Is there any religious argument that actually stands when scrutinized with reason?

[JoStories]

Its an eyesight issue

She is not yelling.

Thank you darling. One would think that the disclaimer at the bottom of my posts would make that clear yet how many times have we seen newbies say this same thing?

 

[Reflex]

Then you need to sit back and read some more of the threads. My word, you are both so new here. And yet, you have jumped to erroneous conclusions because he has your back up. Why not listen or try to understand. This is something of the peoples of the Christian faith that I will never understand. And no, I am not Christian. I am Buddhist.

Bye, Jo. I don't like yellers. They crowd my screen.

 

[JoStories]

I doubt Shad and outhouse actually contribute to any conversation. I'm new here, but all I've seen from either of them is superficiality and nay-saying.

And quit "yelling," Jo. It makes you look like a toddler begging for attention.

Do you see the disclaimer at the bottom of my posts? I am legally blind. I have to increase the font to see it. I will never ever understand people who claim to be of a faith being so rude. It has never been the people who are atheist who attack my eye sight, its always those who espouse belief in God.

 

[JoStories]

Bye, Jo. I don't like yellers. They crowd my screen.

And you have the audacity to call your self Christian? Wow...just wow.

 

[JoStories]

Ah yes but sometimes it is the last waltz and the last waltz will be forever.
Your prejudice and preconceived ideas are showing. Have you experienced the so-called spiritual, supernatural and paranormal as found in telepathy. Recent researches have proven it to exist even if it is not repeatable for all humans.
Did you know that in 2005 three students and two others involved in the research proved that sound is faster than light. This proves that may things of unknown qualities and thus many things regarded is spiritual and thus the unknown, are merely, as yet, the unexplained natural

I agree that those studies are intriguing, however, the hallmark of any good double blind study to prove validity and even more importantly, reliability, is repetition. I have yet to see that those studies have been repeated to successfully prove either. That doesn't mean that they wont be but rather that, for now, we must view them with a healthy degree of skepticism. Do you not agree?

 

[Theunis]

I agree that those studies are intriguing, however, the hallmark of any good double blind study to prove validity and even more importantly, reliability, is repetition. I have yet to see that those studies have been repeated to successfully prove either. That doesn't mean that they wont be but rather that, for now, we must view them with a healthy degree of skepticism. Do you not agree?

Yet when you were born as such, how can you deny what you are.

 

[JoStories]

It must be your POE that is polluting the scene.
I already told you so. Sheesh try reading what I say. Your knowledge regarding well-controlled experiments is lacking. I was speaking of scientific researches

But you didn't provide proof that these were well controlled experiments nor even a source regarding this experiments. You merely mentioned them and that was that. How does that transform into Outhouse having a lack of understanding? I, too, have worked in psychology and been a part of many experiments and studies. My mentor was a neuropsychologist so we investigated many interesting behaviors and their collective physiological meaning. I don't know your field, other than you mentioned criminology. Does that mean pathopsychology? Or perhaps are you a follower or Watson?

 

[JoStories]

Yet when you were born as such, how can you deny what you are.

I have no idea what you remark has to do with those experiments? Why do you infer I am denying myself and in what way? I was born as such what?

 

[Theunis]

And you have the audacity to call your self Christian? Wow...just wow.

He is quite correct that you are breaching internet etiquette and that by using the large emphasized font you appear to be shouting/yelling.
You should know better and not insult people with remarks such as the foregoing.
Do you have true understanding of human nature?

 

[Theunis]

But you didn't provide proof that these were well controlled experiments nor even a source regarding this experiments. You merely mentioned them and that was that. How does that transform into Outhouse having a lack of understanding? I, too, have worked in psychology and been a part of many experiments and studies. My mentor was a neuropsychologist so we investigated many interesting behaviors and their collective physiological meaning. I don't know your field, other than you mentioned criminology. Does that mean pathopsychology? Or perhaps are you a follower or Watson?

Get off your high-horse as a lecturer shouting at his class.
Yeah man I merely mentioned them. From your education you should have read about them. Darn I forget people are normally interested in their narrow fields of expertise and we nowadays find very few eclectics.

QUITE NASTY ARE YOU NOT. I SPECIFICALLY SAID PSYCHOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY. THESE WERE MY MAJORS

SO WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF YOUR RESEARCHES AND WHERE CAN I READ ALL ABOUT THEM? OOPS THIS SHOWS SOME SKEPTICISM - EVEN ON YOUR CLAIMS AS A PH.D ETC

SEE I CAN ALSO SHOUT ! (even if I do it as a lark)

 

[Theunis]

I have no idea what you remark has to do with those experiments? Why do you infer I am denying myself and in what way? I was born as such what?

Dear me I was referring to myself and quite in context that I was born as I am. (a telepath.)

 

[Theunis]

You will not make philosophical excuses for pseudoscience.

It is not just about the conclusion that determines your pseudoscience. It is the method you use to reach the conclusion.

Science is observation, and where there is nothing to observe, your NOT allowed to make a conclusion.

You remind me of someone who thinks ancient aliens is educational

ROFL

 

[Theunis]

You will not make philosophical excuses for pseudoscience.

It is not just about the conclusion that determines your pseudoscience. It is the method you use to reach the conclusion.

Science is observation, and where there is nothing to observe, your NOT allowed to make a conclusion.

You remind me of someone who thinks ancient aliens is educational

What are my methods to straight forward for you?
That's your opinion. My logic tutor does not agree with you. Many a time he stood with awe of how I perceived things and the logic behind my thoughts. (Of course I never told him what I was for the fear of the unknown was too heavy hanging there over far to many students and lecturers alike)

 

[Theunis]

Do you even understand what scrutinized with reason means?


