|
Why does...w (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Moral Hazard, please learn to use ellipsises? |
I've used them to indicate a pause in speech, which is a wholly acceptable use. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I've used them to indicate a pause in speech, which is a wholly acceptable use. |
Moreover it would not be wholly unacceptable for me to complete typing an exceptionally garrulous paragraph, for instance the individual aforementioned mode of communication which you are currently laying eyes on in order to comprehend, in such a particularly verbose and highly superfluous manner as you have just had the immense discontentment of deciphering. Though it may perhaps possibly be a technically satisfactory mode of transmission, I do so think that you would maybe concur and consent that it is an exceedingly and gratuitously problematic method of communicating, and that to write in plain and simple English uninterrupted by unneeded words or punctuation marks would be far easier? |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
We don't need instruments to observe that an apple is red or that a ball thrown up in the air will fall to the ground. However, I did allow for the fallacy of current instruments. |
No, but what you can observe in this way is not the complete truth. Seeing a ball fall to the ground tells you nothing about the physical laws of the universe that govern the event. It doesn't tell you anything about gravitational forces or about the curvature of space-time. A ball falling to the ground is not reality. It's just the thin sliver of reality we can observe. As such, I think your notion of a "grounded belief" is far too simplistic. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
No, but what you can observe in this way is not the complete truth. Seeing a ball fall to the ground tells you nothing about the physical laws of the universe that govern the event. It doesn't tell you anything about gravitational forces or about the curvature of space-time. A ball falling to the ground is not reality. It's just the thin sliver of reality we can observe. As such, I think your notion of a "grounded belief" is far too simplistic. |
But I'm not trying to observe the laws of gravity or physical laws. I am observing if the ball will drop to the ground when it leaves my hand.
No, a ball falling to the ground is not 'reality', but neither is anything in the world or the universe. That's like saying that a particular measurement of time, or a point in time, is time. Like time, reality is an abstract concept. However, to humans, our everyday lives are the best measure of reality that we have.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
As such, I think your notion of a "grounded belief" is far too simplistic. |
So would you disagree that if I take a ball in my hand and drop it that it will fall to the ground? Stop arguing about physics and the nature of reality; all I am saying is that there are certain SIMPLE things we can observe and prove, and that as of yet, the existence of a divine being does not fall into that category. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| Just because I know you're going to keep arguing, answer me this: do you believe we currently have a method of proving or disproving the existence of a divine being? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
to write in plain and simple English uninterrupted by unneeded words or punctuation marks would be far easier? |
My apologies, I am not in the habit of using simple language, as rarely seek to address those to which more complex, percise, and effective English is incomprehensible.
BTW, while you were correct in your assumption that I would have "discontentment in deciphering" your post that is largely due to your exceedingly poor diction. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
BTW, while you were correct in your assumption that I would have "discontentment in deciphering" your post that is largely due to your exceedingly poor diction. |
That was the whole point of my post; it was supposed to read like . You can be technically correct and still create something that is unpleasant to read due to poor diction. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
That was the whole point of my post; it was supposed to read like . You can be technically correct and still create something that is unpleasant to read due to poor diction. |
Indeed; however, your diction was poor due to incorrect or inaccurate use; whereas, my diction is not. Since this is not a thread about the use of language we should probably just end this discussion. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
So would you disagree that if I take a ball in my hand and drop it that it will fall to the ground? Stop arguing about physics and the nature of reality; all I am saying is that there are certain SIMPLE things we can observe and prove, and that as of yet, the existence of a divine being does not fall into that category. |
Has it possibly occurred to you that things are a little more complicated than that? The whole point of this debate is to go beyond what we can simply see, and explain it.
Your problem is you try to be too reductive. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Moreover it would not be wholly unacceptable for me to complete typing an exceptionally garrulous paragraph, for instance the individual aforementioned mode of communication which you are currently laying eyes on in order to comprehend, in such a particularly verbose and highly superfluous manner as you have just had the immense discontentment of deciphering. Though it may perhaps possibly be a technically satisfactory mode of transmission, I do so think that you would maybe concur and consent that it is an exceedingly and gratuitously problematic method of communicating, and that to write in plain and simple English uninterrupted by unneeded words or punctuation marks would be far easier? |
 |
|
|
| drivingforce |
My problem is with organized religion, not the actual belief or non belief in god. And to be specific not all organized religions, just the ones that promote intolerance to others who either do not share the same views, live different lifestyles or promote violence to non believers of the same religion. Faith is in no means a problem as long as it's personal. Once you take a personal belief and try to organize and segregate those that do not follow teh same belief you negate all your beliefs b/c honestly you should be tolerant of others choices. You may not agree but do not have a right to tell people how to live or what to believe. I feel liek the actual organization of religious beliefs has caused more problems for the human race and its expansion than any other thing.
I'm sure the points have already been stated that certain religious disputes have caused more blood shed over the past 800 hundred years then one single war. The belief in god or a higher power is very personal and when you then try to apply to a widerspread of people it only causes problems. Has some good come from Religion, of course. Saying it hasn't would be just arrogant. But the bad sadly outweighs the good that has been caused.
I would suggest everyone to watch
Bill Maher's-Religulous.
Granted it might be a little biased but provides a great amount of insight to question Religion and God though he doesn't preach about not believing in God just that he doesn't know and promotes the fact of not knowing. The documentary is just really made to provide points on how the origins of all religions have copied from someone before them. It's a really good documentary. |
|
|
| ZuLi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
I see dawkins as playing the role of "i don't know but this is what we do know" but without basis he returns to the idea that there is no god. There isn't evidence to support the claim.
Thats my beef with atheism. How can you be so sure if there is no evidence to base your specific claim? |
But there is enough evidence to support evolution, and none to support creation. This of course only disproves the existence of the Abrahamic god (or others who supposedly created life), and not one that, for instance, created the initial chemicals that inevitably led to the existence of our universe.
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
I cannot see a god and I cannot speak or otherwise communicate with one. I have no way or checking if there is a god. To me, this means that the existence or non-existence of a god cannot be currently proven. |
Lets use Russel's teapot again here:
You cannot see a china teapot orbiting the sun. You have no way of checking whether there is a china teapot orbiting the sun. To you, does this mean that the existence or non-existence of a china teapot orbiting the sun cannot be currently proven?
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
while i think god is a more likely concept than a unicorn that could survive the vacuum of space... |
No offense to you personally, but I believe this is only because we live in a world where a significant part of it's population has believed in a god for thousands of years. Other than that, I think the idea of a god (in the Abrahamic sense) is just as ridiculous as that of a space unicorn (definitely not as awesome though). |
|
|
|
|
