TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- creationism making a comeback in texas
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 »

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Not at all. What I'm saying is that a person's relationship with god is no different then relationships between people in that it's a relationship with a perception rather then with a definite and genuine article. Whether there is or is not a god(s) my "relationship" with same is really a relationship with what I believe god to be; much the same as my relationship with my wife is really a relationship with the person I believe her to be, and my relationship with you is really just with the person I believe you to be.

I don't understand how this goes against the claim that this relationship is different than a dellusionary schizophrenic, since you perceive relationships on what you beleive them to be-and not neccessarily what they are objectively.

this very wording of not seeing people as genuine articles, and seeing the person you believe them to be is fine in the majority of cases, but when mental illness is present it becomes a slippery slope-since the sufferer sincerely beleives in his psychosis.

and I am not degrading your relationship with the higher power, just looking at the relationship through a modern psychiatric lense(which has its fair share of issues)

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Damerchi I don't understand how this goes against the claim that this relationship in different than a dellusionary schizophrenic, since you perceive relationships on what you beleive them to be-and not neccessarily what they are objectively. this very wording of not seeing people as genuine articles, and seeing the person you believe them to be is fine in the majority of cases, but when mental illness is present it becomes a slippery slope-since the sufferer sincerely beleives in his psychosis. and I am not degrading your relationship with the higher power, just looking at the relationship through a modern psychiatric lense(which has its fair share of issues)

Perhaps I was not clear enough... ALL relationships are with the perception of something rather then the reality of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard And I refuted that... if nothing else they are experts in man's relationship with a conceptualized god, which is knowable even if one cannot establish whether or not god(s) exist.

but that's like saying that an alchemist is an expert in alchemy. um, so what? if you can't prove, or even test, that 'man's relationship with god' is anything more than 'man's superstition with himself' then being an expert in that field doesn't raise him above an astrologist, let alone the laziest scientists, sociologists
much religious doctrine/belief is lagging far behind what is self-evidently good and real that i struggle to care what they think about anything.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Not at all. What I'm saying is that a person's relationship with god is no different then relationships between people in that it's a relationship with a perception rather then with a definite and genuine article.

are you saying that belief in god is the same thing as someone who stalks madonna (if you'll pardon the pun) thinking they have a relationship with her? are you saying that all beliefs regarding relationships are equal and valid?

the funny part is that the stalker will get studied by a mental health professional, whereas the the religious person can go on studying and becoming a pre-eminent expert in the equally tangible relationship

that is of course if you're forced to accept that the stalker analogy holds, and im curious to see what you think coz you always have such a great way of stomping me down when i think i have you

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Whether there is or is not a god(s) my "relationship" with same is really a relationship with what I believe god to be; much the same as my relationship with my wife is really a relationship with the person I believe her to be, and my relationship with you is really just with the person I believe you to be.

but is it not the same thing? the other relationships are based upon substantive interactions that can be verified to some degree by other people. if there is no god or if he is nothing like what you believe, what you're essentially saying is you're having a relationship with own imagination. i doubt you would characterise the entire relationship you have with your wife and spawn in that fashion.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but that's like saying that an alchemist is an expert in alchemy. um, so what? if you can't prove, or even test, that 'man's relationship with god' is anything more than 'man's superstition with himself' then being an expert in that field doesn't raise him above an astrologist, let alone the laziest scientists, sociologists much religious doctrine/belief is lagging far behind what is self-evidently good and real that i struggle to care what they think about anything.

You just don't understand, do you? Whether or not there is a god is immaterial to the fact that humans have understood themselves to have a relationship with god, this has created an entire history and shaped our entire world; subsequently, that which man views as his relationship with this perceived god (real or not) is real, is valid, is knowable, is significant.

quote:

are you saying that belief in god is the same thing as someone who stalks madonna (if you'll pardon the pun) thinking they have a relationship with her? are you saying that all beliefs regarding relationships are equal and valid? the funny part is that the stalker will get studied by a mental health professional, whereas the the religious person can go on studying and becoming a pre-eminent expert in the equally tangible relationship

You keep trying to get me to suggest faith is a delusion, I don't blame you, I'd do the same in your position; however, you what you're really doing is showing that you don't understand what I'm saying or you simply don't care. What I have said and will continue to say is that ALL RELATIONSHIPS ARE WITH PERCEIVED ARTICLES, NOT GENUINE ONES. One can only have a relationship with what they believe a person/thing to be because the actual person/thing is unknowable.

quote:

the other relationships are based upon substantive interactions that can be verified to some degree by other people.