Do I have to provide the definition of reason to you?

Poor boy making your usual assumptions, which could be are based on your skewed views that because others are not like you, you can insult their intelligence.
It is akin to a hardcore atheist who when I mentioned first the earth was flat and then it was round etc he said I did not know what I was talking about. He then referred me to Dr Isaac Asimov which made me smile because what I said was from the selfsame link he so kindly provided. Little did he know that Dr Isaac Asimov was one of my favourite authors - science fiction and otherwise.

 

[Jedster]

By the way did you know that in the 1930's Hitlers scientists went to the near and far east and studied ancient Eastern and Sanskrit writings. From them they learned how to build the atom bomb and "flying saucers". Thus knowledge of the atom bomb came from a religious source!

Take a good look at the Old and New Testaments, view it from a different point of view, and see how many technological things you can find.

Have you ever read the Mahabarata?
http://mahabharathascience.blogspot.co.uk/p/weapons-of-mass-destruction.html

 

[Theunis]

For the record folks, I am legally blind, more or less. The enlarged font for my own sake. Please do not interpret this as shouting as I am not. Thank you in advance for your understanding. Regards, Jo.

Thank you. I apologize most sincerely for my, as now revealed, incorrect assumption.
I will forthwith display my courtesy and reply to you in a large font.

One request could you use a larger font and colour in your footnote. You are using fine print and my own vision is bordering on -6. thank you.

 

[Theunis]

Have you ever read the Mahabarata?
http://mahabharathascience.blogspot.co.uk/p/weapons-of-mass-destruction.html

I was a regular on the about.com, Hinduism Forum.
Wow Masadonia was a great font of knowledge regarding The Sanskrit, The Vedas and The Mahabarata.
Vicky ( I forget her full name) was a pure pleasure to discuss Hinduism and current Hindu teachings with.
I forget the name of the man using the avatar with a "svastika" on his head; his discourse was interesting. He was an Advainta Hindu, that is a Hindu atheist, a belief that Brahman does exist but that atheism in advainta is a fact.
At times he thought I was fighting with him because how can one say Brahman exists yet be an atheist. Then I realized that it was similar to pantheism.
My apologies for the off-topic ramble but it went off at a tangent long ago.

 

[Theunis]

ROFL

You will not make philosophical excuses for pseudoscience.

It is not just about the conclusion that determines your pseudoscience. It is the method you use to reach the conclusion.

Science is observation, and where there is nothing to observe, your NOT allowed to make a conclusion.

You remind me of someone who thinks ancient aliens is educational

Now that I am over my ROFL
1. You presume to instruct me what I may or may not do. Surely you mean "ÿou should not"?
2. What do you discern my method to be. A good example may bring me to better insight into your problem
3. Science is research - it is not one of the tools it uses - Wow so science and conclusive proof by other scientists by replicating the same research and reaching the same conclusion is a no.no. Wow, Wow
. There is no such thing as nothing - Even if you lament - There is nothing left for me of days that used to be, I live in memories among my souvenirs - but hey you still have your memories.
Oh sorry you probably mean there is nothing concrete to observe. Hmm?

 

[Shad]

Your opinion of post hoc rationalization, in my opinion holds no water. It merely amounts to a plain rejection of something that does not conform to your opinion.
I have always considered this reference to "the dust of the earth" to be an element of earth. As such it has no relevance to the definition of "dust". How about a humanoid ape as an existing element of earth?

Try again son. When you reinterpret a generalized term as if it was talking about a specific after the specific is discovered by someone else that never made the claim of dust that is post hoc and ad hoc rationalization. You are interpreting dust so the verse is still considered, by you, correct. All you are doing is defending a flawed claim so it can not be falsified by fallacious reasoning. The same as with me calling QM stuff then claiming what is discovered fits my stuff term perfectly.

No it is a rejection of fallacious reasoning since both terms I have mentioned are fallacies. Dust is not an element, chemistry shows this, as dust is comprised of many elements. An element can not be simplified while dust can since one can separate the various particles based on the elements it is comprised of. Dust is comprised of particles. Your opinion does not trump scientific fact. All you have done is make your argument worse by claiming dust is an element itself.

A humanoid ape is not an element either. Do you even know what element means?

Your reference to pseudoscience once again only indicates your rejection of things that you have no knowledge of and your inclination to not study all things.

Negative since there is no evidence of these "gods" being aliens and mixing dna with people. It has never been established as fact. You response is that of a crackpot. Lets see some peer-reviewed work showing your claim is true. Lets see your data. Lets see your data for alien dna so we can compare it to our dna.

To reject things by saying it is mythological is surely meaningless for it is leaning on a crutch of ignorance of that which may or may not have been and in the same breath voicing an opinion that it never was.

Another crackpot response from you. I reject that which has zero evidence for. Again demonstrate your claim is anything but pseudoscience.

 

[Shad]

I doubt Shad and outhouse actually contribute to any conversation. I'm new here, but all I've seen from either of them is superficiality and nay-saying.

And quit "yelling," Jo. It makes you look like a toddler begging for attention.

You take our rejection of your, and others, failed arguments as not contributing. However by pointing out the fallacious nature of these arguments we are contributing to the dismantling of bad ideas based on horrible reasoning. Showing how these ideas are flawed is contributing. If you want an echo chamber of people that will never challenge your views or how you reason then stick with DIRs. If I were to say "All red heads are dumb" and you corrected me you would be contributing as much as outhouse and I are. The only reason I can see for your comment is that of an emotional reaction to having your flawed reasoning exposed and scrutinized. You might as well claim logic is useless since I am strictly attacking the logic, in most cases, of your arguments. Also you are claiming that people that oppose your ideas contribute nothing yet opposition to bad ideas has made progress throughout history.