Science ... NOT God ...

[Darkstorn]

No, on the contrary. Its me that wants to discuss the evidence and subject without making it about the person.

But, since the folks in question here want to make it about me, i too shall make it about them.

You're projecting and or being paranoid. It really is NOT at all about you, only what you're saying. And you made a fool of yourself. No help was required from us for you to do it. You did it without prompt because something snapped.

You snapping like that is a problem you're having, not us.

People who get anxiety blame others for their anxiety. That's why they get anxious. Because they have a convenient excuse to never face their anxiety. You're showing signs of this behavior. Really, you did ALL of your things yourself, and your lack of means and self-awareness was laid bare for everyone to see.

Then you started acting like a child.

 

[Jollybear]

So - why do you think this "pretend evidence" is accepted by almost all of the scientists who study the relevant disciplines, and of the tiny, tiny minority who think it's "pretend", almost all have an obvious religious vested interest in it being wrong?

First off i dont believe thats even the reality.

Second of all, majority dont make something evidence.

 

[Jollybear]

You're projecting and or being paranoid. It really is NOT at all about you, only what you're saying. And you made a fool of yourself. No help was required from us for you to do it. You did it without prompt because something snapped.

You snapping like that is a problem you're having, not us.

You can believe that delusion all you want too. One of the drawbacks of the freedom of speech is people like you defy reality. But i still uphold the freedom.

 

[Darkstorn]

You can believe that delusion all you want too. One of the drawbacks of the freedom of speech is people like you defy reality. But i still uphold the freedom.

I'm not the one who sounds delusional. Case in point. Freedom of speech let YOU wrote what you wrote, and make a fool out of yourself. You were allowed that in total freedom.

Now, face the consequences.

That would be them.

Yes, it's always "them."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Intellectually honest.
...
What you do, is ridiculous and nonsensical.

Let me be intellectually honest with you.
There are no universal, objective standard for reasoning. All differences in reasoning are interpreted based on a particular, subjective standard. That is so for me and for you.
The difference is that you take yours for granted as applying to me, where as I point out that neither of us have a universal, objective standard for reasoning.
So here is the correct statement:
What I do, is ridiculous and nonsensical based on your particular, subjective standard for reasoning.

 

[Darkstorn]

What I do, is ridiculous and nonsensical based on your particular, subjective standard for reasoning.

No, it's ridiculous because you're a laughing stock. Your self-awareness is miniscule, your reading comprehension a failure, your ability to understand other viewpoints non-existent.

Those do not make up for a good philosopher.

 

[sooda]

They don't! Most atheists use science as an excuse/argument against religion

Really? Can you explain walking on water or living in the belly of a fish for three days?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let me be intellectually honest with you.
There are no universal, objective standard for reasoning. All differences in reasoning are interpreted based on a particular, subjective standard. That is so for me and for you.
The difference is that you take yours for granted as applying to me, where as I point out that neither of us have a universal, objective standard for reasoning.
So here is the correct statement:
What I do, is ridiculous and nonsensical based on your particular, subjective standard for reasoning.

Derail more, derailer.

Meanwhile, if you might remember, N posts ago, you asked me a question about where religion comes from, how it works.
You might also remember that I gave you an answer. It could be that you've already forgotten, because the closest you got to addressing it, was strawmanning my entire answer and in subsequent posts you completely ignored my clarifications and started bickering on irrelevant details or analogies, by off course using obfuscation, more strawmen and bringing up irrelevant nonsense. Much like you're doing once again in this post.


I suggest you stop this charade, go back to the original post where I actually answered your question, or the subsequent post where I clarify the answer and correct your strawmen, and try again...

I'm not interested in further derailment and playing dodgeball into oblivion.

 

[ratiocinator]

First off i dont believe thats even the reality.

What do you think is wrong about it?

Second of all, majority dont make something evidence.

I didn't say it was. However, when you claim that all the evidence is "pretend" and pretty much everybody who is qualified to assess it disagrees, and accepts the evidence, then it's reasonable to ask why you think that is. Doubly so when you and most of the dissenters have an obvious vested interest.

 

[Jollybear]

I'm not the one who sounds delusional. Case in point. Freedom of speech let YOU wrote what you wrote, and make a fool out of yourself. You were allowed that in total freedom.

Now, face the consequences.



Yes, it's always "them."

Im done man. Carry on with your nonsense.

 

[Jollybear]

What do you think is wrong about it?



I didn't say it was. However, when you claim that all the evidence is "pretend" and pretty much everybody who is qualified to assess it disagrees, and accepts the evidence, then it's reasonable to ask why you think that is. Doubly so when you and most of the dissenters have an obvious vested interest.

There is no vested interest except an interest in whats TRUE!

 

[Darkstorn]

Im done man. Carry on with your nonsense.

Do i need to repeat that it was you, not i, or anyone else but you, who went on a tantrum and started repeating responses instead of debating properly? Do you remember?

So yes, "you're done." That's because it's more convenient to blame me, a random person who didn't actually say anything to you before your tantrum, for whatever anxiety you're currently feeling. Because this is not debating, and you're not debating. You're trying to shift blame for your personal paranoia onto a random person.

Maybe you should go to a doctor instead of hanging around a forum with multiple opposing viewpoints?

There is no vested interest except an interest in whats TRUE!

Problem: Everything you've so far said sounds like something made up a by a paranoid schizophrenic.

So that's like listening to a paranoid schizophrenic who's making truth claims and then believing him/her: Now why on earth would we want to do that? Your claims are roughly as convincing and well thought-out as the guy who came to me in the subway a few years ago claiming to be Jesus.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Derail more, derailer.

