCE) is the first documented advocate of what we now call natural selection in his work: De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things) a didactic poem with the goal of explaining Epicurean philosophy to a Roman audience.
The poem, written in some 7,400 dactylic hexameters, is divided into six untitled books, and explored Epicurean physics through richly poetic language and metaphors. Lucretius presents the principles of atomism; the nature of the mind and soul; explanations of sensation and thought; the development of the world and its phenomena; and explains a variety of celestial and terrestrial phenomena. The universe described in the poem operates according to these physical principles, guided by fortuna, "chance," and not the divine intervention of the traditional Roman deities.
(with thanks to wiki)
Last edited:
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
You seem insulting because that is your disposition. When you say "Put your big boy pants on" is that ad hominem or evaluation?
I take that as a compliment from someone who has the narcissistic mentality that your post suggests you have.
You think you have poked holes in my argument when you have not addressed any of them. Ok
There is no teacher here for me to learn from. You have no knowledge that interests me or that I need. You think you do, but even Al Capone thought he was a public servant. It is funny how right we might feel, yet how wrong we really are. I have an open mind that filters out the rubbish that people like you spew forth unrelentingly.
Ah, that superiority issue that you have, you think you can order others around. My answer is, of course, 'a resounding 'NO''
I will choose what I post, thank you.
You are projecting again.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I just think it is cute that you think yours really matters.
If you want stagnation without progression then you are right, however, that is not what we want, so you are wrong, yet again.
This might be good in another context but it is meaningless here, as much as most of your phycophantic post is.
Pot, kettle, black = irony
You would need the capacity to learn first. You do not have that capacity demonstrated by your choice of very easy, pseudo subjects for your degree. Just enrolling is not enough.
In order for your opinion to matter to me I would have to care what you think. I don't. My opinion is that you are far too judgemental and condescending for anybody to care what your opinion is. You set yourself up to be my judge and jury but you have no authority.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
― Voltaire
I used science as a comparative tool not as a gateway for all scientific knowledge to flow through and take charge. The thread is primarily concerned with a religious concept for which science can be used to explore it with. It would not matter who, as you have childishly claimed, said it first, it matters that you are attempting to take over the discussion with scientific protocol, as is your trait. I am preventing that from happening and you don't like that so out goes the rattle with the bottle. You use the scientific method and a churlish attitude to gain brownie point that you think exalts you above others. It really doesn't.
I never see their credential because I possess sufficient intelligence to recognise his expertise. I would definitely need to see yours. But it is not unknown for grifters to take upon them the character of a doctor and practice his trade having no qualification to do so until someone recognises his ineptitude. But that is irrelevant, the point is that I, Serenity, do not need to see my doctors credentials to know that he is a doctor.
No, you have acquired knowledge as a result of your education. To be qualified requires experience and wisdom, you have neither. The rest of the paragraph is not worthy of a response. It is ad hominem, yet again.
Your reputation precedes you. That is not a compliment.
Ah, sarcasm, the lowest form of wit. No surprises there
It is all a matter of opinion. Your opinion doesn't matter.
So should you, especially where all of the christians were wiping the floor with the atheists. So refreshing to see. But just because 10, 20, 30 people disagree with me does not make me wrong. That is your forte.
Arrogance is over confidence. You are confident that you are right which prevents you from seeing quite how much in error you really are. You eagerly want to start writing your first novel, however, your pen is empty. It matters not how eloquent and expensive that pen looks and feels it is useless without ink. Your pen is exquisite but it is baron of ink. All the time you speak to posters with an empty Arrogance or confidence you will never have the wisdom to refill your pen.
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
My conclusion of your arguments and character you take personally. Usually this happens when the statements are true and public. This triggers embarrassment, outrage and denial As demonstrated by your own words you know neither science, philosophy nor logic. Hence why you focus on my evaluation of you rather than my criticisms of your arguments. You let your emotions get the better of you, hence "big boy pants".
I said you were being critical but not successfully at it as per my obvious comments over the past pages. Reading comprehension issues or delusional?
I addressed you causality points and you junk science claims which do not corroborate each other. You just whine rather than attempt to form a counter-argument.
Obviously I have been trying to teach you but you are unable to grasp basic scientific and logical methods.
You confuse confidence in my abilities which are proven by certification with superiority.
