TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Mormons on TA.?
Pages (10): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 »

oh so lets take a half time intermission and sum up


lex400sc is a moromon who beleives that religion is ridiculous. Did i miss something here this topic seems to be full of contradictions.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN

O M F G

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN probably the first post from you ive seen that i disagree with in case someone hasnt posted it already.

Hahaha
Check out the south park episode that explains the founding story of the Mormon faith:

I think that those who are unwilling to even admit the possibility of a God, yet hide behind science, fail to actually recognize that science is, in itself, of a very tentative nature and exists to further our understanding of what possibility actually is.

If someone had not looked at the stars and said "wow, I wonder what is out there", would we have science as it is? Would we have religion as it is?

quote:

Originally posted by analpie I also laugh at the hypocrisy of atheists, who condemn religion and religious people for pushing their beliefs onto others, when they do it just as much. I don't understand the need of people to get everybody else to agree with their beliefs, other than the fact that it somehow gives strength to their point of view. Are people that afraid to stand alone with what they believe, that they have to try and convince others to go along with it? Seems like an ego thing to me. Plain and simple.

Every conscious action is an "Ego Thing".

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I think that those who are unwilling to even admit the possibility of a God, yet hide behind science, fail to actually recognize that science is, in itself, of a very tentative nature and exists to further our understanding of what possibility actually is. If someone had not looked at the stars and said "wow, I wonder what is out there", would we have science as it is? Would we have religion as it is?

I magnanimously acknowledge that your nick was given to you by Allah with reason , she is Wise

quote:

Originally posted by Subey I magnanimously acknowledge that your nick was given to you by Allah with reason , she is Wise

REVERSED!

quote:

Originally posted by lex400sc and pushing science and knowledge of science is not the same as pushing a belief system

yet i rarely see anyone push biology/chemistry/mathematics/physics/etc as fervently as they do atheism.

quote:

Originally posted by wienerschnitzel fair enough, i think i see where this is going... ok, you're right lex400sc, about EVERYTHING. i'm sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On ...the faith is somewhat blind because it is often supported by theories and supposed "laws" - but when we look far enough, those laws are being contantly broken and defied.

please provide an example of a fundamental (supposedly) universal law of physics being broken.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T please provide an example of a fundamental (supposedly) universal law of physics being broken.

lol

quote:

Originally posted by Subey Lex Has the following ever occurred to you? Anything is infinitely less plausible than nothing? or to rephrase That the basic construct of a universe emerging from a big bang (or God for that matter) is infinitely less logical than nothing for ever in every direction (realizing of course that direction is being used here as a symbolic reference point to make the concept easier to digest rather than referring to any cardinal points)

and this statement is based on what? where did you gather your probabilistic data from?

quote:

Originally posted by lex400sc you call it ego, i call it altruism, and i call your condition dependancy and denial

there's no such thing as unegoistical altruism, and hence by most definitions of the word, there's no such thing as altruism.

quote:

Originally posted by lex400sc lol i am always fascinated by how people like you arrive at your conclusions. i guess the sky is the limit when a part of your rationale accepts miracles that defy all physical laws

also, your perceptive abilities are.... nil.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T and this statement is based on what? where did you gather your probabilistic data from?

The use of probability is a weak attempt to place a concept into the mind's hand, and not to place the concept onto an actuarial table.

In other words...

Infinity can not be grasped, and doesn't need to be. We can stretch our minds in the direction of infinity, that is enough to acquire a symbolic representation of it to use conceptually.


Nothing comes to the party alone. Anything comes with the burden of answering the question "what is your origin", scientists don't go there. They go as far as a billionth of a second after the big bang.

Once you conceptually examine anything beyond that point nothing's point outweigh's anything's in an argument that is lobsided infinitely to its side.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T and this statement is based on what? where did you gather your probabilistic data from?

2 dice

quote:

Originally posted by lex400sc so you basically made an assumption. roger.

thank you captain obvious (btw, i assume you have inhaled and exhaled at least once within the past minute).

quote:

Originally posted by Subey Nothing comes to the party alone.

.................................and this statement is based on what?

alon.. this is hilarious its like your talking to an answering machine


Like that episode of alvin and the chipmunks where he puts the tape player under his bed and david saville is like "ALVIIIIIIIN" and the tape plays "yes dad" and then dave says some more stuff and the tape ansewrs the questions!