Meanwhile, if you might remember, N posts ago, you asked me a question about where religion comes from, how it works.
You might also remember that I gave you an answer. It could be that you've already forgotten, because the closest you got to addressing it, was strawmanning my entire answer and in subsequent posts you completely ignored my clarifications and started bickering on irrelevant details or analogies, by off course using obfuscation, more strawmen and bringing up irrelevant nonsense. Much like you're doing once again in this post.


I suggest you stop this charade, go back to the original post where I actually answered your question, or the subsequent post where I clarify the answer and correct your strawmen, and try again...

I'm not interested in further derailment and playing dodgeball into oblivion.

Yes, here is also how religion works:

Religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death. In many traditions, this relation and these concerns are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitude toward gods or spirits; in more humanistic or naturalistic forms of religion, they are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitudes toward the broader human community or the natural world. In many religions, texts are deemed to have scriptural status, and people are esteemed to be invested with spiritual or moral authority. Believers and worshippers participate in and are often enjoined to perform devotional or contemplative practices such as prayer, meditation, or particular rituals. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life.

religion | Definition & List of Religions

You framed how religion works in a limited sense so it suited your point. I know. I haven't forgotten that.
So here is my answer: Your framing is a part of how religion works. It is a limited part of it. It is not false, but limited, This is another part.
So where does it end? Where I have already explained it ends. Religion subjectively doesn't make sense to you, yet to me it makes sense. These are the 2 facts, we are dancing around and you want to frame it, so it doesn't make sense not just to you, but for everybody.
That is what is going on with all of these words: You want your understanding to be universal for all humans. It is not, neither is me.

 

[Darkstorn]

It is not, neither is me.

You're about as deep as a puddle. Easy to read. I've enough experience of internet philosophers like you. Most of them, including you, are having the trouble of believing in their own hype a bit too much. It makes them blind to the actual strength of their arguments. They are being tanked by their own ego. Now, don't even respond to this. You'll go on and on and on about subjectivity and how you're the master of no-self and you're not the biggest egotist in this thread(good luck trying to convince me out of that viewpoint.)

The sad thing here is: You're a bit too easy to understand. Take that as you will. It's... I'm reading this while drinking coffee and eating lunch. Light entertainment. That's how deep you are.

If i can read an entire post, and make up a response, in less than 6 minutes, it actually means you're not very deep at all. Nothing you write makes me think anything but "great, this one again."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, here is also how religion works:

religion | Definition & List of Religions

You framed how religion works in a limited sense so it suited your point.

That does not explain how religion works nore where it comes from. It just defines what religion is.

So here is my answer: Your framing is a part of how religion works. It is a limited part of it. It is not false, but limited, This is another part.

This is not a part of an explanatory model of how religious beliefs work nore where they come from. It's just a defining of what religions and followers thereof are .

So where does it end? Where I have already explained it ends. Religion subjectively doesn't make sense to you, yet to me it makes sense. These are the 2 facts, we are dancing around and you want to frame it, so it doesn't make sense not just to you, but for everybody.

Another part of this charade is also your complete and repeatedly proven inability to be able to properly differentiate the (f)act of believing from the accuracy (or not) of what is actually being believed.

Also far from the first time I have to bring that to your attention.

That is what is going on with all of these words: You want your understanding to be universal for all humans. It is not, neither is me.

No, I instead just like scope of a topic. You don't seem to comprehend scopes.

A definition of something is just a defintion; a defining of what it is - not an explanation.
An explanation is something that tries to make sense of the facts. Definitions are just an attempt at defining the facts.

Definitions and explanations are not the same thing.

So once again, you managed to address my answer, without actually addressing it because you once again are confused about terms and scope of what is being discussed.

Which is weird, because you're the one who asked the question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're about as deep as a puddle. Easy to read. I've enough experience of internet philosophers like you. Most of them, including you, are having the trouble of believing in their own hype a bit too much. It makes them blind to the actual strength of their arguments. They are being tanked by their own ego. Now, don't even respond to this. You'll go on and on and on about subjectivity and how you're the master of no-self and you're not the biggest egotist in this thread(good luck trying to convince me out of that viewpoint.)

The sad thing here is: You're a bit too easy to understand. Take that as you will. It's... I'm reading this while drinking coffee and eating lunch. Light entertainment. That's how deep you are.

If i can read an entire post, and make up a response, in less than 6 minutes, it actually means you're not very deep at all. Nothing you write makes me think anything but "great, this one again."

How subjective of you. You give evidence for the facts of limited cognitive, moral, cultural and subjectivist relativism, because your post amounts to that we don't think and feel alike. Bravo, you gave evidence in favor of my point.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no vested interest except an interest in whats TRUE!

Firstly, you are obviously avoiding my question: why do you think pretty much everybody qualified to assess the evidence disagrees with you?

Secondly, do you deny that you, and most other dissenters from this evidence, believe in a literal interpretation of a "holy" book, and that this evidence challenges that interpretation?

 

[Darkstorn]

How subjective of you. You give evidence for the facts of limited cognitive, moral, cultural and subjectivist relativism, because your post amounts to that we don't think and feel alike. Bravo, you give evidence in favor of my point.

...You'll go on and on and on about subjectivity...

So in addition to being shallow like no tomorrow, you're also predictable.

Bravo.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So in addition to being shallow like no tomorrow, you're also predictable.

Bravo.

Subjective again.

 

[Darkstorn]

Subjective again.

You do realize the only thing you need to do in order for me to not compulsively feel like making fun of you, is not to say hilarious stuff like that?

Heh, solipsists.