Incorrect... relationships are based on one's reflections upon interactions.

quote:

if there is no god or if he is nothing like what you believe, what you're essentially saying is you're having a relationship with own perception.

fixed

quote:

i doubt you would characterise the entire relationship you have with your wife and spawn in that fashion.

Actually, I would. I have no idea what my wife or daughter are thinking, what they believe, essentially - who they are. All I know is the personas they present to me.

I like this. We need more stupid people for me to rule over.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard You just don't understand, do you? Whether or not there is a god is immaterial to the fact that humans have understood themselves to have a relationship with god, this has created an entire history and shaped our entire world; subsequently, that which man views as his relationship with this perceived god (real or not) is real, is valid, is knowable, is significant.

i understand, i just don't know why i (or anyone else) is meant to care. for instance, all theologians believe in god, so what standard of objective study can one really expert from them? i bet there's significant areas where theology doesn't bat an eyelid as it ignores the very real negative impacts of religion on man's history and shaping of the world. can i go take a class on repressive theology or violence and religion, that's taught by a theologian rather than a historian, sociologist or psychologist?? one doesn't need to be a theologian to see the real (rather than perceived or imagined) relationship man has with god and other men...

And this isn't even delving into all the other areas theologians DO decide to stick their nose, outside the 'man's relationship with god' argument you're making here. a substantial part of theology is the 'study of the unknowable' alongside the man's relationship part

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard You keep trying to get me to suggest faith is a delusion, I don't blame you, I'd do the same in your position;

well, you keep painting it that way. you're suggesting that it is possible to have a relationship with something that isn't there, just the same as anyone with a mental disease might. you haven't explained how a person's (possibly) imaginery relationship with god is any different to the stalker who has a perceived relationship with a celebrity.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard however, you what you're really doing is showing that you don't understand what I'm saying or you simply don't care. What I have said and will continue to say is that ALL RELATIONSHIPS ARE WITH PERCEIVED ARTICLES, NOT GENUINE ONES. One can only have a relationship with what they believe a person/thing to be because the actual person/thing is unknowable.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Incorrect... relationships are based on one's reflections upon interactions.

and what interactions does one have with god might i ask??

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard fixed

uh uh uh. you cant change the word to suit. i said "imagination"; "perception" means that you have to have perceived something, which you haven't.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Actually, I would. I have no idea what my wife or daughter are thinking, what they believe, essentially - who they are. All I know is the personas they present to me.

again, i said imaginery, not perceived since you have no substantive interactions with god the same way you might your wife and child, surely you can't be saying they're the same on the scale of reality?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i understand, i just don't know why i (or anyone else) is meant to care. for instance, all theologians believe in god

Untrue.

Some of the leading atheists are theologians. Bart Ehrman is a prime example. Hell one of my Exegesis professors is an atheist and it offers a great perspective.

You're also wrong about theologians not teaching about the "evils" of religion.

Reformed theology is a prime example of this, as are the Jesuits in general

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Untrue. Some of the leading atheists are theologians. Bart Ehrman is a prime example. Hell one of my Exegesis professors is an atheist and it offers a great perspective. You're also wrong about theologians not teaching about the "evils" of religion. Reformed theology is a prime example of this, as are the Jesuits in general

really? i had no idea.

Not to mention all the people who study theology at these bible institutes and what not that quickly lose their faith after exploring the Bible, and become atheists soon after.

It's just retarded methodology on the parts of some of these Christian colleges in the USA and Canada. They teach them that every single detail of the Bible was dictated from God to a secretary (a prophet or apostle) and that if any minute detail is wrong then the Bible is automatically invalid. Then on the reverse they demand that these students engage in elaborate exegesis of certain passages analyzing everything so thoroughly etc, that when they DO inevitably come across a mistake or an error the students run for the hills and become hardened atheists.

well, good to see theology isn't a complete waste of time then!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i understand, i just don't know why i (or anyone else) is meant to care. for instance, all theologians believe in god, so what standard of objective study can one really expert from them? i bet there's significant areas where theology doesn't bat an eyelid as it ignores the very real negative impacts of religion on man's history and shaping of the world. can i go take a class on repressive theology or violence and religion, that's taught by a theologian rather than a historian, sociologist or psychologist?? one doesn't need to be a theologian to see the real (rather than perceived or imagined) relationship man has with god and other men... And this isn't even delving into all the other areas theologians DO decide to stick their nose, outside the 'man's relationship with god' argument you're making here. a substantial part of theology is the 'study of the unknowable' alongside the man's relationship part

I think Alex did a good job at addressing your erred assumptions; however, I must add that I never contended theologians don't study some things that are ultimately unknowable... What I did argue was that your assertion that they are only experts on the unknowable was false, I'm pretty certain I've satisfied that goal.

quote:

well, you keep painting it that way. you're suggesting that it is possible to have a relationship with something that isn't there, just the same as anyone with a mental disease might. you haven't explained how a person's (possibly) imaginery relationship with god is any different to the stalker who has a perceived relationship with a celebrity.

You're just being thick now... what I have said is that all relationships are with perceptions... which is to say that they are ultimately with something that does not exist in reality.

quote:

and what interactions does one have with god might i ask??

I would argue that every interaction ever person has with any thing/person is an interaction with God, as god is in all things.

quote:

uh uh uh. you cant change the word to suit. i said "imagination"; "perception" means that you have to have perceived something, which you haven't.

I changed it to correct you. Perception is the processing of stimuli through the filter of past experience, belief, knowledge, reason, deduction, etc. People perceive a relationship with god in the exact same way they perceive a relationship with any other article, by processing information.... the only difference (arguably) is the nature of the information being processed.

quote:

again, i said imaginery, not perceived since you have no substantive interactions with god the same way you might your wife and child, surely you can't be saying they're the same on the scale of reality?

Ah, but I do and they are...

It may be best to discontinue this particular discussion, as it seems we're really going nowhere with it.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard You're just being thick now...

how very christian of you!

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard It may be best to discontinue this particular discussion, as it seems we're really going nowhere with it.

i know! running in circles, not providing any real conclusion or substantial insight, making stuff up as i go along. if only there was some sort of academia that rewarded such tendencies. hmmmmm, i wonder where i could find something like that?

Well PKC at least you've finally found your God

I wish he'd tone down the anger a bit though and replace it with humour. Too many of his new pieces are just rants.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex That brings us to divine providence. God gave out the commandments, one of which was do not murder. These commandments are for human beings to follow. Any action God chooses to do, whether it be spit on me or kill me, that cannot be seen as wrong to us because the same laws of morality, physics and practically any other law you can think of do not apply to God. He is not just a vastly more intelligent human being with super powers, he is everything. It is not up to human beings to question the actions or integrity of this said God because the same standards that apply to us mere mortals do not apply to him. It is impossible for God to be hypocritical, evil or menacing as these are traits attributed to free will given to human beings, which is simply not comparable to divine will or divine providence.

Do you have any idea how brainwashed this post makes you sound?

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM Do you have any idea how brainwashed this post makes you sound?

Get out of the PDD kid, every single thing you type out makes you seem stupider.

Labeling something as brainwashing is the most retarded tactic that could possibly be used. It`s a loaded statement, because regardless what answer I give it helps to prove your point. It`s called a logical fallacy, and I wont fall for it. Even though knowing how retarded you usually are when it comes to the topic of religion, you probably didnt mean to do it.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Get out of the PDD kid, every single thing you type out makes you seem stupider. Labeling something as brainwashing is the most retarded tactic that could possibly be used. It`s a loaded statement, because regardless what answer I give it helps to prove your point. It`s called a logical fallacy, and I wont fall for it. Even though knowing how retarded you usually are when it comes to the topic of religion, you probably didnt mean to do it.

I love how you fill up your posts with insults to mask the complete bullshit that you are typing. It's called a red herring tactic. That's a logical fallacy, and I won't fall for it. Kid.

Reading back in the thread...it looks like you use that tactic on other people who call you out on the bullshit you are typing. Keep it up though, it's only confirming you to be a fool.

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM I love how you fill up your posts with insults to mask the complete bullshit that you are typing. It's called a red herring. That's a logical fallacy, and I won't fall for it. Kid.

I love how you stalk me across the boards looking for me to post in religion threads just so you can puke out more nonsensical BS.

At least PKC is funny and clever, you`re just a tad on the pathetic side.

If you actually knew what a Red Herring was, you`d know that I hadnt actually changed the subject at all. You insulted me, I insulted you back. Your subject was of an insulting nature so I complimented it rather nicely.

Go take a philosophy course and or gain some brain cells, and don`t stalk me anymore please, it stopped being flattering a while ago.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex I love how you stalk me across the boards looking for me to post in religion threads just so you can puke out more nonsensical BS. At least PKC is funny and clever, you`re just a tad on the pathetic side. If you actually knew what a Red Herring was, you`d know that I hadnt actually changed the subject at all. You insulted me, I insulted you back. Your subject was of an insulting nature so I complimented it rather nicely. Go take a philosophy course and or gain some brain cells, and don`t stalk me anymore please, it stopped being flattering a while ago.

Don't flatter yourself, I got this link from the Chill Out Room. I just happened to notice this particular post of yours, and thought I'd give you my opinion on it.

A red herring is a diversionary tactic, in this case you are insulting me rather than explaining why that post of yours is not a load of shite as I said. I suppose you could call it an ad hominem attack, but either way you dodged the issue.

I'm glad I came to this thread, as that load of shit about your god that you posted is one of the funniest and most tragic things I've read in a while...if I need to get some brain cells, then you need to get something between your ears other than fresh air. Kid.

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM Don't flatter yourself, I got this link from the Chill Out Room. I just happened to notice this particular post of yours, and thought I'd give you my opinion on it. A red herring is a diversionary tactic, in this case you are insulting me rather than explaining why that post of yours is not a load of shite as I said. I suppose you could call it an ad hominem attack, but either way you dodged the issue. I'm glad I came to this thread, as that load of shit about your god that you posted is one of the funniest and most tragic things I've read in a while...if I need to get some brain cells, then you need to get something between your ears other than fresh air. Kid.

Is that you outside my window... Come on man, enough is enough. Why does this topic get you so riled up anyway.

Sorry I cant use question marks because my keyboard switched to french mode and wont switch back.

Oh and as for your comment about PKC...you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Is that you outside my window... Come on man, enough is enough. Why does this topic get you so riled up anyway. Sorry I cant use question marks because my keyboard switched to french mode and wont switch back.

It doesn't get me riled up...I'm just bored at the minute. By the way, for someone who doesn't want to be 'stalked', you're replying pretty quickly
I think you protest too much

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM Oh and as for your comment about PKC...you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

Thanks... I guess...

Moral Hazard chooses to give the people a lesson, I dont see the point when it comes to people like Capitalizt. It just doesnt work over the internet.

I think Lira, if he were around, would come to my defense about being a ``shit version of Moral Hazard`` though, especially after the pages of debates between Renegade and I that went on for quite some time.

I just choose my battles. In a thread like this with lots of Dawkins fan boys I decided to just give very basic explanations of stuff where as Moral decided to really get into it.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Thanks... I guess... Moral Hazard chooses to give the people a lesson, I dont see the point when it comes to people like Capitalizt. It just doesnt work over the internet. I think Lira, if he were around, would come to my defense about being a ``shit version of Moral Hazard`` though, especially after the pages of debates between Renegade and I that went on for quite some time. I just choose my battles. In a thread like this with lots of Dawkins fan boys I decided to just give very basic explanations of stuff where as Moral decided to really get into it.

Well there you go then...you have a new line for a sig / avatar!

quote:

Labeling something as brainwashing is the most retarded tactic that could possibly be used. It`s a loaded statement, because regardless what answer I give it helps to prove your point.

So you admit that whatever you say to defend your nonsensical statements will confirm that you are indeed brainwashed.
Thanks for admitting it.

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