LOL

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T .................................and this statement is based on what?

It is based on the most natural evaluation of nothingness.

And that is the observation that Nothing has absolutely zero requirements.

This thread needs some graphical aids

quote:

Originally posted by Subey The use of probability is a weak attempt to place a concept into the mind's hand, and not to place the concept onto an actuarial table. In other words... Infinity can not be grasped, and doesn't need to be. We can stretch our minds in the direction of infinity, that is enough to acquire a symbolic representation of it to use conceptually. Nothing comes to the party alone. Anything comes with the burden of answering the question "what is your origin", scientists don't go there. They go as far as a billionth of a second after the big bang. Once you conceptually examine anything beyond that point nothing's point outweigh's anything's in an argument that is lobsided infinitely to its side.

yeah thats why scientists call themselves operationalists not essentialists, scientist dont pretend to answer question in absolutes, and less try to answer questions abt the essence of things. also you wrote a lot in your post without saying absolutely anything, if you're gonna pretend to be smart at least meake your post coherent, i mean wtf does "nothing's point outweight's anything's point in an argument that is lobsided infinitely to its side" mean,

quote:

Originally posted by venomX yeah thats why scientists call themselves operationalists not essentialists, scientist dont pretend to answer question in absolutes, and less try to answer questions abt the essence of things. also you wrote a lot in your post without saying absolutely anything, if you're gonna pretend to be smart at least meake your post coherent, i mean wtf does "nothing's point outweight's anything's point in an argument that is lobsided infinitely to its side" mean,

Your evaluation appears reasonable to you because you are coming from a place that cannot conceptualize what nothingness is relative to anything.

Its a difficult concept to transmit. I may not be able to transmit it. If that is because of a weakness on my part, a weakness on yours, or the inaccessibility of the concept I can not say.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey Your evaluation appears reasonable to you because you are coming from a place that cannot conceptualize what nothingness is relative to anything. Its a difficult concept to transmit. I may not be able to transmit it. If that is because of a weakness on my part, a weakness on yours, or the inaccessibility of the concept I can not say.

lol, but then again nothingness only exists due to our perception of a lack of "something", if no one percieves nothingness, is it really nothingness. and even at that nothingness doesnt really exists, theres always "something", so all that fancy rethoric means nothing . and with respect to nothingness versus anything, i think your just having trouble expressing that you mean that randonmess is more likely to cause certain events more than a complicated explanation, amirite?

quote:

Originally posted by analpie I also laugh at the hypocrisy of atheists, who condemn religion and religious people for pushing their beliefs onto others, when they do it just as much.

um, yeah. the atheists are always round my place, with their copy of the "not watching" magazine, making 101 different ads on television, building temples of worship all over town, getting on the tv and telling society how to behave based on their funny adherence to magic.

quote:

Originally posted by analpie I think that those who are unwilling to even admit the possibility of a God, yet hide behind science, fail to actually recognize that science is, in itself, of a very tentative nature and exists to further our understanding of what possibility actually is. If someone had not looked at the stars and said "wow, I wonder what is out there", would we have science as it is? Would we have religion as it is?

blah blah blah. if you reckon science is as equally tentative as "faith" then its you that is failing to recognise something. at least science is open to change and revision and there to be built upon and improved. intellectual evolution.

know any scientists using a 4000 year old textbook for their "tentative" research?

quote:

Originally posted by venomX lol, but then again nothingness only exists due to our perception of a lack of "something", if no one percieves nothingness, is it really nothingness. and even at that nothingness doesnt really exists, theres always "something", so all that fancy rethoric means nothing . and with respect to nothingness versus anything, i think your just having trouble expressing that you mean that randonmess is more likely to cause certain events more than a complicated explanation, amirite?

You've taken it down the wrong path. The following illustration sucks but its the best I can come up with that hints at the issue.


Which is more plausible of the following two scenarios.

a) A perfectly sealed safe with nothing in it yesterday, today and forever.

b) A perfectly sealed safe with nothing in it yesterday, and today there is a rock in it.

In scenario a there are no issues. Of course the safe is empty today. In scenario b the rock is a huge problem. What is the origin of the rock?

But in the case of nothingness its even more extreme and difficult to conceptualize, there's no space, no time, no nothing. To nothingness, dimensions and time are all rocks that appear inside the empty safe.

***

From that perspective which scenario is reasonable a or b?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.