Finding a new church or worship center

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your own posts refute you far too often.

That is just words. Show it in total and not just claim it. Burden of proof, you know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is just words. Show it in total and not just claim it. Burden of proof, you know.

What are you talking about? If you mean your past failures there is no need to do so. By the others have accused you of solipsism. Not me. I was the one that observed the closely related nihilistic arguments. Perhaps the others are right.

At times you seem to think that an accusation is a refutation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What are you talking about? If you mean your past failures there is no need to do so. By the others have accused you of solipsism. Not me. I was the one that observed the closely related nihilistic arguments. Perhaps the others are right.

At times you seem to think that an accusation is a refutation.

Okay, fair enough.
What is nihilism to you? I might learn something.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, fair enough.
What is nihilism to you? I might learn something.

In a nutshell it is the belief that we cannot know anything.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In a nutshell it is the belief that we cannot know anything.

Well, I do use knowledge. I just have another methodology for it than you. Knowledge is the broad sense belongs with philosophy and not just science and logic.
We just have different understandings of how we know, that we know. That is all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I do use knowledge. I just have another methodology for it than you. Knowledge is the broad sense belongs with philosophy and not just science and logic.
We just have different understandings of how we know, that we know. That is all.

Perhaps. Is your version of knowledge of any use?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Perhaps. Is your version of knowledge of any use?

Of any use is 1st person evaluation and not objective knowledge. So if you want objective evidence of any use, I can't give that to you.

Here it is with other words:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science
"...
Science doesn’t tell you how to use scientific knowledge
Although scientists often care deeply about how their discoveries are used, science itself doesn’t indicate what should be done with scientific knowledge. Science, for example, can tell you how to recombine DNA in new ways, but it doesn’t specify whether you should use that knowledge to correct a genetic disease, develop a bruise-resistant apple, or construct a new bacterium. For almost any important scientific advance, one can imagine both positive and negative ways that knowledge could be used. Again, science helps us describe how the world is, and then we have to decide how to use that knowledge.
..."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of any use is 1st person evaluation and not objective knowledge. So if you want objective evidence of any use, I can't give that to you.

Here it is with other words:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science
"...
Science doesn’t tell you how to use scientific knowledge
Although scientists often care deeply about how their discoveries are used, science itself doesn’t indicate what should be done with scientific knowledge. Science, for example, can tell you how to recombine DNA in new ways, but it doesn’t specify whether you should use that knowledge to correct a genetic disease, develop a bruise-resistant apple, or construct a new bacterium. For almost any important scientific advance, one can imagine both positive and negative ways that knowledge could be used. Again, science helps us describe how the world is, and then we have to decide how to use that knowledge.
..."

Why do you keep posting that article? Are you trying to use a strawman argument?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why do you keep posting that article? Are you trying to use a strawman argument?

Well, it is not a strawman argument. It is a fact. All utility is a 1st person evolution. There is no scientific theory of utility, because utility is subjective.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Y

Well, it is not a strawman argument. It is a fact. All utility is a 1st person evolution. There is no scientific theory of utility, because utility is subjective.

You appear to be trying to use it as one. And I never implied that there was a scientific theory of utility. You were using it as a strawman argument.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Y

You appear to be trying to use it as one.

No, that something is of use, is always to someone. But that can be different for different humans in some cases.
That it is of use to you to drink water, is so if you don't want to die. If you want to die, stop getting fluids as water and you will die.

 

[Muffled]

It depends upon what is important to an individual, and the subject of the song may have helped, but that does sound like a bit of a shallow reason to choose a church. The one example she gave has a dogma that she does not accept. You can check out what churches claim to teach if one is willing to dig just a little on the internet.

I believe when on vacation one gets to enjoy different kinds of worship. My church has one guitar and hymns and praise songs. A band will play more modern music.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe when on vacation one gets to enjoy different kinds of worship. My church has one guitar and hymns and praise songs. A band will play more modern music.

Okay, but what does that have to do with picking a new church?

 

[samtonga43]

Too bad that you do not even understand the difference between knowledge and belief.

What makes you think that I don't understand the difference between knowledge and belief, SZ?

 

[samtonga43]

And yet you can only justify your beliefs to yourself. I am very curious as to what nonsuperstitious Christianity consists of.

Be curious no longer, SZ. It is very simple.
A superstition is a belief or way of behaving that is based on fear of the unknown and faith in magic or luck.
So... Non-superstition is the opposite.

QED

 

[Subduction Zone]

What makes you think that I don't understand the difference between knowledge and belief, SZ?

Because I have the ability to demonstrate the difference. Do you think that you can?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Be curious no longer, SZ. It is very simple.
A superstition is a belief or way of behaving that is based on fear of the unknown and faith in magic or luck.
So... Non-superstition is the opposite.

QED

Please you just refuted yourself. Like it or not God beliefs are beliefs in magic.

 

[samtonga43]

Because I have the ability to demonstrate the difference. Do you think that you can?

SZ, your ability to demonstrate the difference between knowledge and belief does not answer my question.

In fact, you seem to be evading answering my question. So, let's try again:--
What makes you think that I don't understand the difference between knowledge and belief?

 

[samtonga43]

Please you just refuted yourself. Like it or not God beliefs are beliefs in magic.

No, I did not refute myself. The reason I did not refute myself is that I don't believe that believing in God is the same as believing in magic.
You do, and I understand why you do, since I have been there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

SZ, your ability to demonstrate the difference between knowledge and belief does not answer my question.

In fact, you seem to be evading answering my question. So, let's try again:--
What makes you think that I don't understand the difference between knowledge and belief?

You did not like or did not understand the answer. That is not my problem. You may not be letting yourself understand the answer; That happens a lot with theists.