You contradict yourself since you already acknowledge I had an advantage due to my education over other people and it was "unfair" Hence I know what I am talking about.
You are making statements of facts by attempted corroboration of science and logic with your religious views. It is no longer an opinion.
I welcome progress with it is backed by sound science and logic. None of which was in your links nor claims.
I guess an analogue of empty claims went right over your head.
Nope. See I already addressed you claims a few posts ago. Instead of talking about the points I brought up against the cases you only replied to my conclusions of your abilities. Thus the only relies I could response to.
"Easy" degrees which you stated gave me an advantage over you. Enrolling and being certified is enough. Notice that you disparage my career not my arguments... Guess what fallacy this.
I honestly do not think any person's opinion that happens to disagrees matters to you. You are only seeking the support of the choir. You will think plenty of those in the DIR.
By making a thread you are in fact making everyone your judge. You are expressing a few publicly for other people and engaging in a dialog with others. f you didn't want people to evaluate your views and pass a judgment you should have remained silent
An evaluation is not persecution, play the victim to someone else. I would also point out you open bigotry by stereotyping atheists is in fact persecution which you express publicly on this very forum.
You used your interpretation of science. As per the advantage you acknowledge I have over you in previous comments I evaluated your views and found these lacking since you lack the educations to logically evaluated science. See when you bring up science one can see if the "studies" followed these protocols. If they did not, as 3 clearly didn't by subject contamination and no test group division, one can point this out. Also the basic pages statements you linked where not proven by the studies I found written by the very people on the site. This means they are making claims outside what has been even studied, reviewed and proven. So not only do I find your interpretation to be flawed I find the first websites to be flawed as well as the secondary sources for these sites. I reminded you that you have no produced one actual study but just websites making claims. This is not how to do research, empty claims without references to actual studies I can read are useless.
There are a number of accredited quacks that practice unethical medicine or have something other than their patient's interest in mind. Take Dr. Joseph Mercola for example. Certified but makes illegal claims and has been warned repeatedly by the FDA. Hence why it is best to educate and protect yourself from quacks making outlandish claims and selling said claims to the consumer market. Hence why researching the actual study rather than the claims of the doctor about the study. It is called fact checking. I have switched doctors a number of times when I found their services lacking or not in my best interest. I consult second opinion regularly. Fact checking.
I have experience since a complete formal education in itself is experience. Demonstration of one's learning experience is required for certification. Certification guarantees a certain level of experience and knowledge, enough to legally or by academic standards to practice an expertise. That is all that is required for qualifications. I have friends younger than I am practicing medicine in hospitals....
Nope it is again an evaluation since you have no provided a counter-argument for a few days. Just whining instead. It is the only thing to respond to.
Non-sequitur
I took you own comment as sarcasm since you flip-flop so much in your views. I doubt you honestly had the intension of accepting I was correct. Was it acceptance that I am correct?
Form a coherent definition of time in relation to causality. Provide examples. Provide a definition and explanation in how timeless can act within time. As I said you just through a word up that is incoherent. Yet you expect people to just accept since you do without definition it without negative theology.
That why Christianity is shrinking in 1st world nations, more people are converting to other religions and it's last bastion is in some of the poorest and least developed nations in the world. When did losing become winning? Germany must of won both world wars by your standards.
Only if proven which you have yet to do since you avoid my criticism of the studies but focus on my evaluation of your abilities and education.
So you are using poetry as a dodge now?
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Well, I think that is just about enough now of having to expose my eyes to any further eloquent guttersnipe rhetoric. There is no reason why I should maintain conversing with someone intent on being obnoxiously crass and extensively rude. I am sure that you must be tired of, as you so articulately and pompously promulgate, my whining and uneducated oratory diction. I see no likelihood of me getting through your self-important pontifical demeanour to enter into any meaningful and amicably courteous civilised debate as long as you take jouissance in bismerching and slandering my good name and high moralistic values. I fear that I must do to you what Matthew suggests I do.
Matthew 10:14 (KJV)
14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
I thought that as a result of your last barrage of verbal offence and abuse that I put you on my ignore list as a unsavoury rancorous character more interested in exalting himself then in any kind of debate. I cannot think why I didn't as you are on a par with the malevolent Sapiens and tattletale post of Bunyip, without a shadow of a doubt. Never mind, no harm done and it is all over and done with now.
Last edited: